Data collection

Searching for achievement records began once consent had been given. Data collection involving participants started at the end of the familiarisation visits. Written schedules for the observations and interviews were prepared and handed out to individual participants as guidelines. Although the participants were informed of the procedures, the data collection was sufficiently flexible to accommodate what was happening in the schools, at the time of the research, in addition to the data collection itself. For example, S2 was heavily involved in preparation for their cultural day activities during the research investigation. Class sessions were often cut short in order to make time for practise and preparations. On these particular days, the researcher continued working in the other two schools.

The sequence of data collection was designed as follows: • collect prior science achievement of student participants • conduct classroom observations

• collect student participants’ work samples and

• semi-structured interviews with student and teacher participants..

Collecting achievement records from student participants

Upon agreeing to participate, these students were given letters to seek permission to access their achievement records (Appendix G). The information was available at the school admission records. Accessing the school records (Appendix H) was straightforward, since the researcher was given full permission by each of the three school principals to seek the required information from their archives.

Classroom observations

In each case, three observations were carried out during the implementation of a unit on hydrocarbons in the organic chemistry strand. This unit was selected for this study because all three schools were teaching it at the time of the investigation. Field notes were taken throughout the observations. The researcher sat at the back of the classroom, making no

59

attempt to interact with (or influence) the participants. Teacher and student participants were observed, whilst they participated in class discussion, individual work and throughout the chemistry lesson.

Collecting work samples from student participants

During some observed lessons, the teachers gave out tasks for students to complete, either in class, in their own time, or at home. These tasks included copying notes, answering short or long type questions, calculations and drawing diagrammatical representations of

molecules. Apart from the notes, copies of all other types of tasks were collected for assessment by their teacher.

The student participants were asked for permission to collect a random sample of these tasks for analysis. These tasks were carried out during the teaching of organic chemistry strand. Since the tasks were done in exercise books, the researcher collected the class exercise books, made photocopies of the student participants’ work sample and returned them to the students before the next chemistry class.

Semi-structured interview of all research participants

Interviews were arranged in order that there were no disruptions to the teachers’ teaching times as well as the students’ classes. Class schedules for individual participants were collected to facilitate this arrangement. Student participants’ interview sessions were arranged with the individual student at different times throughout the week. These

interviews were conducted during their free periods. A room that students do not normally have access to was made available for individual student participants’ interviews. The door remained half-opened during the interview sessions to ensure that the student participants felt comfortable in the room with a male researcher.

The teachers were involved in meetings and workshops during school hours, for long periods of time. Notwithstanding the amount of extra-curricular activities allocated to the teachers, they still had to ensure that tasks were prepared for their classes. With this in mind, the teachers were given the opportunity to choose the time and location of their interviews. They were clearly informed that interviews sessions were to be confined within school hours and they would be conducted within the school grounds.

60

All interviews were audio recorded. Prior to the start of each interview session, the participants were reminded about the recording and their right to stop it at any time. As a result of classroom observations, it was realised that some students appeared to have limited English language competency. Due to these observations, the student participants were invited to choose their preferred language for the interview. Samoan was chosen by the majority of student participants, (with a mixture of English and Samoan in some of their responses) except three from CS2 (Sam, May and Joyce). Teachers’ responses to the interviews were a mixture of English language and Samoan.

Interviews were scheduled after the teaching of the selected unit on hydrocarbons in the organic chemistry strand. Each student participant was interviewed for approximately 40 minutes during a free period. This was scheduled to accommodate the 50 minutes duration of each class. Each teacher participant was interviewed for 40-60 minutes – when not teaching any classes. Although the participants were notified in advance regarding the time of their interview, there were still a few who did not turn up. Some simply forgot the scheduled time and some were absent from school on that particular day. In these cases, the interviews were rescheduled.

When all data collection was completed a light lunch was provided for each class as thanks for their participation in the study. In order to maintain the privacy of each participant, the school principal and all the Year 12 students and teachers in the case study classes were invited (not just the participants).

Returning transcripts to research participants

Verbatim transcripts for the individual interviews were prepared for verification by the participants. Whilst in the research sites the researcher realised that not all participants could gain access to the Internet. In fact, S1 was connected to the Internet but only the principal’s secretary could gain access, whilst no access was available at S3. Returning transcripts to the participants through the postal service raised some ethical issues. The researcher was more conscious that the identity of student participants would be revealed to teachers and other students, if the postal service was used, or the contents of the transcripts could be revealed to their family if the transcripts were sent to family Post Office boxes.

61

The only option was for the researcher to travel to Samoa and deliver the transcripts to the individual participants. Meetings were arranged with each participant individually. At each meeting, the purpose of the second trip was explained and the transcript was given to the participant. The participants were invited to verify the information contained in the

transcripts, and to provide further exploration if necessary. In the meeting, each participant chose the day and time to meet in order for them to return their transcript, which was scheduled for approximately a week later.

When the participants returned the transcripts, the majority of the student participants, who had made changes, would begin by telling what they had done on specific pages and gave reasons for wanting the particular information changed. A few student participants stated that they made changes but were unable to give explanations at the time. For those who did not wish to give explanations based on what they changed, they were asked few questions as a guide to reveal the reasons behind the changes they had made to their transcripts. In addition, a few questions were asked to confirm some ideas from some of the student participants. An authority to release the transcript (Appendix L) was then signed and returned to the researcher.

When meeting with individual teacher participants as they returned their transcripts, it was apparent that their envelopes remained unopened (still sealed). However, the aim was not to put pressure on them to read or make changes to their transcripts, but to give them the opportunity to ensure they were satisfied with what they answered to the interview

questions. The three teacher participants, Malaki, Eileen and Fono, indicated that they were satisfied and that all that was written was solely what they intended to say. An authority to release the transcript (Appendix K) was then signed and returned to the researcher.

62 Table 3. 9: A summary the research procedures