Methods of research Year 3: Chat logs and Interviews

In Year 3, my research aim was to explore further the students’ and their parents’ perceptions about learning online. The survey course angled towards a need to obtain data which were more detailed and focused in-depth (see Chapter 7, p.210).

Comparing answers was not suitable anymore. Instead, flexibility in the structure of the question was mustered in an effort to let out the participants’ point of view (Weiss, 1994). For this reason, the research methods in Year 3 were less standardised and more personal. I explored chat logs and conducted semi-structured (focus group and telephone) interviews.

Chat logs

All during Year 2 and Year 3, an archive of chat logs was saved. Both students and their parents were informed that the logs would be recorded and used as research material, and I had their full consent on the condition that the data would be treated anonymously. ‘Chat logs’ in this study are understood the authentic text-conversations of online users in a computer online learning platform in real time but virtual space. Computer log analysis can be a powerful qualitative method in research (Asunka, Chae and Natriello, 2011; Elnahrawy, 2002) but literature review on chat log analysis is hard to find. However, it appears that chat logs can provide understanding about how critical

143

thinking and knowledge building takes place in online communication (Pena-Shaff, Martin and Gay, 2001; Zhu, 1996). Especially when students are guided to review their answers before they respond online, communication becomes rich in text (Pena-Shaff and Nicholls, 2004). The fact that chat logs are automatically saved as texts in a

computer system makes their analysis economical in terms of time and cost (Ice, 2004). It is a practical advantage which, however, has to align with the research aims and objectives in order to be useful.

The disadvantages of the method relate to its practical and ethical nature. Using chat logs as a data collection method is relatively easy, enjoyable and not time consuming, on the condition that some provisions have been made beforehand. In a computer- mediated environment, ‘easiness’ may rely on how accessible the communication can be for the chatters in relation to resources and computer expertise; questions such as ‘where to chat’ and ‘how to chat’ should be treated before the data collection begins. ‘Enjoyable’ may mean that the chat-participant experiences secure feelings to express him/herself online; therefore, personal idiosyncrasies and system characteristics should be expected to influence online communication. It can be a ‘not time-consuming’

method, as chatters meet online from anywhere at any time. However, it is a tedious before-chat-time, as chatters should schedule when to meet first.

It is a research-friendly method regarding transcription. The computer system allows the researcher to save the written form of a complete transaction with the click (or a few clicks) of a button. Yet, no matter how easy it is to collect and save the chat log data, the identity of the chatters may be a serious blow to the quality and ethics of data

collection. The virtual form of communication may offer privacy which can be unethical if an unwanted or untrue chat participant hides behind it (see Chapter 7, p. 213). Instead,

144

transparency of identity is necessary: it is ethical and indispensable that both the respondent’s and the researcher’s identity be revealed right from the start.

Telephone interviews

The data collection from diary notes and questionnaires suggested (e.g. a need for a parents’ training session, see Chapter 6, page 177) that more modifications were needed to provide open communication channels for parental involvement. The small number of parents that used the chat service and their answers in the questionnaire revealed that there were constraints in the parents’ communication when using ICT. For those reasons, semi-structured telephone interviews with the parents were conducted to attempt to discover the causes of the ‘problems’ (see Chapter 7, pp. 242-246).

Stephens (2007) argues that the telephone interview can be a valid and productive method. No matter how geographically dispersed the participants are, or how sensitive a research area is the use of the telephone may increase the availability of the

participants. Even when the researcher is unknown to the participant, the intensity of the ‘surveillant other’ (Walkerdine, 1990:195) decreases and the participant does not feel threatened or intruded on the telephone as when at the participant’s home. Next to the control of physical space the participants may acknowledge a control of social space. It is acceptable for participants to rearrange an interview at a more convenient time and they can have control over the conversation to be uninterrupted and private (Holt, 2010; Stephens, 2007).

