Sampling

Purposive sampling involves sampling in strategic ways to gather a sample that is relevant to the topic being studied (Bryman, 2008). I used purposive sampling to strike a balance in the homogeneity and heterogeneity within the focus groups for discussing grades and report cards. Focus groups can benefit from using pre-acquainted groups as their participants and they are typically conducted with groups that share a degree of homogeneity (Barbour, 2007; Kitzinger, 1994; Litosseliti, 2003; Smithson, 2008). On the other hand, heterogeneity within the group can help to ensure participants with diverse opinions and experiences, so others suggest striking a balance with the similarities and differences of group members (Bloor et al., 2001; Flores &

Alonso, 1995). In educational studies, mixed gender groups reflect the reality of the classroom and can be helpful for sparking discussion (Litosseliti, 2003; Smithson, 2008). Others suggest that mixed methodology studies using focus groups in conjunction with surveys should have focus group participants reflect

the sample of the survey (Bloor et al., 2001). If focus group participants don’t reflect the sample of the survey, it can lead to invalid meta-inferences at the conclusion of a Parallel Mixed Design study (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006).

To create groups reflecting both classroom realities and the population sample of questionnaire participants, I established my sampling frame using grade level strata and gender (Cohen et al., 2011). Homogenizing by grade level with an equal number of boys and girls also allowed for a degree of comparison between the two years of the study with consideration for the different forms of report cards that were implemented at the different grade levels (Morgan, 1996). Students were then selected randomly from within their grade level strata and gender groups in the attempt to avoid friendship groups as participants often talk more freely if they don’t know each other (Flores & Alonso, 1995).

On average, focus group literature recommends a range of five to nine participants (Barbour, 2007; Bloor et al., 2001; Flores & Alonso, 1995; Kitzinger, 1995; Litosseliti, 2003; Morgan, 1996; Smithson, 2008). Smaller groups are often better for sensitive topics (Bloor et al., 2001; Litosseliti, 2003; Morgan, 1996), while larger groups can result in some participants remaining silent (Smithson, 2008). Another factor I considered was overrecruiting in the anticipation of absences, as not all students who agree to take part are able to attend (Bloor et al., 2001). Using these considerations, I targeted 8-10 participants for each grade level focus group.

In assembling the Year One focus group participants, I used different approaches by grade level. Because Grade 5 and 6 students at SIS do not

regularly check email, after randomly selecting five boys and five girls, I went to meet with potential participants during the start of the day advisory time8 _to

8 _{Every grade in the SIS middle school began the day with a 30-minute advisory class.}

Advisories consisted of approximately 12 students and one teacher, with the purpose of meeting the social and emotional needs of students.

explain optional participation in the study and pass out consent forms to interested students.

Because Grade 7 & 8 students had their own laptops, I emailed selected participants to introduce myself and the study. Since I taught Grade 7, I drew my random sample for Grade 7 from students I did not teach. Emailing students was problematic because many students I contacted never replied, a common problem which often results in focus group participants being selected based on their availability (Smithson, 2008). The high non-response rate led to a

prolonged period of selecting further names until I had received an acceptable number of signed consent forms. These non-responses and opt-outs represent a potential for bias within the data collected from the focus groups (Gorard, 2013). The students who did not feel comfortable speaking to teachers and peers about grades and report cards may have had valuable perspectives on the topic, but I was only able to ethically seek out those students who were interested and comfortable in discussing the topic within the described setting.

There were no repeat students who participated in focus groups during both years of data collection. It is worth noting that some of the students in the Grade 8 focus groups were students that I had taught the previous year when they were in Grade 7. I contemplated excluding previously taught students from sample selection, but concluded that as I was no longer teaching those students they would feel reasonably free to state their thoughts and opinions within the existing constraints of me still being a teacher at the school. Table 4.1 below details the Year One students I contacted and those who participated by grade level.

Table 4.1: Year One Focus Groups: Students Contacted and Student Participants Grade Students Selected and

Contacted Who Returned Signed Student Participants Consent Forms

5 10 8

6 10 10

7 23 7

8 30 8

Selection of Year Two focus group participants followed Year One procedures. The lone exception was that the poor Grades 7 & 8 email response rate during Year One led me to meet participants in-person to ask for

participation during Year Two selection. To alleviate pressure to participate, I repeatedly stated that participation was entirely optional. Face-to-face meetings dramatically improved response rates - so dramatically that I reflected

afterwards that even with repeated assurances of voluntary participation, some students likely felt pressured to participate. Table 4.2 below details the Year Two students I contacted and those who participated by grade level.

Table 4.2: Year Two Focus Groups: Students Contacted and Student Participants Grade Students Selected and

Contacted Student Participants Who Returned Signed Consent Forms

5 8 8

6 11 8

7 18 6

8 14 7