4.4.1 Data collected
The data collected by the use of QTI, SLEI and ACPQ was entered on Microsoft Excel Spread sheet to make statistical analysis easy. The analysis was based on the research questions. The following was applied to analyse data: Cronbach alpha
109
coefficient, Pearson‘s coefficient (r), Regression coefficient (β) and multiple correlation (R).The Cronbach's alpha was used to assess the reliability of rating by summarizing the survey answers which measure the underlying factors McMillan and Schumacher (2001: 247). The Pearson‘s alpha coefficient is usually best in investigating the relationship between two quantitative, continuous variables, for example teacher interaction and learners participation in Chemistry practicals (McMillan and Schumacher, 2001: 612). Due to the nature of the study, the above mentioned statistical analysis was found suitable in finding the correlation coefficient between what other studies in the same field has found and the findings of this study.
The qualitative data from interview recorded on tape was transcribed by using spread sheet and qualitative computer programme called Atlas.ti. This programme helped the researcher to organised text, graphic, audio and visual notes in to a data base that is easily retrievable (Creswell, 208: 249).
4.4.2 Nature of schools visited
So far we have discussed various instruments used to collect data, but did not go in to details on how the instruments were used to collect data in various regions. This section aims at explaining how data was collected in the different schools including rural schools.
As stated in section one the schools were randomly selected based on varies factors like:
Grades 10 and 12 academic performance from 2009-2011; Accessibility of schools by car;
Urban and remoteness of school; Total number of learners in that school;
Social cultural factors like traditions and beliefs; and Economic status of school and community.
The schools were visited by means of a 4×4 vehicle that enabled travel to even the most remote schools that were not easily assessable with non-four wheel drive vehicles. The greatest challenge during the travelling was that February and March
110
are the predominantly raining month in Namibia and most of the time rain was posing a serious threat to driving.
Due to the remoteness of some of the schools and the fact that strict rules from the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Education should be adhered to like no interruption to school programmes and class teaching, the best option was not to require teachers to do experimental/practical work for observation purposes. The best options was to give the questionnaire during break, after school or during off periods for the learners/teacher to complete. It was assumed that the information provided by the learners/teacher was a true reflection of what was happening in their laboratory practical work.
Upon arrival in the different regions, it was easy to connect with relevant people because prior arrangements had been with the regional Director and school principals and parents had equally been informed. The use of GPRS on the mobile phone in terms of locating the different schools was very helpful. Previous arrangements, with the directors, principals and teachers greatly helped the process. The arrival and location of the various schools to be visited in every town was done the previous day. Nearly 55% of the schools visited in the regions had already selected the teachers and class groups that the researcher was to work with and provision was make for time, classroom and logistic support.
Most remote schools in these regions did not have laboratories at all and learners were complaining in the interview that they barely did any experiments. The majority of the schools in remote regions use the class in which they are teaching Science as a laboratory although no equipment, electricity or running water is available in these class rooms. On inquiry from the teachers about the learners‘ complaints, teachers referred to lack of chemicals, equipment and in-service training from the ministry as the main stumbling block in offering practical work. Urban schools‘ laboratories in this region seemed to be more equipped with the necessary chemicals and equipment compared to the rural schools.
The procedure in class was as follows: The researcher was introduced by the teacher or principal to the class. The researcher then explained the reasons for his
111
visits and the need for them to help in answering the questionnaire. Willing participation, anonymity, right of withdrawal and protection from any harm or victimisation by teachers or the ministry was guaranteed to the participants. After handing out the questionnaire the researcher explained how to fill the questionnaire, e.g., that there is no wrong or right answer, it is not a test, they should mark/shade one block in each statement according to the level of agreement. The teachers‘ version of the questionnaire was also given to the teachers at the same time. A total of 34 teachers completed the teachers‘ version, while around 21 teachers refuse to answer the questionnaire citing busy schedules and not having time to go through the questionnaire.