QUALITATIVE DATA GATHERING

The questions that could not be answered quantitatively were:

− How is the literacy level of the readers likely to affect readability?

− What background knowledge are the readers likely to bring to the text and how might this affect the readability?

− How is this text likely to be mediated in the classroom? − What is the kind of comprehension necessary?

The tools used in the qualitative data gathering were both text line-by-line analysis of the texts as well as focus group discussions with teachers using the texts.

3.5.1. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

The goal of focus-group discussions is two-fold; it aims to elicit information on a specific topic as well as to seek an in-depth understanding of the meanings developed by the actors within the group setting (Vaughn, Schumm & Sinagub, 1996; Schurink, Schurink & Poggenpoel, 1998; Berg, 1998; Southwood, 2000; Babikwa, 2003). The assumption is that actors are valuable sources of information and that, within a relaxed environment, a more in-depth understanding of issues can be obtained (Vaughn et al., 1996:17). Focus-group

80

discussions were a very important part of qualitative data collection. The opinions of the teachers using the textbooks being analysed, as well as their knowledge of the learners taking Physical Science in grade 10, was invaluable and a rich source of data.

That textbooks and their effectiveness, are close to the heart of the participating teachers, was very obvious from the strength of their participation during the discussions. Babikwa (2003:59) emphasizes that the issues discussed in a focus group should be of mutual interest to the co-researchers. The suggestions made by Davies (1999:105), that the researcher should take the role of the key actor and should ensured that the other actors are given a voice (Wellington, 2000:72) in the process, was put into practice in the focus-group discussions for this research. The focus-groups were small, comprising the ‘science department’ of a school and this resulted in the discussions being in-depth and also allowed each teacher to give his/her opinion liberally.

One of the characteristics that distinguishes focus groups from other qualitative interview procedures is the dynamic and interactive group discussion (Vaughn et al., 1996; Cohen et al., 2000). The transcripts of the discussions held bears testimony to the lively interactive nature of these as well as the richness of data gathered, as the teachers sought to give voice to their concerns and challenges of using the texts in the classroom. Cohen et al. (ibid:288) argue that actors’ views emerge from interaction during focus groups and as such, the synergy may allow solutions to problems to be generated collaboratively (Berg, 1998:101 - 4). The teachers felt at ease to make suggestions as to what would help in making the textbooks more readable and those teaching learners in their second language were particularly enthusiastic in their input.

Southwood (2000:51) adds that “the synergetic effect from the focus group can encourage people to open up more, freeing people up to be more honest and critical.” As Lotz (1996:96) suggests, during focus-group discussions, interaction between participants should be informal to stimulate in-depth discussion and reflection on the topic. According to Morgan (cited in Davies, 1999:105):

81

The hallmark of focus groups is the explicit use of group interaction to produce data and insights that would have been less accessible without the interaction found in a group.

It is recognized, however, that while the focus-group approach may be conducive to productive discussions, the group dynamics can pose challenges for the researcher (Southwood, 2000:51). However, in this study the issues discussed were not of a sensitive nature and the teachers were generally unanimous regarding issues and problems experienced.

3.5.2. TEXTUAL ANALYSIS

3.5.2.1. VOCABULARY USED IN THE TEXTS

I analyzed the scientific vocabulary using Wellington and Osborne’s (2001) taxonomy of science words (see Chapter 2, section 2.3.1.). I took note of the non-technical and general vocabulary, analyzing whether efforts are made in the texts to support meaning and enhance comprehension.

3.5.2.2. GRAPHICACY AND LAYOUT OF THE TEXT.

Both graphicacy and layout affect readability and each textbook was individually analysed as to the layout. Drawings and photographs were analysed to see if they were supported by the accompanying texts and if they played a role in lowering the reading level of the text. Focus-group discussions with the teachers also revealed needs regarding this aspect of readability.

82

3.5.2.3. RHETORICAL STRUCTURING OF THE TEXT

I analyzed the rhetorical structuring of the selected samples to determine whether it aided or retarded the readability of the text. I also looked for any reference to rhetorical structuring during the focus group discussions.

3.5.2.4. PRIOR KNOWLEDGE ACTIVATION BY THE TEXT

The texts continually rely on background knowledge and I analysed them, highlighting where the understanding of a particular concept was dependent on work done in the previous grades. I then relied on the focus group discussions to give me an indication of the background knowledge the learners are bringing to the subject.

Motivation is also difficult to assess and here I again relied on the teacher’s ‘reading’ of his/her class and the affect that lack of motivation has on the assessed readability.

Examination of each of the facets comprising readability takes place using the data gathering technique best suited to it. Reliable and credible readability measures give an overall indication of the readability level of the textbooks: the data gathering and analysis of this is quantitative. The general understanding of the non-technical language of the learners using these books is also ascertained quantitatively.

The background knowledge of the learners cannot be measured quantitatively but this is investigated qualitatively through the focus group discussions with teachers. The type of difficulties regarding mediation of the text for this study was also gained qualitatively.

3.5.2.5. CONCEPTUAL COMPLEXITY

Conceptual complexity of the textbook was investigated by analysing the cognitive load (see Chapter 2, section 2.2.5.), the multi-level learning manipulations required to understand the text and whether the texts were considerate of WMC and avoided cognitive overload.

83

3.5.2.6. ALIGNMENT OF THE TEXTBOOKS TO THE CURRICULUM

The alignment of the books to the curriculum is also important in the context of this study and using the NCS Physical Sciences: Content Document (DoE, 2009) as a reference, I analyzed selected samples of the textbooks to determine how closely they are aligned to the above mentioned document.

Focus-group commentary also gave valuable insight into how well the teachers felt the books were aligned to the curriculum and what their strengths and weaknesses in this respect were.