Research Methods and Data Analysis

A research design is a plan and structure of investigation, aimed at obtaining answers to research questions (Ayiro, 2012:61). Methodology, as an imperative aspect of this design, is the theory of research methods and involves the process of creating reliable and valid knowledge (Basit 2010: 6). The choice of methodology is a reflection of the ontological and epistemological approach of the researcher.

The methods most commonly used in educational research can be classified into two broad fields of methodology, namely that of quantitative and of qualitative research. The so-called

108

‘incompatibility thesis’ or ‘paradigm wars’ claimed that these two particular methods are mutually exclusive. Within this view, quantitative research is defined as scientific and realist, while qualitative methodologies and non-scientific and subjective (Tunmer et al., 2003:90, Muijs, 2004:3-4). In more recent years, support for the ‘incompatibility thesis’ has declined, as there are no longer pragmatic or epistemological reasons for viewing qualitative and quantitative research as mutually exclusive methodologies (Tunmer, et al. 2003:92).

The research design used in this study is an attempt to garner information compatible with the researcher’s eclectic view of knowledge. Therefore, a mixed-method research design was employed, allowing the researcher to execute large-scale experiments to gather and analyse generalisable data together with an in-depth investigation of a smaller number of issues with a smaller portion of participants (Basit, 2010:17).

The quantitative aspect of the design involves large scale testing of mathematical competence in Grade R research participants. The test administered is a paper-and-pencil type test and questions are presented to children requiring them to complete cognitive tasks. The results are summarised to obtain quantifiable data (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010:188).

Testing follows standardised procedures and the same questions are asked each time the test is used, with a specific set of directions guiding the administration of the test (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010:189). However, although most standardised tests are commercially prepared by measurement experts, no commercially available standardised group test is available to test the mathematical competence of preprimary school children within a South African context. The researcher prepared her own test instrument with the guidance and help of a panel of experts (three teachers and two experts in the field of educational psychology). The statistical significance of the difference in the means between the control groups’ and experimental groups’ results will be established through an ANOVA test analysis.

Within this quantitative design a quasi-experimental approach was thought fit. This design approximates a true experimental design that statistically draws comparisons between subjects who did and who did not experience the intervention to determine a cause-and-effect relationship. The primary difference between a true experimental design and the quasi-experimental design used here is that there is no random assignment of subjects (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010:22). As is

109

often the case in educational research, the researcher has no control over the fact that participants are assigned to a particular class or particular teacher. In addition to this fact, research is carried out in the child’s natural setting and the experimental and control groups were closely, but not perfectly matched for age, gender and ethnic origin (Basit, 2010:32). That being said, care was taken to match research participants within the experimental and control groups for origination from similar geographic regions and socio-economic status groups, thereby eliminating the need for a pre-test/post-test design and opting rather for an exclusively post-test design.

An advantage of the quasi-experimental method applied in this study is that research results were obtained in a real-world setting rather than a laboratory, which makes it a good research tool to evaluate new initiatives and educational programmes (Muijs, 2004:29). Unfortunately, exercising meticulous control of the intervention is unlikely. As per Muijs’s recommendation, the researcher monitored how the intervention or non-intervention was carried out within the two groups and what the content elements of the intervention/non-intervention were by means of the qualitative research method of interviewing (Muijs, 2004:30), which helped to triangulate research results.

The in-depth face-to-face interview survey method used with participating teachers was adopted because the researcher wanted to build rapport with the respondents and clarify points they raised, facilitating a fuller response (Basit, 2010:28). A further advantage of a face-to-face interview is that the researcher can probe and rephrase questions, which, considering the cultural and language differences between the participating teachers in the research study was an imperative point to take into account. This is the primary reason why the researcher opted for an interview rather than a written questionnaire or survey, where questions could be misconstrued or answers randomly selected without in-depth clarification. Secondary to this, the researcher hoped to uncover unconsidered factors in the research study, which would be possible when using this qualitative research method.

The interview conducted was semi-structured, which means that the respondent did not have choices from which to answer, but the questions raised were fairly specific in intent (McMillan & Schumacher 2010: 206). This provided extensive in-depth information that could be probed, clarified and elaborated (Lodico et al., 2010:122). The detailed verbal and non-verbal responses of the respondents were recorded and contextualised.

110

Based on the suggestions of Tustin et al. (2005: 696) once the data from the interview method had been obtained, certain important steps had to be taken to interpret and analyse it. The data were coded and broken up into groups or elements that the researcher examined and translated into immediate results. Following this, these results were interpreted to produce integrated and meaningful general inferences and findings. These meaningful inferences and findings are relevant to the original aims of the research study.