Research instruments

The data collected for this qualitative research was sourced via questionnaire responses, interview transcripts, and accessible relevant AC: E

extant texts.

Questionnaires enable researchers to consider initial responses about the otherwise hidden responses to general and focused questions, which can be followed up with further questions and or interviews. Participants of this study were first given the opportunity to complete a questionnaire with closed and open-ended response sections. Questionnaire responses afforded identification of general and common ideas about the participants’ experiences of the AC: E

implementation. This facilitated points of interest for the researcher to follow-up with participants in the ensuing interviews.

The responses from the questionnaire assisted the researcher to create a tailored, semi-structured interview schedule for each participant. The HREC and EPS ethically approved interview schedule (see Appendix B) was used as a guide during the interview to assist the researcher in keeping the interview discussion on point. The interviews were open-ended, semi-structured and guided by the

participant, allowing the participants to feel comfortable to speak about the issues of concern to them about the implementation of the AC: E.

Audio recording of one-on-one semi-structured interviews provided rich qualitative data. Open-ended questions were used to draw detailed answers otherwise not recorded by written response in the questionnaire (Creswell, 2012). These recordings were transcribed and edited. Participant names and other identifiable material, were replaced with pseudonyms, such as ‘P1’, for qualifying statements and information. The transcripts were individually reviewed for approval by participants for content clarity and anonymity – a process which adheres to ethical standards, prior to researcher analysis of the data.

The questionnaire responses and interview transcript data were read and coded by the researcher, using line-by-line selective-coding of ideas and issues, through a constructivist grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2000, 2006; Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006) methodology is elaborated in section 3.6.1. The questionnaire and interview data served as the core data of this research.

Inclusion of pre-existing AC: E extant texts as data support (see section 3.5.4, below) also assisted in the creation of semi-structured interview questions and the generation of theoretical direction for richer contextual analysis, suitable for the case study and data analysis approaches of this research. The collection and analysis of AC: E related texts or information from school leadership and education sector resource repositories, was done in order for the researcher to gain awareness of the types of AC: E materials that the teachers had access to, and the processes in which the teachers gained information and instruction concerning the

AC: E.

The AC: E extant text data were collated throughout the life of the research project. Authorisation for researcher access to extant texts, impeded collection of materials, in some cases. A flexible data collection approach was

taken by the researcher to enable the order of data collection phases to match data and research participants’ availability. A flexible approach to data collection also

afforded researcher reflexivity in the data collection processes and the creation of tailored interview schedules for individual participants, based on the content of their questionnaire responses.

The data collection sequence for this project is shown in Table 3.1 (see Appendix E.3.1), indicates the type of data collected and when. It is important to note that the extant text collection continued into 2015, as reviews of the

Australian Curriculum by ACARA and Australian government for the 2014,

school year were not completed until this time.

The major sources of data of this research included the questionnaire and semi-structured interview transcript data. These data sources provide a subjective context or qualitative snapshot of the experiences of the AC: E reform for

teachers, by research participants, not found in other considered data approaches. One approach that was initially considered but not used by the researcher was a focus group interview. This was rejected by the researcher, since it was considered by the researcher that dominant teachers would intimidate or block less confident teachers. Further, the researcher considered that less dominant teachers would not answer or contribute as fully in the presence of dominant or superordinate colleagues. Further, in a focus group scenario, participants would not have participant anonymity, as discussed by Gibbs, who says that focus groups:

discourage certain people from participating, for example those who are not very articulate or confident, and those who have communication problems or special needs. The method of focus group discussion may also discourage some people from trusting others with sensitive or personal information. In such cases personal interviews or the use of

workbooks alongside focus groups may be a more suitable approach. Finally, focus groups are not fully confidential or anonymous, because the material is shared with the others in the group (Gibbs, 1997, para. 15)

The researcher selected individual interviews, where participants were able to express with greater confidence than in a focus group situation, their perspectives of curriculum reform in specific contextual detail, and at length. Contextualisation in case study approach is vital (Babione, 2014; Fetterman, 2014; Goffman, 1958). The researcher acknowledges this through the use of extant texts, and the employment of open-ended questions in the questionnaire and semi-structured interview schedule, to situate and strengthen the effectiveness of the data.