Interview and Recording

Interviews are one of the main instruments for data collection in this study. In this sub-section, I focus on the rationales for the interview questions and the format of the interview: the rationale for interviewing teachers and students; the interview techniques used in the study; the recording of the interviews and when, where and how the interviews were conducted in the various schools. In planning for the interviews, I took into consideration the background of the schools; the objective of the interview; who to interview and why; the type and structure of the questions and ethical issues.

The choice of interviews as a method for the study was influenced by my ontological and epistemological assumptions, which I explained under Section

76 3.3. However, the choice of each of the questions for the interview (Appendix 1 and 2) was influenced by the main aim of the study, the research questions and the conceptual framework (Chapter 2). The interview questions for the Mathematics teachers (Appendix 2), sought to find out about:

1. Mathematics teachers’ experiences with both genders at GCSE and A-level

2. Any differences they have identified in the teaching and learning of Mathematics for both genders

3. The influence they have in the decision making processes of students regarding the choice of A-level subjects and Mathematics in particular

4. Parental influence in the students’ decisions.

The interview questions for students (Appendix 1) were intended to find out from them:

1. The factors they consider before choosing A-level subjects

2. What influences their choice or otherwise of A-level Mathematics

3. Their views about gender and Mathematics and the choices they make

4. Their general perception of Mathematics and what can be done to encourage more students to do A-level Mathematics.

Excluding follow-up questions, on average each teacher was asked 15 questions and each student 19 questions. Fraenkel and Wallen, (2008) identified four types of interview: structured; semi-structured; informal and retrospective interviews. Robson (2011), on the other hand, dwells on three types of interview: fully structured; semi-structured and unstructured interviews. The type of interview employed for both the teachers and the students in this study was the semi-structured interview. In a fully structured interview, the emphasis is on predetermined sets of questions (mostly closed questions),

77 which the interviewer is expected to follow strictly (Kendall and Kendall, 2009). In my semi-structured interviews, I had already determined in advance a set of questions to be asked (Appendices 1 and 2). These questions were however subject to modification based on what I and the participant perceived to be appropriate. There were instances when the questions were reworded to make it clearer. In situations where a response to a question answers the next question, that question is omitted (Robson, 2011). Unstructured interviews are more informal and allow conversation to develop into an area of interest to the interviewer and the interviewee. The line of questioning may not involve any specific type of sequence (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2008). My choice of the semi- structured interview was due to the flexibility associated with it, which allows respondents to come out with points and issues that I had not already thought about in advance (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2008).

Two types of questioning were used in my semi-structured interviews; open- ended and closed questions. Open-ended questions enable the interviewee to respond with different possibilities and at what length they wish (Robson, 2011). I was not only interested in specific answers, but also in the breadth and depth of the interviewees’ replies. This is what open-ended questions offer. Combining both open-ended and closed questions in the interviews made the interviewees feel at ease and to be keenly interested in the process. It also provided an opportunity for me to reflect and focus on any vocabulary or jargon used by the interviewees that I did not understand and for which I promptly sought clarification. Whilst open-ended questions gave me the richness of detail, closed questions gave me the opportunity to gather data that was easily comparable with other people’s responses from either the questionnaires or interviews. In the event of missing out on information from closed questions, I was able to obtain clarification from an immediate or later response to an open- ended question.

The purpose of the research and the research questions helped me to define the limits of the participants for the study. The main reason for involving teachers in the interview was based on the fact that teachers have a lot of input to the students’ academic work. Since part of the objective of the study is to determine the factors influencing students’ choice of Mathematics at A-level, it

78 is appropriate to understand the extent to which teachers influence the students’ choices of subjects at A-level. Similarly, based on the focus of the study, it was also appropriate to interview A-level students who did well in GCSE Mathematics and either decided to study A-level Mathematics or otherwise.

The participants for the interview could have been widened to include groups such as GCSE top-set Mathematics students and parents. My inability to interview the GCSE top-set Mathematics students was more of an issue of ethics, as most of these students are under 16 years of age and consent could only be sought from their parents through the school. In order to minimise the inconveniences and maximise the time at my disposal as far as the schools were concerned, I decided not to interview the GCSE top-set Mathematics students but instead administered the self-completed questionnaires to them. It is very likely that parents play important roles in the students’ choice of subjects at A-level, but with the emphasis of the study being on Mathematics, information about such roles was sought from the students and the teachers as shown in the questionnaires (Appendix 1-5). These decisions were influenced by Fraenkel and Wallen’s (2008) suggestion that the choice of participants for an interview should be to find those who can offer the best insight and represent the full range of experiences and opinions. In this particular study therefore, the experience and opinions of the Mathematics teachers and the students involved could serve the same purpose as parents.

The recording of the interviews was done using both digital audio recorder and writing notes. A tape recorder is indispensable in an interview, but does not eliminate the need for taking notes (Robson, 2011). Taking notes about what is said may facilitate later analysis and help to locate important quotations from the audio recorded version (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2008). The main aim of taking the notes was to record facial expressions and any other forms of non-verbal communication which could not be recorded by the digital audio equipment. The recording of the notes also prevented unnecessary and/or unhelpful interference while the interviewee responded to a question. Instead, where a follow up question was needed as a result of what had just been said, I would quickly write it down and ask later on for clarification. More importantly, the decision to take notes made me more alert and focused on the process.

79 Using the audio recorder provided opportunity for better eye contact, rapport and accurate record of the conversation. It also allowed me to respond more rapidly and to interact well with interviewees. As result of audio recording the interviews, I have also had the opportunity to listen to the interviews several times and transcribe the exact words of the respondents.

In Schools A and C, the interviews were held in a designated interview room, whilst in School B, they were held in a vacant classroom. In all the schools, privacy and security were paramount, but the doors to the interview rooms were transparent. Having a transparent door is a security/safeguarding policy in all schools in the UK and it is meant to ensure that both students and staff are protected and with the door shut, confidentiality of the conversations within is assured. Table 3 shows the breakdown of participants from the various schools. In School A, the interviews took one day and were conducted just before the school went for the Easter break. There were female Mathematics teachers, but none were teaching A-level Mathematics. In School B, three male teachers were interviewed against the intended two. There were no female teachers teaching A-level Mathematics for me to interview in School B. In School C, interviews were held on different days; the first interviews involving the teachers and some of the students were held just before the end of the academic year, while the second part was held at the beginning of the next academic year. During the first part of the interview, I had the opportunity to be introduced to an A-level Mathematics class by the co-ordinator and with the objective of the study having been explained to them, students were asked to volunteer to be interviewed. The second part of the interview was slightly different, as the co- ordinators had informed the selected participants, who were mainly girls, prior to my arrival. This is why I had more participants in School C than the intended number. Other issues arising from the interview have been discussed under Section 3.12.