Interview Method

In-depth interviews were used to collect data from the staff involved in managing and delivering distance education courses in the faculty of education. They were also conducted in some selected schools to collect the views of the headteachers about the support they give to in-service teachers, and the effect of the in-service training support on pedagogical practices.

These involved intensive interactions with the interviewees about a particular situation or area of study in which they were knowledgeable (Boyce & Neale, 2006). Staff and headteachers (interviewees) were knowledgeable about learner support in distance learning in the sense that they supported the students in training, and practice in schools.

In-depth interviews were chosen because they permit probing (Creswell, 2003; Morgan, 1997).

According to Gillham (2005), probing is eliciting further response from the respondent as you sense that more information can still be obtained. The interviews involved respondents who are knowledgeable about the context of the research relating to what Gillham (2005) termed as elite interview. This was useful as I was able to probe from the respondents about the nature and quality of learner support, the link between learner support and the trainees’ pedagogical practices, challenges they face in managing and delivering learner support, and where they place the voice of trainees in the context of learner support.

95

In addition, research has shown that the interview method reduces on misunderstandings by the respondent as clarification can be given on spot (Creswell, 2003, 2014; Gillham, 2005;

Morgan, 1997). Indeed, this accounted for choice of the interview method as it allowed interaction in conversational manner with each respondent giving clarification where necessary. Furthermore, Gillham (2005) credits the interview method for its ability to build rapport between the researcher and the interviewee. In this study, we had cordial discussions given that in-depth interview method allowed a one-to-one session with each interviewee.

Further still, Cohen et al. (2007) argue that the interview method can be arranged at a time conveniently agreeable to the respondent and the researcher. In this study, the use of the interview was strategically chosen for the busy working staff at the university and schools.

They were consulted to give their convenient time for interviews and I accordingly adjusted my programmes to fit within each respondent’s preferred time for the interview.

In order to I abate possible challenges of using the interview method that would adversely affect the data collection, I derived lessons from the related literature. Gomm’s (2008) research indicates that in-depth interview method increases the researcher’s influence on the respondent’s response. In the same vein, Creswell (2003, 2015) echoes the likelihood of the biased responses caused by the presence of the researcher during the interview process. To avert such an occurrence, I cordially discussed the interview process with each respondent and gave appropriate time for responses without undue interference except when clarification was needed.

Furthermore, Gillham (2005) raises the hardship concerning immediate recording during the interview. Though challenging to keep on recording during the interview, I jotted down key issues but also audio recorded the process and was able to listen to the recording and internalised the discussion after the interview. The audio recording was done with full knowledge and permission of the respondents for ethical reasons. Gillham (2005) further blames the interview method for allowing a limited number of questions owing to time constraint and availability of the interviewee. Though the interview questions were limited (eight in number), they focused on the key study themes hence were adequate to elicit the desired responses.

4.7.2 Development of Interview guides

Two interview guides were developed; one for staff involved in managing and delivering learner support (appendix 4), and the other for headteachers where in-service teachers work

96

(appendix 5). Based on the observations of Gillham (2005); the interview guides were prepared with a series of steps. These included: compiling a list of questions relating to the main study questions, brain storming the questions and reviewing them, grouping related questions on a particular study theme, and checking the clarity of questions. I also shared the draft tool with the supervisor for comments, pre-piloted it on two colleagues while seeking their comments, and then refined the tools.

As a component of the interview tool development, a brief letter seeking permission to access the respondents was prepared. It introduced the investigator and encouraged respondents to freely respond to the questions without giving their identities (such as names, qualifications, and schools) (appendices 4 and 5). Permission was sought through the office of the Faculty Dean at UMU and appointments made with the selected staff. For the case of headteachers, permission was sought through their respective in-service teachers. Still, before conducting the interviews, the consent of the interviewees was sought.

4.7.3 Piloting and administration of interviews

In agreement with Silverman’s (2010) recommendation to pilot the interview tools for reliability, I used the draft interview guides in the pilot study on one university staff and one headteacher outside the main study, refined the tools and produced the final interview guides.

The development of the interview guide for the university staff focused on all the five research questions while that for the headteachers targeted two research questions of the study (how they support in-service teachers, and the effect of learner support on classroom practices).

Based on the pilot study, the questions were refined and sequenced logically in accordance with the main study questions. The questions were reduced to eight from ten to avoid repetition, and to allow ample time to sustain effective probing in the final study (appendix 4).

In line with Patton (2002), the interview guides were used to give direction during the interview process but there was room for further probing based on the responses from the respondents.

Additionally, in agreement with Thomas (2009), in-depth interviews were used in such a way that the schedule provided a framework of issues that were in a logical manner and raised more questions for follow up and probing during the interview process. The logical aspect involved arranging the interview guide questions targeting each of the main study questions in their sequence. The interviews for staff were conducted at 2 university campuses but on different days in adherence to the respondents’ preferences. I took advantage of their choices and we used their respective offices as interview venues. The interview periods varied ranging from

97

40 to 90 minutes. It depended on the explanation given by each interviewee and probing based on their respective responses.

The same interview guide was used for all the staff. That helped to compare and triangulate findings of the same research method and then related it to findings from the other methods.

The second interview guide targeted the headteachers of selected schools and focused on the support they gave to their teachers on training, and how the training support affected the trainees’ classroom pedagogy. With due permission from the interviewees, I took notes, audio recorded the interview process, and transcribed the data afterwards.

4.8 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)