3.5.1 Selection of participants
Data was mainly collected through 42 semi-structured interviews with four groups of interviewees: GTs; mentors; programme leaders and subject specialist tutors. To identify participants and comply with data protection I liaised with the programme leaders. The initial invitation was made by an email via the EBITT administration. It included information about the research outlining how issues relating to ethical
considerations and confidentiality would be addressed (see Appendix 3). As the initial response to the emails was limited other approaches were also used to enlist participants such as personal contact through attendance at mentor and GT sessions.
I had hoped to interview equal numbers of mathematics and science GTs and their subject mentors to gain views of each side of the mentoring partnership but this was not possible in every case. However I had the opportunity to interview a former
mathematics GT in one school and decided to include his data as his experience was similar to his colleagues and having had more time to reflect on his training added valuable data about the development of PCK/SKfT. I was also able to interview some senior mentors from Central College who had helped make arrangements to see their GTs and subject mentors. This added important data because of the overview role they had in managing ITT within their schools. The programme leaders were interviewed early in the data collection process so I could use data from their responses to inform topics to be covered with the other groups of interviewees.
training in September 2011 except the mathematics GT who originally trained in 2006- 7.
Table 3.1 Interview sample
Interview group Kingsview Central College NineSG Total
Programme Leaders 1 1 1 3
Secondary Programme Leaders
1 - - 1
Maths Subject specialists 1 1 1 3
Science Subject specialists 1 1 1 3
Maths Mentors 2 4 2 8 Science mentors - 1 3 4 Senior Mentors - 4 - 4 Maths GTs 2 5 2 9 Science GTs 2 2 3 7 Total 10 19 13 42
3.5.2 Semi-structured interviews: interview schedules and questions
The choice of questions was informed by issues and limitations previously identified by other studies and my own experience of the GTP. They fell into two categories, firstly the deficiencies in PCK/SKfT programme delivery and mentoring identified by Ofsted and the TDA. Secondly, limitations and other issues related to PCK/SKfT found elsewhere within the literature, in particular: Hobson et al. (2008) whose findings were based solely on trainee accounts; Smith and McLay (2007) who omitted to ask GTs about why they had chosen the GTP route and Evans et al. (2008) who found that data from their final assessor evaluations was limited.
In formulating the questions I drew on Cohen et al. (2000) who stressed that questions need to take into account the research’s general goals and the following factors: interview objectives; the nature of the subject matter; whether facts, opinions or attitudes are being sought and whether depth and specificity is being sought. They also stress the importance of attention to issues such as: keeping language simple; avoiding double-barrelled questions; and assuming that respondents have the knowledge sought. As there were four groups of interview participants these had to be accommodated in formulating the interview schedules. Each group had a different involvement with the GTP and their experience of PCK/SKfT varied accordingly. So whilst some categories of questions were appropriate to all groups others applied to only one or two groups. For example: only the programme leaders were asked about their EBITTs’ origins,
38
development, numbers recruited and selection policy and questions regarding the rationale for developing PCK/SKfT provision were restricted to programme and subject specialist tutors. All groups were asked about mentoring, PCK/SKfT central training and school-based training and the challenges in developing PCK/SKfT. Table 3.2 provides a list of four interview schedules’ topics.
Table 3.2 Interview schedule showing differences between the four participant groups
Topic Group(s) asked questions on the
topic 1 Own background and prior experience All
2 EBITT Role and responsibilities Programme Leaders; subject specialists
3 EBITT background and current activities Programme Leaders 4 EBITT rationale for PCK/SKfT
delivery/training/support on PCK/SKfT
Programme Leaders; subject specialists
5 GT selection and induction – selection/audit/training needs assessment/ITP
Programme Leaders; subject specialists
6 Views on the GTP and comparison with PGCE/SCITT
All 7 Influence of GTs’ prior experience and
own schooling on PCK/SKfT development
GTs
8 Role of subject specialist tutor in PCK/SKfT development/delivery
Programme Leaders; subject specialists
9 Role of EBITT/University Tutor in PCK/SKfT development
Programme Leaders; subject specialists
10 EBITT run central PCK/SKfT training/support
All 11 Issues for GTs in development of
PCK/SKfT
All 12 Mentor Training and support – generic
and subject specific
Programme Leaders; subject specialists; mentors
13 Challenges of the mentor role Programme Leaders; subject specialists; mentors
14 Teaching orientation and impact on PCK/SKfT development
All 15 Other resources to develop PCK/SKfT
e.g. use of library, the internet, EBITT intranet, etc.
