Focus Groups

In this research the views of students were sought to provide their insight and

interpretation of Physics and of the period of educational reform. Their perspectives were considered valuable as everyone involved in the process is supposedly working for them – the aim of the reform being to alter a qualification that students will take, supposedly to better tailor it for some future need, as discussed previously. Students, however, have arguably the least power and ultimately no voice in this process, no government official or exam board employee at any point made reference to meeting with children or how they

had considered what students (current and potential) may think about the unreformed qualification or, in the specific case of entry numbers to Physics courses, what may make them consider studying it.

Access to students was relatively straight-forward as I already had some latitude as a teacher and head of subject within a school that often meets with groups of students to gain their opinions on a range of school issues (often termed ‘student voice’). Permission was sought from the Headteacher of the school, and the parents of involved classes were informed that their children’s views were being sought for an external piece of research. The only condition placed on the school was that the focus groups would not disrupt or take time away from teaching.

Much of the noted research on interviewing children was valuable but raised

methodological questions. There were suggestions that, amongst some of the potential difficulties were “avoiding the researcher being seen as an authority figure (e.g. a teacher)” and “get the children’s teacher away from the children” (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011, p. 434) – however this is advice that I elected not to follow. Meeting with students that I did not teach was possible for younger students, but not those already studying on the A level physics course. The classes themselves dictated my decision to continue with the selected groups due to a number of factors.

1. The relationship and dynamic of that I had built with each group, and my style of teaching these students; the classroom environment was convivial and relatively relaxed, and the students would often engage me in wider conversations about science or their personal life – I thought that it would be unlikely that they would be intimidated by me in a position of power.

2. Their age; all of the students were above the age of fifteen, and much of the research on interviewing students was pitched at much younger children – these were all eloquent students who, as previously mentioned, had all been comfortable talking with me.

3. Trust – they knew who I was, my role in school, that I had been teaching them for a significant period of time (in one case almost four years), and that I was asking them these questions for a university project, and not for something internal.

4. The context – I was asking them questions specifically about what they did and did not like about Physics, what they thought about changes in education, and why they picked some options and not others. An established relationship here was felt useful in eliciting a response, however these questions were not challenging or personally invasive. There was the potential that they may provide challenging and personal answers, perhaps relating to them not enjoying an aspect of my own teaching33_{, and}

them not wishing to tell me, but I felt that framing this aspect properly could suitably alleviate this problem – in effect upending the power dynamic and asking them to be honest about my teaching because I could learn from their comments and

potentially adapt in the future.

Following Morgan’s (1988) suggestions of issues to be addressed when planning focus group work I planned to meet with groups of between six and ten students, ensured the students knew when the focus groups would be taking place in advance, and what the topic would be (allowing them to not take part if they did not wish). I planned to run the session in such a manner where I would bring all of the students into the discussion, and to be wary of the most confident students dominating the discussion. Following Newby’s (2010) and Greig and Taylor’s (1999) suggestions, the interviews took place in our regular classroom and at times that were not disruptive or unusual. Students from my own classes were openly invited and the interviews took place during a lunch-time and in two lessons where the course had been completed at the end of the academic year.

Cohen et al. (2011) consider a distinction between a group interview and a focus group, where the first can be considered as a series of back and forth interactions between interviewer and group, and the second as the interaction between members of the group when discussing a provided stimulus. Due to the rationale for interviewing students

33 _{Preparing for brutal honesty was my personal potential issue, however this research was primarily focused}

on Physics; while the style in which material is delivered to students is of clear importance, teachers are not (as this research has demonstrated) in charge of what is required to be taught.

mentioned above, but the likelihood that they would not necessarily know much about the reform process, this section of the research can be conceptualised as a hybrid of the two methods. Here I would provide a topic for discussion, with some background if necessary, and then ask students to give their opinion, asking questions to probe deeper – in essence a semi-structured focus group interview.