Individual Interviews 140

There are certain limitations in using interviews as the primary source of data collection; however these pitfalls can be avoided with proper preparation, for example overcoming the interviewer’s perceptions and bias. In relation to finding out a student’s experience of their approach to learning in the context of a problem-based learning physics course, the only route into the student’s own experience is that experience as expressed in words or acts, hence why the interview is the main source of data for this project. Semi-structured

141

interviews were conducted in a conversation and discussion manner. The use of this approach provides a degree of structure to the interview while retaining flexibility to permit individuals to direct the interview. Ashworth & Lucas (2000) suggest that the researcher’s task is to achieve ‘empathy and engagement’ in an interview situation so that the participant is given the maximum opportunity to reflect on her/his own experience, and feel comfortable in talking about all of the aspects of the phenomenon of which she/he is aware. This, I hoped, would give each participant an opportunity to talk at length about problem- based learning and provide me with a rich source of data. The interview was split into two parts with questions designed to be prompts so that participants could explore all areas of interest but also there were straight forward enquiry questions to obtain information such as previous level of physics experience. I decided to adopt the semi-structured type of interview for three main reasons. First, this approach provides not only extensive records of a participant’s conceptions and experience, but also provides extensive data for evidence to support an argument. Secondly, it allows enough flexibility for the researcher and the participants to clarify meaning and explore fully the issues that arise during the interview process. Thirdly, using open ended interviews depends very much on the ability of participants to recall and express extensively their beliefs and experiences. During the three pilot interviews students were found to be unwilling or able to expand their opinions without sufficient probing and so an open-ended structure seemed inadequate for the data sought. Another outcome of the pilot interviews was the inability of the students to distinguish between what they themselves did and what the group did when describing the process of solving problems in problem-based learning. This was counteracted by introducing a written question before the interview started, asking the students to reflect on what they did during the first session of problem-based learning with the answer to the question starting with “I would…” This got the students into the right mind frame to answer the interview questions.

On average the interview would last about 60 minutes with the notable exception of the mature students who took up to 90 minutes to complete the interview. This was due to the fact that the mature students were more open to elaborating on their responses. The interviews were video recorded and then transcribed verbatim. Great care was taken so that

142

physical responses of the participants, such as facial expressions, body movements and laughter were also recorded.

A criticism of interviews in which the researcher asks predetermined questions is that, by providing a structure for the interview, the researcher loses the opportunity to understand how the participants might choose to organise the topic being discussed. Whilst this is a reasonable criticism, the semi-structured interview was chosen in this particular study because it enabled me to collect the data which could be compared across participants, and in addition, provided a focus on the question being investigated.

Saljo, since his earliest work with Marton, has questioned the validity of using interviews for the purpose of investigating learning and teaching, arguing that the context might be influencing the nature of the responses given. Saljo (1997) suggests that expressions in an interview indicate ‘the attempt to fulfil one’s communicative obligations when being asked a question or a wish not to lose face when confronted with an abstract and maybe difficult question’ (Saljo 1997 p. 177). We learn about the socially appropriate ways of talking about our experience of a phenomenon, and we frequently borrow accounts from stories which other people have told us. It is assumed, therefore, that it is difficult to disconnect what is said in an interview from its communicative function in that particular context. Kvale (1996) also argues that the interviewee’s statements are co-authored. Despite these criticisms, the interview for me remained the most appropriate method of data collection for this study. If the goal of the research is to find students approaches to learning, then it would seem appropriate to ask those students how they approached their learning. The last sentence should not be viewed as an over simplification of the research method as I did not simply ask students how they approach their learning. Many of the criticisms mentioned above can be addressed by ensuring that the right questions are asked and that the interviewer is “qualified” to interview. In other words the interviewer must have a clear understanding of the phenomenographic method and be able to put it into practice using an interview.

143

In the context of the physics problem-based learning course:

 What are the qualitatively different ways in which students approach their learning?  What are the qualitatively different ways in which students perceive their learning

environment?

 What factors within this environment influence a student’s approach to learning?