Talking on telephone may not provide visual cues but the very lack of them makes ‘everything to be articulated by both the participant and the researcher’ (Holt, 2010:116). Fuller discourse data is then produced, suggesting that there is a relationship between the mode and the method of evidence collection. In general, if

145

consent is given by the participants and explicit directions for the conversation have been provided to them, it seems that telephone interviews may turn out to be expeditious and thorough research encounters (Irvine, 2010).

I relied to telephone interviewing as an ‘in situ’ condition. Parents were unobtainable mainly due to their work schedules so the possibility of staging a face-to-face interview was not possible. I called parents at home in order to explain the goal of the research, to arrange an interview date with them, and to get their consent about their child’s interview. There were two broad areas to investigate (see Chapter 7, p. 243) and an interview guide plan to follow (see Appendix, Table 21, p.361) but, apart from that, conversation was allowed to flow freely. The fact that parents recognised me as a school teacher helped to build trust and intimacy and reduce awkwardness and anxiety during the interview (see Chapter 7, p.222). Questions were semi-structured (Kreuger, 1988), ordered from the most general to least general ones (Stewart and Shamdasani, 1990). In the guide plan there were four questions with a few prompting questions in each (Kreuger, 1988). I took some field notes during the interview. They were not detailed notes but rather points to remember. Later, each interview was audio recorded and parents’ names were codified (parents had been notified and agreed to be

recorded).

The most productive mode of data collection in social science has been the face-to-face interview for its immediacy of conduct and anything else is usually considered a ‘second best’ method (Holt, 2010; Stephens, 2007). For this reason, the absence of non-visual cues (appearance, age, posture, gestures) is considered a basic drawback in the nature of telephone interviewing (Gavrila, 1999; Nova et al., 2012). On the event of a

telephone interview, participants may not take the hint to elaborate on their

146

coming and, thus, be slow in helping participants reformulate their words (Irvine, Drew and Sainsbury, 2010).

As with every methodological tool the success of using it lies in the hands of the researcher. Especially in the case of telephone interviewing, however, both the researcher and the participants should feel confident using the telephone.

Focus-group interviews

Focus group interviews with students occurred at the same period with the parents’ interviews. There were again two broad areas to investigate (see Chapter 7, p.234), and an interview guide plan to follow (see Appendix, Table 22, p.362).

Attention was given to the number of focus groups (Morgan, 1988) as well to the size of each focus group (Kreuger, 1988; Merton, Fiske and Kendall, 1990) in the study. There were four focus groups of four to five students in each group. Questions were semi- structured and ordered from the most general to the least general ones. There were five questions with a few prompting questions in each. Children were asked to interact with the other members of the group in their attempt to answer to my questions. I took field notes during the interview in the same manner with the parents’ field notes. Each interview was video and audio recorded. For reasons of anonymity in the research, the audio scripts were used for analysis after codifying the students’ names. Videoing was used only as an alternative saving condition in the unfortunate case of data loss or unclear cases of audio recording. Children had been informed beforehand and had given their consent to the conducting of the focus group interviews.

The aim of the parents’ and children’s interviews was to find out ‘how respondents talk[ed] about the phenomenon of interest’ and in a way to ‘interpret previously obtained

147

qualitative results’ (Stewart and Shamdasani, 1990:15). I believed that the discussions in the interviews would ‘yield a more diversified array of responses and afford a more extended basis for designing systematic research on the situation in hand’ (Merton, Fiske and Kendall, 1990:135).

Focus group interviews are unique in the sense that they allow participants to express themselves and collaborate with the other group members in order to answer to a question (Axinn, 2006; Krueger, 1988). Nonetheless, the method is not without difficulty in the data collection. The usual causes of difficulty noted (Denscombe, 2007: 190) are that the researcher needs to be very experienced in monitoring the flow of the session, there is more than one participant and their personal differences can trigger conflict in the conversation, and data may be hard to analyse.

Organising focus groups can be complicated. Who and how many to take part in a focus group, the time and the place of the interview are conditions that should be considered and arranged well before the interview (see Chapter 7, pp. 224-226).

148