OBSERVATION DATA

Throughout the research, apart from those occasions when discrete interviews were taking place during session time, each observation lasted for the full duration of the two, or three hour session. I ensured that I was in the classroom before the students entered and left after all had gone at the end of a session; at times this gave me the opportunity to talk informally to the tutors on the research topic when the students were not present.

All the in-session fieldnotes, as ‘shorthand reconstructions of events, observations’ (Van Maanen, 1988: 223) were hand written using a basic observation template which recorded details of the session at the top of the page, including the date and time, location, tutor, cohort, any student absences, late arrivals and so on. Fieldnotes can be very idiosyncratic in their format (Emerson, Fretz and Shaw, 1995), reflecting the context and a personal preference in a particular situation (Walford, 2009) and it was found that anything more complex in format was a hindrance to making the notes. Depending on the circumstances at the time their format could be shorthand and brief, or contain more detail. Anything that was of particular interest at the time of making them was be highlighted with either a yellow marker pen, or some other appropriate identifier. The notes were made throughout a session and if there was the opportunity at the time anything especially pertinent to a particular research question, or connective in some way to other events during a session, was expanded on. If not, these details were added later.

As discussed in Section 3.4, the ‘deep immersion-and the sense of place’ (Emerson, Fretz and Shaw, 1995: 17) from data is what is contingent in providing the ethnographic ‘thick description’ (Geertz, 1973). Fieldnotes can record both the ‘mundane activities and jarring crises’ (Emerson, Fretz and Shaw, 1995: 16), with others focusing on ‘record[ing] as much as possible of what is perceived to be relevant to the research project’ (Walford, 2009: 127). The notes were made with the research focus in mind, so how students used the technologies, how they approached their coursework, their interactions with each other and individual activities. But as this was a social environment there were a range of other considerations, for example, traits and any changes to these were noted. There were also external factors to make a note of, for instance, sometimes students came in tired from either a late night playing games on a computer, going to a nightclub, or working a late shift at MacDonald’s. At other times the classroom dynamics noticeably altered as

friendships between students changed and this could have an affect on their approaches to their work, depending on whom they then sat next to. All of these shifting details were recorded, along with the repetitious behaviour, as patterns were just as valuable as incidents. If a tutor was

addressing the whole cohort, the topic was noted and if the students were attentive, if some were distracted, or not engaging then were there any obvious factors influencing this at the time, or any connective ones earlier, such as being tired. A factor in how much was recorded at the time

depended on the events and time it took to write the notes. If there was a lot to record, or a series of events in quick succession, or overlapping the notes were written as succinctly as possible and expanded on as soon as there was the opportunity.

With Goffman’s (1974: 10) concept of frames in mind, which is that of the ‘principle of

organization which govern events’ the notes were later be highlighted to indicate where students were using technologies for coursework or for social, or entertainment purposes. The same applied in similar events where technologies were not involved and there was a distinction between course and non-course activities. In other words how the students managed their identities as both students and young people. This was a very basic framing device but useful due to the research focus of students’ use of technologies in the classroom and especially when revisiting the notes.

Initially it was considered if note making became intrusive, especially if the students responded by being more self-conscious of their behaviour. In practice, this concern of observer effect

(LeCompte and Goetz, 1982) did not surface, apart from a few rare occasions when making notes a student teasingly pretended to look at what was being written and then smile and go back to what they were doing. Making notes was a common event in the classrooms by LSAs who needed to

retain a record of students’ academic practices, as one of their administrative tasks and therefore these type of events were part of the classroom occurrences. The only instance when immediate note making was delayed was in those instances when a student asked for academic help with their work. If any of their practices, or comments from that interaction were research relevant, notes were made later. This decision was made under the premise that recording data during closer contact circumstances was overly instrumental and intrusive to the occasion.

As the observations were for the full duration of the sessions there were always limitations, and opportunities in what could be recorded. The considerations on how and when to record

observational data are varied, as are the skills needed to produce efficient notes (Emerson, Fretz and Shaw, 2011). If the note making was too engrossing then there is the risk of being distracted from the environment being researched. Although there were long periods when the students worked independently at their computers, which allowed me the time to make any additional notes. Though, conversely during the quieter periods there were also subtleties of behaviour occurring, which could potentially be missed if otherwise too distracted. As a preliminary strategy, prior to the research commencing, note making was practised in sessions other than those I would be researching in. This experience was an opportunity to consider how data could be acquired as efficiently as possible whilst still retaining a level of awareness of what was occurring in the room.

Sustaining a focus in these sessions was at times challenging, as the events could be quite mundane and Delamont (2008: 43) warns of the danger of ‘over-familiarity and boredom’ occurring during observations in educational settings. This was especially pertinent, as these were quite small rooms and at times students were working independently on one topic for a number of weeks.

Post-session notes were made, to expand on any details, reflect on events and the session, as a whole, or just to tidy up those that were made hastily. In essence part of these post-event processes were what Delamont (2008: 52) refers to as ‘reflections in tranquillity’. These were made as soon as was conveniently possible after a session to avoid as little loss of detail as possible and the avoidance of any potential day-to-day distractions intruding into the process.