When conducting research in social and educational spheres, researchers need to be mindful of the anticipated ethical issues, given that they conduct research on human beings who could be harmed (Opie, 2004: 24). Thus, respect for the audience and the use of nondiscriminatory language are aspects that researchers must uphold (Creswell, 2010: 11). Every researcher should, from the onset of a research project, consider how to ensure that the rights of the participants are respected, how to report the research findings fully and honestly, and how to honour research sites (Creswell, 2010: 11).
110 In seeking permission from the different stakeholders of the PD programme, the researcher first approached the service provider, JET, to obtain permission to do the research on this particular programme. After securing permission from the (Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of JET, the researcher then approached the North West Department of Education to request permission to conduct the research in that province. Given that the programme had a steering committee that included JET, the North West Department of Education district officials, and the unions that met on a regular basis, the researcher went through the JET representatives to seek permission. When the permission-seeking letter was tabled at the steering committee meeting, all the stakeholders were informed of the researcher’s intention. Permission was ultimately granted by the Chief Director of the District (See Appendix 1).
To avoid a situation where the senior management of schools and the teachers of the relevant schools might feel that they were forced to partake in the research by district or provincial authorities, the researcher undertook to first explain her intention to the school principals. The latter were then informed that the North West Department of Education had granted the researcher permission to proceed with the research project. The researcher first approached the principals of the five schools selected telephonically and then in person, to explain the intended research project to them. They had no objection to the research being done in their schools and allowed the researcher to contact the Mathematics teachers. To maintain good relationships between the researcher and the possible participants, the researcher went to meet the teachers at their respective schools, after they had been individually contacted telephonically, to give each potential participant a brief explanation of the research project. This was done without first informing them that the North West Department of Education had granted permission for this research. This was in an attempt to ensure that the teachers feel that they themselves agreed to partake in the research, as opposed to being forced into it by some autocratic decision. The researcher believed that this could also enhance good relationships in the process, this is crucial to getting sensitive data from participants. What is more, these teachers’ workload was already so heavy that partaking in this kind of research could demand extra time from their schedule. Thus, establishing good relationships
111 between the researcher and the participating teachers would probably lead to their agreeing to openly share information (data) with the researcher. The research methods to be used were explained to these teachers (interviews, observations, and document analysis). As a result, they all signed consent forms to partake in the research. In the consent forms (See Appendix 2), the option of voluntary withdrawal from the research – without any consequences on the participants – was stipulated. The clause on the anonymity of the participants was also included in the consent forms.
Furthermore, the researcher guaranteed the principals and teachers that the timetable of the schools will be respected and that the functioning of the school will be minimally affected by data collection. The interviews were scheduled in conjunction with the participants and their heads of department (which were also the participants), according to their availability as reflected by their respective timetables. The same principle was applied to the class visits. This was another attempt to consciously show the school management and the teachers that the researcher respects their schools’ functioning and their time as professionals and will not interfere with the effective running of their respective schools. This undertaking meant that the researcher, some days, could only visit one school, due to the inability to synchronise the timetables of the different schools. An example is that two neighbouring schools’ Mathematics teachers both teach their learners in the morning, on a particular day, and because of the extensive distances between these rural schools, the researcher was unable to visit both schools on the same day. This had a negative effect on the researcher’s travelling budget and data collection time. Consent was also obtained from the Programme Executive Manager and the first mentor to have interviews with them (see Appendix 4).
The next two chapters analyse all the above mentioned data to draw conclusions pertaining to the research questions. The secondary data was first analysed and then the primary data. The reason for this sequence was that the secondary data set the background for what transpired before and during the implementation of the PD
112 programme and the primary data analysis the setting thereafter as well as analyse the reflection on the programme.
113
CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS OF SECONDARY DATA
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter analyses the secondary data pertaining to the Mathematics PD programme under investigation. The data sources on which the analysis is based include the lesson observations done by the mentor, the mentor’s reports on school visits, reports on the workshops conducted in the programme, document pertaining to the PD programme, documents relating to the professional learning communities they tried to establish, the grade nine results of one of the schools for the 2011-2013 period, and the grade twelve end-of-year results of the other schools for the 2010- 2013 period. The analysis also covered the participants’ pre- and post-tests results. The data analysis sought to obtain answers to the following main research question: What was the effect of the identified Mathematics Professional Teacher Development Programme on the participating teachers’ competence and performance, and on their learners’ success, by implication?
In addressing this research question, the researcher focused on the following sub- questions:
1. How did the workshops affect teachers’ development in terms of their competence and performance?
2. How did the mentoring affect teachers’ development insofar as their competence and performance?
3. How did the participating teachers’ competence and performance affect their learners’ performance?
An interpretive approach to the data analysis was adopted for the data relating to sub-questions (1) and (2), this is due to the qualitative nature of the data used. The data pertaining to sub-question (3) was quantitative, this is because the imperative to
114 establish whether or not the participants’ involvement in the PD programme affected their learners’ performance.
The mentor’s reports and lesson observation schedules were first analysed in an attempt to answer the second research question. This is because the PD programme used mentoring and lesson observations as an on-site or classroom-based intervention. Initially, the plan was for the mentor to visit the involved schools three times a year; workshops were to be scheduled four times a year; and self-directed learning was to occur three times a year. The workshops were conducted either during the holidays, or from a Thursday evening to a Saturday. These workshops were to be residential to minimise outside disturbances. In 2012, the number of school visits by the mentor increased to three per month, because the project- steering committee deemed that the teacher development progress was not on par. Thus, substantial reference will be made to information from these mentor visit reports and lesson observation reports, as well as workshop reports, notably their dates.
The teachers were also tested before and after the intervention by means of pre- and post-tests, to assess their subject content competence. These pre- and post-tests were set and conducted by the service provider, in an attempt to establish whether there was a change in the participants’ content knowledge after the PD interventions. The tests consisted of two papers that were similar to those that form part of the grade 12 examinations. The topics included the core grade 12 NCS curriculum (pre- test), and the 2012 curriculum (post-test). It must be noted that these tests did not assess exactly the same topics, as they were set according to different curricula. Nevertheless, one should bear in mind that South African public schools underwent a curriculum change during the period under investigation. It must be emphasised that although the new curriculum was introduced in 2012, teacher were trained on it in the PD programme since 2011. Workshops covered topics on both the previous and new curricula; hence, the newly included topics also formed part of the post-test.
115 It must be noted that the researcher could not access all the lesson observation schedules and mentor reports. She worked with approximately seven documents on each teacher. Most of the 2011 intervention reports were not available; this created a gap in the information regarding the interventions. The same headings, as in the abovementioned documents, were used for the analysis which included topics that surfaced in the literature review. As was the case with protecting the real identity of the schools, pseudonyms were also used for the different teachers who are known as Teacher MK, Teacher NK, Teacher RB, Teacher SB, and Teacher SR.