Qualitative educational interpretive research methodology

research approach combines both qualitative and interpretive methodologies to make interpretations within the educational field.

Epistemologically the interpretive approach has an anti-positivist orientation, as it emphasises that knowledge and understanding can be obtained through the experiences of the actors in their social context (Merriam, 2001; Neuman, 2009). The anti-positivists aim at understanding the subject’s lived experiences and interpreting and giving meaning from a subjective perspective.

The interpretive methodology is one of the different types or varieties of qualitative research (Merriam, 2001; Neuman, 2009). The educational interpretive approach involves understanding people’s meanings, purposes and behaviour within an educational community (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2010; Merriam, 2001). The interpretive approach is also called basic, descriptive or the constructivist/constructionist approach and is one of the methodologies subsumed under the term qualitative research (Best & Kahn, 2006, p. 261; Cohen et al, 2010; Andrade, 2009). Qualitative studies provide exploratory and detailed narrative descriptions that use the context and setting to search for deeper understanding of the phenomenon being studied (McMillian & Schumacher, 2001; Best & Kahn, 2006). By employing the qualitative educational interpretive methodology this study aimed to provide

28 _{Brenda transferred from Martindale to another farm school, Sidbury and could no longer attend NICLE,} whilst Swallow only sporadically attended the NICLE 2012 sessions, citing increased administrative responsibilities.

rich ‘thick descriptions’ (Cohen et al, 2010, p. 169; Miles & Huberman, 1986, p. 10) on how primary teachers learn and fashion their maths identity through participation in NICLE. A synthesised definition of interpretive is that it is a form of qualitative research employed to understand, describe and interpret in-depth the participant’s lived experiences from their point of view (Merriam, 2001; Neuman, 2009; Cohen et al, 2010; Andrade, 2009). Under the interpretive approach the phenomenon or the subject’s ‘lived experience’ and their view of reality is paramount (Andrade, 2009, p. 43; Cohen et al, 2010). Thus the interpretive approach provides an opportunity to gain deep insight into the participant’s experiences with the researcher becoming the vehicle by which this reality is revealed (Cohen, et al 2010; Andrade, 2009; Neuman, 2009). According to Andrade (2009, p. 45) “interpretive research makes it possible to present the researcher’s own constructions as well as those of all the participants”. The sampled primary teachers’ point of view, their voices and thus their learning stories will therefore be central in this qualitative interpretive research study. Foregrounding the experiences of the teachers will enrich and enhance my description and interrogation of the nature of teacher learning within the primary maths professional development programme.

The qualitative interpretive approach involves prolonged fieldwork and employs a variety of field methods, with the three primary strategies for gathering data being participant observation, in-depth interviews and document collection in the context of a single study (Neuman, 2009; McMillan & Schumacher, 2001; Miles & Huberman, 1986; Best & Kahn, 2006). This study therefore gathered data across a two-year period of the programme, from March 2011 to December 2012, using the following strategies: interactive interviews/narrative interviews (Corbin & Morse, 2003, p. 339), participant observations, reflective journals and document collection and analysis. I elaborate on each of these in the next section.

Using different data collection strategies enhances both the internal validity of data through triangulation and the generalisability of the research findings by providing in-depth and rich data (Merriam, 2001; Cohen et al, 2010; McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). According to Connelly and Clandinin (1990), using different data sources also promotes different temporal orientations, with the data gathering strategies used in this study being located and emphasising on the past, present and the future. On the other hand interactive interviews and

reflective journals helped in bringing the voices of the teacher to the forefront of this study. This provides richness for the study and also enabled the voices of the teachers to be heard. The data gathered through participant observations, interactive interviews, document collection and journal entries alongside the theoretical framework; the research questions and pertinent literature illuminate the discussions in Chapter 8, 9 and 10. Overall the interpretive research methodology assists me to understand and describe as accurately and richly as possible the sampled NICLE teachers’ experiences (Chapter 6 & 7) and how this impacts and affects primary maths teacher learning and identity formation (Chapter 8, 9 & 10). In doing so I will address the overarching and the three research questions that investigate the nature of primary maths teacher learning and how identities and practices evolve through participation in NICLE and also in relation to the broader context.

Three key reasons inform my choice of this research approach. Firstly the qualitative interpretive approach relates well with the sociocultural theory and the empirical field of research (that is NICLE’s views on learning). Social learning theorists have used qualitative approaches and interpretive methods (such as ethnography, observations, diaries, interviews etc.) to explain how learning is perceived as participation in communities of practice (Lave, 1996; Wenger, 1998; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Lave et al, 1984). Thus my research methodology coheres with the theoretical framework informing this study and its perspective on learning, which concurs with Andrade (2009) and Neuman (2009) definitions of the interpretive approach that “knowledge and reality is gained only through social construction” (Andrade, 2009, p. 43) or that “reality is socially created” (Neuman, 2009, p. 108). Secondly, and following the participationists’ research methods and the above quotations, the qualitative interpretive approach is considered the most suitable methodology to investigate the overarching research question which interrogates the nature of teacher learning within NICLE. Thirdly my use of the interpretive research methodology is also motivated by the Chair’s perspective on primary maths teacher learning within NICLE, which is explained as “active participation of all members in the community” (Graven, 2011b, p. 3). In this regard the Chair’s situated view of learning, the theoretical framework informing this study and the main research question has influenced my methodological choices. Thus I have used the qualitative interpretive approach because it resonates with the sociocultural theoretical framework, the learning design of the empirical field and the key research question underpinning this study.

In this study my unit of research analysis is the ‘numeracy teacher in-NICLE’. The ‘numeracy teacher in-NICLE’ unit of analysis is informed by Lave’s suggestion that in Communities of Practice “knowledge and learning will be found distributed throughout the complex structure of persons-acting-in-setting” (Lave, 1993a, p. 9). It incorporates Vygotsky’s goal, that of “person-in-activity” which can be extended to “person-in-practice- in-person” or to “mind-in-society-in-mind” (Lerman, 2000, p. 38). Thus the study can also extend its unit of analysis to the ‘numeracy teacher-in-NICLE-in-numeracy teacher’. Secondly Miles and Huberman (1986, p. 25) definition of the unit of analysis as the “focus or heart of the study” also helped me in delineating the study’s basic element of research. Thus the main focus of this study is on ‘how primary maths teachers learn in relation to

participation in NICLE’. This unit of analysis is informed by the overarching research

question underpinning the broader PhD study. Defining the unit of research analysis helps in delineating and determining the boundary of the case and what will not be studied (Miles & Huberman, 1986). Both Shulman and Shulman (2004) and Borko (2004), who have studied teacher learning in communities of practice-informed contexts have simultaneously identified ‘the individual teacher’ and his or her learning on the one hand, and the ‘group/community of teachers’ on the other hand as their fundamental units of analysis. Similarly Wenger (1998, p. 146) explains that, “it is therefore a mistaken dichotomy to wonder whether the unit of analysis of identity should be the community or the person. The focus must be on the process of their mutual constitution”. Borko (2004) and Shulman and Shulman (2004) went on to identify policy and context as other levels of analysis. Thus whilst the study’s unit of research analysis will be the ‘numeracy teacher-in-NICLE’ I will also investigate how national curriculum policies and other contextual factors enable or constrain teacher evolving identities and practices.

Having outlined the research methodology used in this study, below I discuss the research study sample. Thereafter I explain the four data collection strategies used to gather data and the kind of data collected through each of the methods.