Chapter 4. Methodology: A Critical, Participatory Approach
4.2 Data Collection Methods
4.2.2 Interviews
In line with the post-positive, qualitative and interpretive methodology adopted in this research, interviews were an important data collection method. According to Kvale (1996); ‘The topic of qualitative interviews is the everyday lived world of the interviewee and his or her relation to it.’ Interviews are thus highly suitable for obtaining detailed descriptions from individuals about particular themes or scenarios and their meanings. A survey or questionnaire could have been used to collect data on adults’ views on timed mathematics tests. This would potentially have made it possible to collect the views of more adults but at a more ‘surface’ level. I wanted to go beyond asking adults whether they have a broadly positive or negative experience of timed mathematics tests. I wanted to attempt to find out what had led to these attitudes and felt that an in-depth interview would be more likely to provide rich data on the experiences of individuals. Thus, the interviews were intended to give insights into the life world of a few individuals as well as potentially provide data for comparison to similar cases. However, the interviews were to have a definite focus and so a completely unstructured approach would not have been ‘fit for purpose’ (Cohen et al, 2011). Nor would a standardised quantitative approach involving closed or pre-categorised options as this would have been more suitable for collecting data from a much larger sample of adult learners using a questionnaire. The approach used fell between these two extremes; a semi-structured interview where topics and potential questions were prepared in advance but were used for guidance only. There are significant advantages in using interviews; they allow use of multi-sensory channels of communication in a face to face
conversation; they are flexible enough to involve a focus on particular themes and topics without precluding spontaneous responses and they make it possible for the interviewer to prompt, probe and check understandings (ibid). On the other hand, interviews take up significant time for both interviewee and interviewer and the interpersonal nature of the data generated may be
67
open to bias, both in terms of how the interview is conducted and in terms of interpretation (ibid).
Thirteen adults were interviewed who were all studying mathematics at one adult education centre. Only three of these adults went to school in the United Kingdom and, as a result, there were minor language barriers between us in a couple of the interviews that resulted in
misunderstanding of my questions and my role as a researcher. For example, one adult clearly thought I was a member of staff at the centre and might be able to offer her individual support to improve her mathematics. Fortunately, any such misunderstandings were cleared up during the course of the interview. The profiles of these adults are summarised in Table 3 where each person has been given a pseudonym that is used throughout this thesis.
The sample was self-selecting from a larger, convenience sample of adults taking mathematics classes at the adult learning provider discussed above in section 4.2.1. The sample is more ethnically diverse than the population of England as a whole (see Table 3) but it does reflect the diversity typical of the large urban area in which the centre is situated. Providing a good level of detail about the context of the research and the background of the participants may allow some generalisation to other, similar contexts. A brief summary of the backgrounds of each of the thirteen adults who were interviewed is given in Appendix 4.
Table 3: Profiles of interviewees
Name
Gender Age
Country of
origin
No. of
years in UK
Highest
education
Level of
mathematics
studied
Lisa
F
44
Africa
9
secondary GCSE
Jahid
M
34
Asia
12
secondary Level 1
Kwabena F
40
Africa
10
primary
Level 2
Ana
F
27
Europe
degree
Level 1
Omulade F
42
Africa
11
secondary GCSE
Ryan
M
36
UK
degree
GCSE
Hannah
F
50
Caribbean
further
GCSE
Rachel
F
50
Caribbean
16
secondary Level 1
Adele
F
26
UK
secondary Level 2
Dorcas
F
29
Africa
10
secondary Level 1
Shafiqa
F
39
Middle East 5
degree
GCSE
Amelia
F
38
UK
further
Level 1
Fawzia
F
33
Africa
12
primary
Level 1
My initial approach was to visit each class of adult learners during one of their sessions, present my research aims to them and invite them to take part. Seventeen adults agreed to take part
68
and this resulted in thirteen interviews taking place in November and December 2015. I acknowledge that the sample of adults interviewed could be biased for two reasons; firstly, volunteers knew the nature of the research and thus it is possible that volunteers for interviews were more likely to be those who have a negative view of timed tests. Secondly, all the adults interviewed were attending mathematics classes at the time. Inevitably this means that they had not ‘achieved’ a GCSE in mathematics in the past and this may also make it more likely that they have a negative view of timed tests. However, this research is less concerned with how
many adults have a particular view of timed tests for mathematics, but rather with the nature
and reasons for the views of those currently studying mathematics.
Questions to ask in the interview were prepared in advance in order to elicit answers to RQ1 and RQ2 and I had these questions in front of me to use as guidance during each interview (Appendix 2). Questions were a mix of closed (e.g. ‘Do you like maths best when it is easy or difficult?’) and open questions (e.g. ‘Tell me about learning maths at school’). Considering what type of questions to use involves similar decisions to those involved in designing surveys as discussed below. Open-ended questions are flexible and by their very nature allow a variety of responses but this potentially makes for more difficult analysis and interpretation (Cohen et al, 2011).
Interviews were semi-structured in the sense that there was some guidance in terms of prepared questions but these were not prescriptive. Interviews were exploratory in nature and follow up questions were often asked that were not planned in the guidance. In addition, interviewees were asked for clarification both of what they said (particularly for some learners for whom English was a second language) and where appropriate, what they meant (for example by mirroring a phrase or meaning back to them and asking if this represented their meaning).
The first four interviews were treated as a pilot to try out the questions and evaluate whether the responses would help to answer the research questions. I reflected on the responses and amended my questions in the light of this reflection to elicit more detailed responses. For example, in the first four interviews I asked respondents to suggest other ways their
mathematics skills could be assessed that did not involve a timed test. The responses to this question were quite limited and brief, almost as if the question was not fully understood. As Brookfield (1987, p.114) states; ‘People cannot be forced to imagine alternatives’ and a ‘skilled helper’ may be required when ‘suggesting options and clarifying choices’. My interpretation was that the respondents could not think of many ways to assess mathematics apart from a timed test – they found it difficult to ‘think outside the box’ especially under the pressure to give an immediate answer. This, in itself, was an interesting result of these early interviews. Following reflection on these first four interviews, I included a list of possible alternative methods of summative assessment (based in part on my literature review) to act as a discussion prompt for the remaining interviews. I also added some more potential questions to my guidance
document to facilitate more in depth responses. Following this expansion of prepared questions, the interviews tended to be longer and provide more feedback on specific assessment methods. The approach taken in these interviews reflects the ‘traveller’ metaphor proposed by Kvale
69
(1996) in which the interviewer is seen as a traveller on a journey who will have a story to tell on returning home. This is in contrast to the interviewer as a ‘miner’ who is looking for buried treasure like a truth to be discovered (ibid). I acknowledge that the interviews were not conducted between equal partners; I was the authority figure who decided on the format and content of the interviews. However, it can be argued that the resulting conversation was created jointly by each respondent and me; a unique result of the personal interaction between us on that day (Kvale, 1996).