Focus group with caregivers discussion guide

The focus group Discussion Guide was finalised after the outcome of the pilot study conducted for the purpose of refining the instrument. (Please refer to section 3.4.1. ‘Pilot Study’ for further details pertaining to the pilot phase of the study). Focus Group Discussion Guides for caregivers were developed from various sources based on the researchers’ perusal of literature on the topic. The focus group discussions aimed to address the study objectives six: ‘To explore caregiver-school connectedness in terms of perceptions and experiences of the school environment in relation to it being conducive to the sexuality education programmes’ sexuality and overall health and well-being’ aim and objective seven: ‘To develop guidelines for improving school climate/culture and caregiver involvement.’ (Please refer also to Appendix D for the “Focus Group Discussion Guide for Caregivers of Learners”). Focus Group Discussion Guides for caregivers were developed to include aspects of the three additional measures i.e. the learner cross-sectional survey, educator in-depth interview and the researcher’s observation of the schools, due to the intended convergence with these measures for the purposes of triangulation of the data. The instruments included information on school safety, the extent to which learners felt respected and accepted in the school, whether or not and to what extent learners felt that they could be themselves in the school and to what extent the school provided a context in which the values taught in LO lessons are respected and adhered to. The Focus Group Discussion Guide explored information on the physical surroundings of the school and classroom environments that were theoretically linked to learner engagement, school cohesion and educational outcomes. Specific to the caregiver focus group discussion guide, was information on perceptions on school inclusion of caregivers and perceptions of caregiver-school connectedness. Additional information explored involved perceptions of the school environment as being supportive to sexuality education and supportive to their role as caregivers in preventing HIV, teenage pregnancy, STIs and risky sexual behaviour in their children. Furthermore, the focus group discussion guide explored whether or not and to what extent caregivers were included as part of the LO curriculum’s aims in reducing risky sexual behaviour. More specifically, this covered whether or not they felt encouraged/inhibited by LO in their support for youth reducing risky sexual behaviour. In addition it covered, whether or not caregivers agreed with what was being taught, whether or not they agreed with how it was being taught and whether or not they felt that they could actively participate in their child’s learning and internalisation of the LO curriculum’s aims. The extent of caregivers’ reliance on sexuality

135

education to provide information to change risky sexual behaviour in their children, was also explored. The Focus Group Discussion Guide covers the following outline in the order of topics covered:

1. Caregivers’ perceptions of the school’s safety in terms of infrastructure, physical, hygiene and emotional safety;

2. Caregivers’ perceptions on whether or not their child is cared for and the extent of their child being cared for by the school;

3. Caregivers’ perceptions of their child being respected and supported in the school and their child’s school connectedness;

4. Caregivers’ perceptions and awareness of social networks of support for their child within the school and external networks of social support;

5. Caregivers’ perceptions of the presence of positive role models at the school from which their children can learn positive behaviour.

6. Caregivers’ perceptions of the discipline and order within the school environment;

7. Caregivers’ perception of the school environment’s impact on risky behaviour change and how the school provides a supportive environment for programmes that target behaviour change;

8. Caregivers’ opinions of the overall school climate i.e. the values, morals, discrimination, stigma, acceptance and tolerance of their child in the school;

9. Caregivers’ perceptions of how their child felt about being able to apply what they have learnt in LO in the context of their school environment; and

10. Caregivers’ perceptions and experiences of the school environment in terms of being conducive to LO’s sexuality educations’ aims. This also explored caregivers’ overall support for learner school connectedness.

3.8.3. Data collection and procedures

Caregivers of grade nine and 11 learners were provided with informed-consent letters. Caregiver focus-group discussions were conducted in English by the researcher as this was the language the researcher was proficient in. Caregivers were all proficient in the English language as they were informed that this was a prerequisite on the letter of request for them to participate in the focus group discussion. This was also due to their children attending English medium schools

136

where communication between them and the schools was in English. There was an exception of one school which taught in Afrikaans and English mediums. In this instance, only caregivers who were comfortable with communicating in English were requested to respond via the letter of request to participate in the focus group discussion. Caregivers who indicated an interest in participation in the study returned the consent letters to the school receptionist who provided it to the school gatekeeper. The school gatekeeper then provided the completed consent forms to the researcher. The consent forms had a space for telephonic details of the caregivers. Caregivers who were available for the study were telephonically contacted by the researcher to arrange a date and time most convenient to all caregivers who responded. The focus group discussion venues were the respective schools of the caregivers’ children. This occurred with the exception of the PQ three school where the discussion was held at iKamvayouth which is an NGO in the community, which specialises in youth academic assistance after school hours, due to it being a more convenient and accessible location for caregivers to meet. Within the schools, focus group discussions were conducted either in a classroom, office or private area in the school grounds outside of teaching times. The focus group discussion started with an introduction to the researcher and a summary of the study aims and rationale as well as the average time taken to complete the focus group discussion. The caregiver letters of informed consent (Please refer to Appendix I: ‘Informed Consent letter for Educators and Ceargivers for participation in Interviews and Focus Group Discussion Recordings’ and Appendix H: ‘Letter of Informed Consent–Caregivers’) were also covered and caregivers signed the letters of consent to participate in the focus group discussion. A reminder was provided regarding the use of the audio-tape for recording of the focus group discussion as per permission provided by the Humanities and Social Science Research Ethics Committee (HSSREC). The researcher assisted caregivers in feeling more comfortable with the recording by reminding them that the recording would only be available to the researcher and the researcher’s supervisor. All ethical principles as per section 3.3. ‘Study Permission and Ethical Principles’ were covered. A reward of a chocolate per participant was provided upon focus group discussion completion. The focus group discussions were between 45 and 60 minutes in duration. Caregivers were unreliable due to time constraints and although all caregivers of Grade nine and 11 learners in the sample were contacted via letters, very few consented to avail themselves to participate in the focus group discussion and the arrangements of any date, time and venue proved challenging for all caregivers to attend.

137

3.8.4. Data processing and data analysis

The same process as per that used for transcription and analysis of the qualitative educator in-depth interviews was used for the caregivers’ focus group discussions. (Please refer to section 3.7.4. ‘Data processing and data analysis’ for further details.)