Interviews

The interviews were semi-structured in that there was a pre-prepared

interview schedule focused on specific issues for investigation, but questions were also informed by planning documents, attainment data and the lesson observations.

Interview schedule 1. The Lesson

How do you feel the lesson went?

Probe – what do they consider a good lesson? How does it compare to usual lessons (those not observed)?

Did it follow the plan you had envisaged?

Probe – using observation notes on how the lesson progressed.

How do you think the students responded to the lesson? Did they achieve what you had hoped?

Prompt – was there any measurable progress? Were the students enthusiastic and engaged?

How do you think the Pupil Premium (PP) students did?

Probe – what would their criteria for success be? Do they usually evaluate the comparative success of different groups?

64

How does this compare with non-PP students?

Prompt using participant’s criteria for success from previous answers. 2. Lesson Planning

Had you planned anything specific/differentiated for PP students in the lesson?

Probe - Ask respondent to give reasons why/why not

Did you take PP into account when you planned the lesson? Probe - Ask respondent to give reasons why/why not

Do you think it does/would make a difference? Probe – why/why not?

What type of strategies do you/could you use?

How effective have you found them? OR

How effective do you think they would be?

3. Homework

Was PP taken into account when setting homework task(s)? Probe - Ask respondent to give reasons why/why not

Will it be taken into account when marking?

Probe- Ask respondent to give reasons why/why not Do you envisage the PP students having any significant

difficulties/disadvantages when it comes to completing the work?

Prompt – access to resources, home environment, attitudes to learning 4. Recorded data

Based on your attainment records, how well do you feel the PP students are doing in relation to students who are not PP eligible?

Probe- Ask respondent to give reasons why/why not

65

Is the comparative attainment of PP students in relation to non-PP students something you and/or your school take particular note of?

5. PP in general

Do you think PP intervention/identification has helped you in your teaching or improved outcomes for less well-off students?

Probe- Ask respondent to give reasons why/why not

What do you think about the policy in general and how it is implemented at your school?

Close with general questions about school life.

Figure 3.1 Interview schedule

Discussion took place about the extent to which Pupil Premium students’ needs were considered when setting and marking tasks. Subsequently, the relationship between teachers’ perceptions of disadvantage and their lesson delivery and planning practices were explored. It was hoped that these discussions might inform even more focused and differentiated examples of tasks for Pupil Premium students in the future. However, even from the first interviews, it was clear that there were difficulties and differences in the extent to which the teachers felt they could, or indeed, should be making explicit differentiated approaches exclusively for these students.

The interviews were a powerful element of the case studies by gathering rich data on how the participants interpreted and made sense of their world as well as how they acted within it (Cohen et al., 2013; Gray, 2004). They offered insights into the participants’ values, aspirations, and attitudes in a manner

66

rarely achieved through other methods such as surveys (Forsey, 2012, p. 364). The interviews allowed for clarification and elaboration with ideas investigated in depth and responses probed and followed up (Bell, 2014, p. 135). The choice of semi-structured interviews benefitted from the advantage of scaffolding discussions within predetermined parameters relating to Pupil Premium funding and the effects that this might have had on classroom practice. This still allowed for exploration of opinions, feelings and

experiences of what was a potentially sensitive issue using the participants’ privileged information on how the policy was working in their sphere

(Denscombe, 2007, p. 175). By avoiding a completely structured approach, participants were able to respond to questioning on their own terms, while at the same time ensuring more comparability than that of an unstructured interview (May, 2011, p. 135). There were potential problems associated with interviews relating to participants using avoidance tactics or holding back. Also, there could be issues with meaning as well as trying to bring all aspects of the encounter within rational control (Cicourel, 1964). However, it was still a most effective way to capture the uniqueness of this particular situation.

I tried to make the interviews as positive and beneficial an experience as possible as well as reassuring the participants of their own worth and the importance of the topic (Cohen et al., 2013). Locations were chosen to minimise the chances of being disturbed as well as places in which the participants felt comfortable. I considered that the surroundings could have the effect of making the participants feel relaxed and therefore more

67

Some participants suggested that the classroom in which observations had taken place were the most appropriate venues for follow-up interviews. This extension of their own teaching domain could act to put the participants at ease, but I was conscious of the extension of the working space acting to reinforce the connection between the lesson, observation and subsequent interview as an arduous task. Because of timetabling clashes, some interviews were conducted in free office space and two interviews were conducted in the participant’s home. It proved almost impossible to follow Saldaña’s advice and chose a time for the interviews when the participant did not feel in some way rushed or fatigued (2011, p. 35). I was grateful that the participants had been able to find any time to accommodate me at all in circumstances which seemed particularly pressured. Most interviews took place within two of hours of the observation, usually after the school day had finished. This allowed time to review observational notes and prepare for the interview. A greater time lapse may have been more beneficial in terms of formulating specific lines of inquiry; however, the participants were limited as to when they could engage with the research. One school had strict policies about unaccompanied visitors on the school site, hence the need to conduct the interview at the participant’s home at a later date. Both the initial and subsequent interviews followed a similar routine.

Stimulated recall methods were used to explore the teachers’ ‘in-flight’ thinking (Calderhead, 1981; Patterson, 2007). Participants commented on their actions and decision-making processes during the lesson with prompts from observational fieldnotes. Incidents were highlighted during the

68

interviews and the participants elaborated on their experience of what happened. Rather than make notes, I used an electronic recording device during the interviews. This meant that I could concentrate fully on the

conversation rather than spending time looking down and detailing what was being said. This allowed me to focus on listening and interpreting the

responses while also trying to build a rapport with the participants.

The development of a rapport built on mutual trust was important, not just in helping the flow of the interview but also in eliciting more valid responses. I hoped that since I shared with the participants many of the same day-to-day experiences, that they would be encouraged to open up and discuss their thoughts in-depth. After all, ‘the more closely researchers are involved with the researched, the more likely it is that they can be responsive and

adaptable’ (Mertens & Ginsberg, 2009, p. 569). The greater the extent of this ‘embeddedness’, the greater depth of understanding I hoped to gain (Robson, 2011). With two of the participants this was perhaps easier, since not only were we fellow teachers but we also worked within the same school.

However, this insider status could act as a double-edged sword when it came to accuracy, consistency and validity.