Observation

The second method I planned to use was observation because it was not enough merely to interview teachers about their views of play; I was also interested in observing the ways in which play is implemented, the different types of play, the teacher’s role in play, and the teacher-child interactions during play in kindergarten practice. Observation was considered as a suitable means to collect data for the 2, 3, and 4 research questions, as it is a powerful

87

tool to catch the dynamic nature of play in classroom practice, such as actions and interactions, and thus provide a fuller picture of teachers’ practice. Cohen et al. (2007) indicate that observation allows investigators to gather ‘live’ data, from naturally occurring real situations. By observing, researchers can “look directly at what is taking place in site rather than rely on second-hand account”, so that more valid and authentic data are expected to generate than using mediated or inferential methods (p.396). Meanwhile, observation enables researchers to understand the context, to be open-ended and inductive, to be fresh for things that might be unconsciously missed and be taken for granted, to reveal things that participants might not be willing to talk about in interview situations, and more importantly, to go beyond perception-based data (ibid). Moreover, observation is a distinctive research tool to provide specific events, behaviors etc. which can be used as reference points for subsequent interviews (Merriam, 1998). Finally, data collected from observation of teachers’ practice may provide a reality check with what the teachers say in interview, since Robson (2002) states that what people actually do may differ from what they say they do. Therefore, observation is interwoven with interview in order to corroborate the findings. However, there were possible difficulties of gaining access and negotiating entry (Bailey, 1994), so I planned to employ guided sampling strategy to solve the problem.

4.1.2.2.1 Relevant issues of observation

As for observation, it was thought to be better for me to make explicit the type of it I will employ and the role I will act in my research. As Cohen et al. (2007) state, there are two major types of observation: participant observation and non-participant observation. The former means observers completely engage in the very activities they set out to observe, while the latter means observers stand aside from the group activities they are investigating and function without interacting with the participants (Cohen et al., 2007; Angrosino & Mays de Pérez, 2000). Cohen et al. (2007) further explain that “the type of observation undertaken by the researcher is associated with the type of setting in which the research take place” (p.259). Since my study aimed to understand teachers’ work in the natural situations of the kindergarten, I initially decided to adopt non-participant observation, as I wanted to minimize the potential impact and interruption I might bring to the regular activities of the

88

classes. In so doing, I did not wish either to manipulate the situation, or to pose questions for the teachers, but to stand back to maintain social distance. However, as Adler and Adler (1994) argue, all research is some form of participant observation, since we cannot study the world without being part of it. Moreover, as I am the main instrument of data collection in the current research, subjectivity and interaction are assumed (Merriam, 1998). In addition, through participant observing, I was not only able to immerse myself in the classroom and culture context more deeply, but to have a better understanding of teachers’ interpretation of the meaning of their behavior through interaction with them. Therefore, instead of employing non-participant observation, I decided to adopt participant observation after reconsideration.

As for my role in observation, I planned to adopt the role of observer as participant, which suggested by Gold (1958, cited in Cohen et al., 2007, p.397), that is, my observed activities will be known by the group; “participation in the group is definitely secondary to the role of information gatherer” (Merriam, 1998, p.101). I planned to interact casually with teachers and children, but closely enough to “establish an insider’s identity without participating in those activities constituting the core of group membership” (Adler & Adler, 1994, p.380). As Bogdan and Biklen (2007) more vividly stated, for the observer as participant, researchers carry with them an imaginary sign that they “hang over each subject and on every wall and tree” (p.93). Rossman and Rallis (1998) indicated that the most important contemporary use of this role is in classroom observational studies conducted by educational researchers. By adopting this role, it was deemed possible for me to access to a wide range of information (Merriam, 1998) from teachers, kindergarten administrators and children, and still maintain my identity as a researcher. Therefore, on the one hand, I planned to participate in teacher-directed play activities so as to observe teachers’ and children’s behaviors in play through intimate interaction with them and directly experience. On the other hand, I did not intend to participate in children’s free flow play or children’s free-chosen play activities. This allowed me to have sufficient time and energy to record teacher-child interactions as specifically as possible: for example, who initiates (teacher or child) the most interaction in play; what the contents of the interaction were; what the results of the interaction were; and

89

what the types of the interaction were.

I planned to conduct classroom observation of selected kindergarten classes, each for eight working days. Before the focused observations took place, I conducted general observations for the first three days and covered whole day time and activities. This exercise was intended to allow me to become familiar with the settings, the children, the teachers and the routine activities of the class. After I had become familiar with the routine of the kindergarten and the participants are comfortable with my presence (Lodico et al., 2006), I intended to carry out focused observations which concentrated on play activities of the classroom practice in the following five days. Each focused observation would last for two hours in the morning or afternoon (this would refer to the timetable of the observed class). The behaviors, conversations, settings and results of teacher-child interaction would then be recorded in detail.

The observation data were recorded in the form of field notes, that is, a written account of what the researcher observes in the field (Merriam, 1998; Lodico et al., 2006). Based on Bogdan and Biklen’s (2007) viewpoint that the field notes aimed to provide a word-picture of the setting, people, actions, and conversations as observed, I decided to record the following information in field notes as completely as possible:

1. A description of the physical setting (including: physical environment, context, allocated space, objects, resources etc.);

2. A description of the participants (including: who, how many, their roles);

3. A description of activities (including: theme and types of activity, sequence of activities, duration of activity etc.);

4. A description of teacher-child interactions in play (including: interaction initiator, contents, results etc.);

5. A record of the conversation (including: contents of conversations); 6. A record of other information which relates to play activities.

90

material (Cohen et al., 2007) for further analysis. This was considered useful because many visual data may not be observed clearly and recorded in great detail by hand, and it may be difficult to write oral data in a timely and complete fashion in field notes. As Walsh et al. (2007) indicated, video could reveal the unnoticed detail of daily life. Moreover, the audio-visual recorded data can be reviewed repeatedly, thus, enables deep analysis. Finally, it was easy to store video data and copy it when necessary (Walsh et al., 2007).