Participant Observation

3.7.1.3 Participant Observation

Having discussed interviews in the previous section, participant observation will be addressed. Observation allows a researcher to collect information firsthand concerning social processes in a setting that is „naturally occurring‟ (Silverman, 2001). Corbetta (2003) posits that observation is watching and listening. On the other hand, with participant observation, it is the „participation‟ of the researcher that adds another dimension to the process. Not only does the researcher „observe‟ but also fully

„participate‟ in the lives of participants. This full participation, he explains, provides what he describes as a „vision from within‟ (p.236) which he accords as the requirement to understanding; which is the very objective of qualitative research. Participant observation is premised on two main beliefs. Firstly, complete social awareness is only possible through comprehending the participants‟ perspectives. Secondly, this association is achieved only through complete immersion in the participants‟ lives (Corbetta 2003).

According to Rose and Grosvenor (2001) using observation in educational research has several advantages. It is a direct method which provides a firsthand contact with the subject being studied and is an excellent tool to get an insight into an occurrence. On the other hand, there are also several limitations in using observation to collect data in research. One of the difficulties is the amount of time required to do effective observation. They further opine that time is not only required to do the actual research observation, but that time may also be required for pre-observational getting to know participants. One of the critical issues that need to be addressed when doing observation is whether or not to participate. In the participant observation the researcher becomes fully immersed in the activities taking place. On the other hand in the

non-75

participant observation the researcher tries to be as inconspicuous as is possible (ibid.).

For this research, the researcher embarked on the research project at MMPS in June 2007 and withdrew in February 2008. The shift system was unfamiliar to the researcher because there was no firsthand knowledge of the phenomenon. As was previously mentioned, the novel aspect of the research is investigating SEN within a shift context. This research method suitably lends itself to unearthing the unknown. The researcher did observations on both the morning (Shift X) and afternoon (Shift Y) shift.

Classes were observed in all six grade levels but more time was spent in classes which consisted of pupils deemed by the school as having SEN (grades 2-5, D and Special and in grade 6, C streams) which was in keeping with the research questions. It is argued by Miller and Bell (2002) that consent needs to be ongoing and renegotiated for the entire research project. Therefore, although access was granted by the Principal, the researcher requested permission from the teachers whose classes were selected to be observed.

They would give a date and time that were convenient to them. The teacher would normally introduce the researcher to the class as a means of explaining the presence of another adult in their class (although after spending some time at the research site, some teachers bypassed this formality). The researcher would observe the delivery of the content and make notes of relevant information such as the number of pupils (gender composition noted), the subject being taught differentiation (if any), and anything that warranted follow-up questions for clarity. When pupils were given tasks to do the researcher would sometimes interact with the pupils who experienced difficulties in undertaking giving tasks. There were times when teachers would initiate conversations asking questions and seeking advice regarding some of the difficulties they were having in addressing the SEN of their pupils or just general teaching and learning situations. The researcher engaged in participant observation in other areas of school life such breakfast club, club rehearsals, and devotions (assembly). It is worth noting, however, that for school activities such as PTA and staff meetings, the role of non-participant observer was adopted. This was done because a more discrete presence showed respect for sensitive nature of some of these meetings.

There is also another nuance to „participation‟ as is suggested by Taylor and Bogdan (1998) who advise that when participation facilitates acceptance, this should be being cognisant of the boundaries. The researcher can identify more with serving in the capacity of „extra hands‟ rather than using participation as a currency for acceptance.

For example, the researcher sometimes served breakfast to the pupils at the breakfast club at the school. Generally, there was overwhelming acceptance to the researcher‟s

76

presence. The method of questionnaire as used in this research will be discussed in the upcoming section.

3.7.1.4 Questionnaires

According to Hopkins (2002, p. 117) questionnaires ask specific questions about a subject matter. He describes it as a „quick and simple way of obtaining broad and rich information‟. However, the term „quick and simple‟ is highly debatable. This description belies the technicality involved in constructing high quality questionnaires.