All
16 PCK/SKfT – school context specific issues
All 17 GTs’ attainment against PCK/SKfT
related QTS standards
Programme Leaders; subject specialists; mentors
18 Is there anything else you would like to add/tell me about?
The interview schedule for the specialist subject tutors was also tailored for each EBITT because data collected from the Programme Leaders’ interviews revealed that subject specialist tutor roles for each EBITT were different. Kingsview had ‘Subject Advisers’ who were also PGCE Subject leaders at their HEI whereas NineSG had ‘Subject
Leaders’ recruited from its schools’ senior teachers. Central College did not have subject leaders although they used subject specialist tutors to lead central training
sessions and GTs had subject specialist tutors who provided input via school monitoring visits. The Central College subject specialists did not have identical roles – one was a science specialist who led the central sessions for the combined group of mathematics and science GTs whereas the mathematics specialist acted as an EBITT tutor to mathematics GTs.
There were also other factors to account for: NineSG had no external monitoring from a university tutor so questions relating to that input were irrelevant. Also neither the NineSG nor Central College subject specialists had worked as PGCE tutors although they had been PGCE mentors. So it was necessary to use three separate schedules; the initial interview schedules for each group with annotations following the pilot phase are shown at Appendix 5 and the final versions are shown at Appendix 6. Table 3.3 shows which topics’ questions were modified and which were identical for each pair of tutors. It was also helpful to ask some personal background questions to act as an icebreaker and to refer to PGCE and SCITT training models when interviewing mentors and subject specialist tutors as comparisons helped to contextualise the way in which the GTP model developed PCK/SKfT and identify strengths and problem areas.
Table 3.3 Subject specialist tutor interview schedules showing differences in topics Question category Identical or modified to address
EBITT differing provision 1 Background and responsibilities Modified
2 Role in PCK/SKfT Role development/delivery Modified 3 Views on the GTP and comparison with PGCE/SCITT Identical 4 EBITT run central training/support on PCK/SKfT Modified
5 Role of EBITT/Central College Tutor in PCK/SKfT Not included for NineSG as it was a school-led provider 6 Issues for GTs in development of PCK/SKfT Identical
7 Training for mentors and role of Central College tutor Modified 8 Attainment of GTs against subject knowledge standards Identical 9 Is there anything else you would like to add/tell me? Identical
40
3.5.3 Pilots of interview schedules and questions
The interview schedules were piloted in two ways. Firstly, two experienced EBITT colleagues provided feedback on the topics and questions. One suggested that I needed to be careful about the terminology I used with mentors which might be unfamiliar to them. So for example asking about making “the transition from first order to second order practitioner” might not be understood. It was also suggested that I should provide more prompts for myself with some questions. When I asked about possible
improvements to PCK/SKfT training for GTs they suggested I should give examples such as ‘subject study groups’ or ‘training on difficult to teach topics’. The other colleague suggested I explored more fully the limitations of the GTP training and mentoring context by asking questions from a variety of angles. For example asking GTs about: ‘opportunities to observe and work with mathematics/science teachers other than their main mentor’ ‘whether there was a predominant teaching orientation/model they were expected to follow’ ’were they able to take ‘risks’ and try out a range of teaching strategies’. This advice helped me to refine the wording of my questions and add in additional prompts to use. For example, to a question for GTs which asked ‘What do you feel were the most challenging aspects of developing your PCK/SKfT?’ the following prompts were added: ‘need to probe on pedagogical challenges in mathematics and science and use prompts: abstract nature of subject language; negative image of subject; teaching out of science specialism; cultural issues’ (see Appendix 5).
Secondly, the interview process was piloted by using the first interview with each group to check whether issues arose regarding the content and ordering of the questions. I found that whilst the sequencing of topics worked well I needed to refine some questions and include some additional ones. For mentors the ITT route they had
followed emerged as important in respect of their views on the GTP and how well they felt prepared for their role so I added a question asking which route they had followed. Regarding challenges in developing PCK/SKfT the first mentor interview also raised generic pedagogical issues such as behaviour management. Therefore I added a separate question asking about overall challenges followed by a question asking about challenges in developing PCK/SKfT. For the GT interview schedule some additional background questions about age, degree title and classification were needed as I realised that gaining this information first hand at interview was more efficient than requesting it from the EBITTs.
3.5.4 Conduct of interviews
Cohen at al. (2000) drew attention to the care needed in setting up and conducting interviews and how the interviewer should ensure that the interview is conducted
“carefully and sensitively”. They cited Kvale (1996) who stressed that the interviewer is not just someone knowledgeable about the subject matter but also an “expert in
interaction and communication” (p.361). Cohen et al. provided valuable guidelines for the conduct of interviews which included avoiding making judgements and the
importance of remaining neutral and not giving your own view.
Because of the considerable demands on participants the interviews were arranged at a time and place to suit them (usually at their schools) with the majority of GT and mentor interviews taking place towards the end of the summer term. All interviews were face-to-face except for two telephone interviews with mentors. The interviews with EBITT managers and Subject Specialist Tutors mostly happened between February and June.
On average the interviews lasted for 45 minutes. All the interviews were taped and transcribed by me as I understood the context and could decipher any ambiguities, for example the different title given to the same role with different providers (Appendix 7 provides an example of a transcribed interview). During transcription I made notes about emerging themes which assisted the coding stage.