Sample selection for the qualitative data collection

The selection of the sample for qualitative data collection was based on the willingness of the STPM Biology students and teachers. Due to the problem which the researcher faced in selecting participants for interviews and observations, the number of

109

participants involved in the qualitative data collection was not fixed by the researcher. The researcher tried to observe as many of the teachers and students who were willing. At the end of the research there were 16 out of 32 teachers approached and appointments made for observations and 5 teachers for interviews, and 6 out of 29 students approached and appointments made for observations and 10 students for interviews. At the end of the data collection process there were 5 out of the 16 teachers observed who were willing to allow the researcher to observe their lessons twice. There were 3 teachers who allowed the researcher to observe their lessons more than three times. As for the rest of the teachers the researcher only managed to observe their lessons once. Table 4.27 shown the number of participants for the classroom observation and interview.

Table 4.27 Total Participants for Classroom Observations and Interviews

Types of qualitative

research Students Total participants Teachers

Classroom Observations 6 16

Interviews 10 6

Due to the difficulties in getting teachers’ permission for the classroom observations separately, the researcher decided to combine the teachers’ and students’ classroom observations. The researcher conducted the observations for teachers and students simultaneously as explained earlier in the chapter. For each and every classroom observation the researcher recorded the interactions in the classroom between both teachers and students and students and students as accurately as possible.

The researcher met great challenges in observing and interviewing teachers and students. With teachers, many of the set appointments were not kept due to ad hoc staff meetings, call for duties by the MOE, medical leave, prolonged assemblies and other errands which ate up the time of the teachers. Therefore, the researcher was not able to meet up with the teachers to conduct observations and interviews at the set time. Hence,

110

new appointments had to be made for the observations or interviews. In some cases, the researcher had to extend her stay in other states just to ensure that the observations and interviews were conducted at the appointed date and time with the teachers. As the researcher needed to schedule her travels nationwide, this situation interrupted the travel schedule tremendously. Therefore the duration for data collection in total was 18 months. Another challenge was that some teachers were very reluctant to be observed as they had very negative thoughts of being observed. To them, any form of observation was meant for reporting their faults in teaching. Despite the researcher having explained clearly that the observation was meant only for the current research purposes and not for reporting their teaching, at times the researcher reached the school as scheduled, some teachers turned down the observation session at the last minute. Hence, the researcher had to seek another teacher for observation in the particular state or district. This situation also caused many problems to the researcher in identifying the participants for observations and interviews.

A similar situation happened among the student participants. Appointments were made with the students, however most of the time the appointments were turned down due to a tight schooling schedule and ad hoc assemblies and activities of the school. Some of the students also find it difficult to have time for interviews out of schooling hours as they were rushing home for their tuition classes and other self-development lessons like piano and art classes. Hence, the researcher had to seek for chances in between the schooling hours to have the students’ interviews.

Table 4.28 and Table 4.29 show the records of the observations and interviews. The observations were done in the authentic lessons situation without any intervention. Meanwhile the interviews were conducted during the teacher’s free time based on appointment, and after school when students are waiting for their transport to go home.

111

Table 4.28 Observation records

Observation Teacher _{Readiness Scales} Scores in Pedagogy Total students in _class Learning Environment

SFN1 A 231 Lecture 19 Teacher Centred

SFN2 B - Lecture 25 Teacher Centred

TFN1 A 231 Lecture 23 Teacher Centred

TFN2 Z 239 Lecture 7 Teacher Centred

TFN3 Z 239 Lecture 29 Teacher Centred

TFN4 E 239 Lecture 9 Teacher Centred

TFN5 N 259 Lecture 45 Teacher Centred

TFN6 J 202 Field Work 25 Student Centred

TFN7 Z 239 Lecture 23 Teacher Centred

TFN8 Z 239 Lecture 8 Teacher Centred

TFN9 I 181 Lecture 10 Teacher Centred

TFN10 Z 239 Lecture 30 Teacher Centred

TFN11 J 202 Experiment 28 Student Centred

TFN12 J 202 Field Work 28 Student Centred

TFN13 J 202 Lecture 45 Teacher Centred

TFN14 E 239 Lecture 10 Teacher Centred

TFN15 E 239 Experiment 10 Teacher Centred

TFN16 F 249 Lecture 2 Teacher Centred

TFN17 F 249 Lecture / Experiment 3 Teacher /Student Centred

TFN18 Q 221 Lecture 2 Teacher Centred

TFN19 Q 221 Lecture 2 Teacher Centred

TFN20 H 250 Lecture 19 Teacher Centred

TFN21 D 240 Group Presentation 5 Student Centred

TFN22 G 212 Lecture 17 Teacher Centred

TFN23 S 216 Lecture 16 Teacher Centred

TFN24 K 192 Group Presentation 29 Student Centred

TFN25 M 233 Lecture 6 Teacher Centred

TFN26 T - Lecture 15 Teacher Centred

TFN27 W 251 Lecture 15 Teacher Centred

TFN28 W 251 Lecture 8 Teacher Centred

Table 4.29 Interview records

Interview Participants Scores in Readiness Scales TI1 Teacher 1 231 TI2 Teacher 2 239 TI3 Teacher 3 239 TI4 Teacher 4 249 TI5 Teacher 5 221 SI1 Student 1 140 SI2 Student 2 185

SI3 Student 3a, 3b 146, 167

SI4 Student 4 191

SI5 Student 5 144

SI6 Student 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d 165