Munn and Drever (1999) confirm that much skill is required to produce and administer an effective questionnaire especially when the piloting and redrafting phases are considered.

3.7.1.4.1 Construction and Piloting the Research Instrument

A pilot study is used to test techniques and procedures (Anderson and Arsenault, 1998).

Researchers agree that it is critical to carry out a pilot study especially when undertaking a large-scale research. Opie (2004) also states that piloting research instruments is also a vital process in their design. The pilot process is used to identify any aspect of the research design and instruments that need adjustments and in extreme cases, redesign. In this research, observations and interviews were done in the foundation phase and the research design and instruments were piloted. The responses were analysed and the questions refined and ambiguities removed. Adjustments such as rephrasing questions, substituting more familiar terminologies for unfamiliar jargons (such as „inclusion‟) and reordering questions were done as appropriate.

3.7.1. 4.2 Questionnaire Content

The researcher spent nine months in MMPS conducting a case study. Several observations were made and views noted amongst teachers and administrators with regards to how they manage the SEN of pupils. Some of these factors were fed into the content of the questionnaires that were distributed. For example, the researcher was told and observed how pupils with SEN impacted classes at MMPS. For example, this observation was factored in Question 15 of the teachers‟ questionnaire which solicited their views about how their classes were affected by the SEN displayed by their pupils.

See Appendices 8 and 9 for teachers‟ and administrators‟ questionnaires respectively.

One of the opportunities open to researchers is using a combination of data collected, that is, qualitative and quantitative data (Burton et al, 2008). This option was

77

utilised because it capitalises on the strengths of both domains although admittedly it presents difficulties too. The questionnaires were primarily qualitative reflecting the orientation of the research. It contains 3 sections. Section 1 collected demographic data of the respondents with regards to gender, teaching experience (both generally and in specifically in a shift school), qualification and school‟s students grouping strategy. In Section 2, qualitative data was required about respondents‟ conceptualisation of SEN. In the third section, questions solicited information regarding the facilities and strategies which were used to meet the pupils‟ SEN. Every questionnaire had a cover page that introduced the researcher, the research, offers the promise of confidentiality and solicited respondents‟ co-operation (see Appendix 7).

3.7.4.1.3 Administration of Questionnaires

Leeuw and Hox (2008) posit that it is the norm for school research to use self-administered questionnaires. In a self-self-administered questionnaire the process is wholly self-administered – there is no researcher to administer the survey, ask questions or record answers. However, they also bring to the fore that there are nuances involved in the administering of „self-administered‟ as is revealed in the following statement:

In an effort to combine the advantages of interviews administered and self-administered data collection techniques, various forms

of interviewer initiated self administered surveys have been developed which differ in the amount of interviewer involvement (p.256).

In three schools (Tulip Grove, Sycamore and Daisy Queen*) the researcher was instructed to deliver the questionnaires and they were administered by the schools‟

administration (Principal and Vice Principals). They were later collected by the researcher. However, in all the other schools the researcher was granted permission to administer the questionnaires. In the latter case, some participants took the questionnaires and agreed to complete them by themselves at their own pace and convenience. Some respondents were only willing to complete the questionnaire on the condition that the researcher recorded their responses. It is worth noting that of the 231 questionnaires, only 47 (20%) were completed by the „interviewer-assisted‟ method (see Table 3.2). One may argue that what was done in the latter case was structured interviews rather than questionnaires. This assessment would be inaccurate since the critical features of an interview of probing and cross-checks (Taylor and Bogdan, 1998) were not applied. In this case, the researcher simply acted in the capacity of

„amanuensis‟- a scribe in a non-interventionist manner in order to overcome the time

78

constraints experienced by the respondents in the afore-mentioned „time pressurised‟

environment of shift schools.

In addition to MMPS, (the case school) nine other schools participated in the survey.

One of the limitations of utilising questionnaire as a method of data collection is that of non-response. Lynn (2008) posits that response rates are important and therefore should be documented explicitly. This will be reflected in Table 3.3.