Purposive sampling

Krathwohl (2004: 229) indicates purposive sampling as the most used technique in qualitative research. According to Krathwohl (2004:229) and Creswell (2008: 10, 216), the purposive sampling technique is applied to get a wide range of participants’ views for the study. The purposive sampling technique was useful to identify the participants in both Basic School A and Basic School B who were “information rich” for an in-depth study, and who provided special access to data collection from the field of inquiry (Patton 2002:46, in: MacMillan & Schumacher 1997:397; White 2005:120).

From a theoretical viewpoint, a sampling strategy wants to point out and describe the important themes that cut across a number of variations (Patton 2002: 235). Patton (2002: 235) states that a small, diverse sample ought to be selected to enable detailed descriptions of each case and eminent patterns cutting across the cases. Creswell (2008: 216) also remarks that in a qualitative empirical research, the researcher may sample research participants that differ in terms of gender, status, qualification and experience (see table 4.1 below).

There were 10 basic schools of equal weight in terms of management and status in Mongu Township from which the two studied basic schools were purposively sampled as already indicated. The researcher used the following criteria to select the two studied basic schools. The researcher considered the experience which the head teachers of the two studied basic schools had in running the school affairs and felt that they were the right managers to provide

127

specific information regarding the management of curriculum change. Furthermore, the researcher worked in the district as an inspector of schools for long and had a rich knowledge of the schools, which explains why he was able to purposefully select the schools best suited for the purpose of the study. The previous two basic school head teachers, before the present ones took over the school management and administration, had been in the system as heads of the basic schools for more than 15 years in the case of Basic School B and more than 11 years in the case of Basic School A, which was enough to warrant their experience. The current head teachers of Basic School A and Basic School B had not yet gained the rich experience of the previous head teachers in the management and administration of the basic school affairs, because they have been recently appointed to manage the schools. It was also for this reason that the researcher undertook this study at their schools to ascertain the extent to which the current head teachers and their class teachers managed curriculum change.

The two basic schools were purposively sampled because they had a rich history of providing education for a long period of time. The two basic schools had many teachers and learners at the time when the purposeful sampling was done to select the teachers who participated in the study. Basic School A had 64 teachers of which 5 were males and 59 females; and Basic School B had 56 teachers of which 3 were males and 53 were female class teachers, although the figure changed periodically due to transfers and deaths. There were more female class teachers in the township schools than males due to marital considerations, meaning more female teachers were married to males who were working in the township.

Additionally, the two basic schools were purposively sampled because they had a huge enrolment of learners. Basic School A had 2,427 learners and Basic School B had 2,345 learners at the time of the study. The huge number of learners allowed the researcher to obtain information on how the class teachers handled and managed them in implementing and managing curriculum change. The teacher population of the two basic schools met the criteria set by the researcher to be able to select suitable and reliable research participants who were charged with tasks and responsibilities to implement and manage curriculum change. Some basic school teachers were old enough to tell stories about the past management of curriculum change, particularly in Basic School A, because they went through the processes of curriculum change and policy changes in Zambia. Therefore, they had a rich knowledge of the theme under study and were suitable to be involved in the research activity.

128

The following research participants were purposefully identified and sampled from the two basic schools: the 2 head teachers, the 2 deputy head teachers, three senior teachers and the twelve subject or classroom teachers from each school (making up a total of 24 class teachers). Purposive and convenience sampling was used to sample the research participants. The managers were selected by virtue of the direct responsibilities and accountabilities they hold in the two studied basic schools as the managers of the schools that are responsible for the daily execution of education programmes and the implementation of curriculum change. There were only three senior teachers per school according to the stipulation of the Ministry of General Education and so the three senior teachers qualified to be sampled for the study. Subject teachers were selected from the rest of the teachers by virtue of the vast teaching experience they possessed.

The research participants that were selected for the interviews in Basic School A and Basic School B included the two head teachers (one from each school), two deputy head teachers (one from each school), six senior teachers (three from each school) and 24 subject teachers (12 were obtained from each school). Initially, the subject co-ordinators were scheduled to be covered in the study, but they were dropped due to the reason below.

The position of a basic school subject co-ordinator was previously functional in the basic schools. Unfortunately, the position was scrapped and phased out by the Ministry of Education and was replaced by the position of the Head of Department (HOD) in secondary schools. For this reason, the subject co-ordinators were dropped and not covered in the study. Table 4.1 below shows that each basic school provided 6 research participants for the focus group interviews only. The two focus group interviews consisted of six class teachers each (sometimes called subject teachers).

The total number of 34 research participants in the Basic Schools A and B was covered in the semi-structured and focus group interviews. It meant that each basic school provided 17 research participants for the study. The researcher made use of the background information about the basic schools provided by the Basic School A and B head teachers in sampling the participants purposefully in the Basic Schools A and B for conducting the semi-structured and focus group interviews. The background information of the research participants assisted in providing the participants involved in each category in terms of gender, marital status,

129

qualification and experience.Table 4.1 Summary of the characteristics of the participants in Basic Schools A and B

Positions Staff Qualifications Age – range Sex Marital Status Masters Degree Diploma

Primary Certificate Head Teachers 2 40-45 2 ml m Deputy Head Teachers 2 40-48 2 f m Senior Teachers 1 5 40-45 4 f & 2 ml m Classroom or Subject Teachers 1 11 12 35-40 22 f & 2 ml m

Total number of research participants for the study 34 Key: m-married; f-females; ml-males

The background information about the research participants is reflected in the table which include: qualifications, sex, marital status, age-range and positions held in the schools. There were 34 research participants in all who were involved in interviews, which comprised the head teachers, the deputy head teachers, the senior teachers and the class or subject teachers. Twelve of these class teachers took part in the focus group interviews as the researcher was interested in hearing their stories on curriculum change also within a group context. A total number of 6 males and 28 females participated as research participants in this study. The characteristics of the selected research participants will also be discussed in Chapter five (see Table 5.1 and Table 5.2 in Chapter five and also paragraph 5.2).

The marital statuses of the research participants were taken into consideration because it is a requirement of officers to indicate their marital statuses when they are recruited and for the purpose of annual statistics on staff returns to the Ministry of General Education Head Quarters. Marital status indicates elements of respect to married teachers, and prospects for elevation by way of promotions. Married officers are considered to be very responsible persons because,

130

comparatively, they manage their home affairs very well and can, presumably, manage school affairs in the same manner they manage their households.