Ethical issues should be taken into consideration in any research that depends on collecting data from individuals. As noted by Cohen et al. (2007), researchers should consider issues such as obtaining consent and acquiring access to the participants when conducting research, and confidentiality.
This researcher adhered to the same ethical standards as the British Educational Research Association [BERA]. BERA (2011) provides guidance on ethical considerations when carrying out research. First, researchers have a responsibility to the participants, such as by showing respect for any persons involved in the research and ensuring their fair treatment. One way in which to show respect is by gaining voluntary informed consent, having provided enough information so that participants can understand and agree to their participation, and by giving participants the right to withdraw at any time and for any or no reason, and the confidential and anonymous collection and storage of participants’ data. Second, researchers have a responsibility to the sponsors of the research, which is demonstrated by conducting the research using methods that are fit for the aims of the undertaking and publication. Third, the researcher has a responsibility to the larger community of researchers, which is demonstrated by avoiding misconduct to ensure that
to educational professionals, policy makers and the general public, meaning that researchers should seek to make public the results and communicate the findings and the significance of the research in a straightforward fashion using language that is appropriate for the intended audience.
This researcher submitted an application for ethical approval to the School of Education at Durham University. The application included the title of the research, the aims of the research, the significance of the research and the methods that were to be used to collect the data. After obtaining consent to carry out this research, this researcher asked the study’s supervisor to write letters to conduct the research (Appendices 8 & 9). This researcher sent these letters and an email indicating that this researcher had obtained approval from the School of Education at Durham University to the Kuwait Cultural Office in London to gain a letter of permission to conduct the research in Kuwait (Appendix 10). These letters from Durham University and Kuwait Cultural Office were given to the MOE’s ‘Educational Research Department’ in order to grant access to the schools in the three districts that were selected.
The approval letter from Educational Research Department was presented to the directors of the districts in order for them to write letters to the head teachers and inspectors to facilitate conducting this research in their districts (Appendices 11, 12 & 13). Then, this researcher obtained letters from directors of educational districts (Appendices 14 to 19), and these were presented to the head teachers of the schools chosen. Moreover, the letters were shown to inspectors and head teachers when this researcher requested their participation in this research. The letters were also shown to the teachers when they were asked to participate in the focus groups
This researcher informed the questionnaire’s participants about the aims of the research by including its details in the cover page. While those who participated in interviews and focus groups were informed by providing an information sheet (Information sheet in Appendices 4 [English] and 5 [Arabic]). This researcher informed the participants that all information collected would be used for academic purposes only, with no mention being made of any type of personal information. This researcher informed them that the research would not cause them harm. In addition, this researcher informed the participants that they
were free to withdraw from participating in the research at any time. They were also informed that their views and information would not be used if they were to withdraw. Furthermore, when asking for the consent of the participants in the interviews/focus groups (Consent form in Appendices 6 [English] and 7 [Arabic]), this researcher also asked the participants to engage in the research freely and with conviction. This researcher promised the participants that their personal information would be kept confidential, as well as any recorded information if they consented to its collection. Participants were informed that all recordings would be deleted after transcribing the data. This researcher took into account the duration of the interviews and focus group length and avoided exceeding the set time, recognising that the participants had other responsibilities to which they needed to attend. Finally, in order to maintain anonymity of the participants in the questionnaire, this researcher did not ask for personal details from the participants, except from those who volunteered to participate in the focus groups. These participants were asked to write their email address or name at the end of the questionnaire or to send a text message or email directly to this researcher. This was used strictly for communication purposes to arrange his/her entrance in the focus groups.
Chapter Four: Teachers’ Perspectives on the Current Teacher
Evaluation System
4.1 Introduction
This chapter aims to analyse the data gathered in the questionnaire given to teachers asking their perspectives on the current teacher evaluation system. The chapter will begin by presenting a descriptive analysis of the data and next consider inferential statistics by looking at statistically significant differences between sub groups in background variables such as gender, experiences in teaching, subjects, and educational districts.
Before describing the data, it should be noted that not all scales were normally distributed (see Appendices 24, 25, 26, 27, & 28). However, a parametric test was applied when comparing mean values, which is described as follows:
Naturally, since normality was assumed in the mathematical derivation of the t- test, researchers also assumed that unless the observations were normally distributed the t-test would not be a legitimate statistical option. Fortunately in recent decades subsequent research has revealed that the violation of the assumption of normality does not nullify the validity of the t-test. (Hopkins, Hopkins, & Glass, 1996, p.202)
Moreover, according to Norusis (2008, p.309), “the analysis of variance is not heavily dependent on the normality assumption”. Norman (2010) stated that researchers can use parametric statistics when analysing Likert-type data with non-normal distribution.
In this research, the results of both types of tests for most pairs are the same and equivalent. For example, Tables 4.1 and 4.2 demonstrate that non-parametric and parametric test results for the actual purposes of teacher evaluation system with regard to the difference between genders show no statistical significance. The p-value is >.05 for each item.
Table 4.1: Non-parametric tests results (Mann-Whitney U) for actual purposes
Actual purposes Grouping variable N Mean rank Sum of ranks Z p-value
Professional development Male Female 210 389 282.22 309.60 59267.00 120433.00 – 1.90 .057 Determining performance Male Female 210 389 288.87 306.01 60663.00 119037.00 – 1.21 .227 Sanction and rewards Male
Female 210 389 304.79 297.42 64005.00 115695.00 - 0.52 .603
Table 4.2: Parametric tests results (The independent samples t-test) for actual purposes
Actual purposes Grouping
variable N Mean Deviation Std. Std. Error Mean p-value
Professional
development Female Male 210 389 2.63 2.81 1.20 1.21 .081 .062 .086 Determining performance Male Female 210 389 3.54 3.66 1.11 1.01 .076 .051 .172 Sanction and rewards Male
Female 210 389 3.81 3.81 1.16 1.06 .080 .054 .940 Accordingly, parametric tests were used, as it is useful to determine the difference between variables and it is familiar to many researchers as a means to interpret and understand the data. Therefore, to test the effect of the dichotomous variables of gender, the independent samples t-test was used at 5% significance level (<.05). To test the effect variables with more than two sub-groups, such as educational districts, subjects and experience in teaching, the one-way ANOVA test was used at the 5% significance level (<.05).