Semi-structured interviews and data collection

In addition to the research group meetings, three individual interviews were held between myself (as interviewer) and each teacher researcher (as interviewee), immediately after the initial research group meeting (in July 2013), after the fourth meeting (in February 2014) and at the end of the project (in July 2014). The interviews were conducted in interviewees’

schools, to help them relax, to minimise demands on their time, and to help build relationships of trust between myself and teacher researchers. Whilst the same set of initial questions (shown below) were asked to all interviewees, follow-up questions (some of which are shown as bullet points below), consistent with an empathetic approach to interviewing (Fontana & Frey, 2008), were employed. These were individually tailored to explore responses in more detail.

Initial questions for interview 1:

a) What does teaching mathematics for social justice mean to you?

b) How do you think social justice relates to your current classroom practice?

c) What do you think teaching mathematics for social justice might look like in an ideal

world?

d) Where does your commitment to teaching mathematics for social justice come from?

e) What do you hope to get out of your participation in this project?

Initial questions for interview 2:

a) Comment on how valid you find the analysis and interpretation of your data for the first part of the project as presented on the sheet. [A thematic analysis of each individual teacher researcher’s data up until meeting 3 was provided in advance.]

• [Follow up questions prompted teacher researchers to consider each of the four initial themes emerging from the analysis.]

b) Tell me a bit more about the first classroom activity that you tried.

• In particular, how did it relate to TMSJ (teaching mathematics for social justice) and how did the students respond?

c) How will you approach the second classroom activity (or activities)?

• Which of the three activities agreed at meeting 4 will you try and how will you approach them differently to cycle 1?

d) How has your thinking on TMSJ developed since the start of the project?

• How has your classroom practice developed?

• What do you see as the opportunities and constraints for TMSJ? Initial questions for interview 3:

a) What does teaching mathematics for social justice mean to you now?

• How have your views changed since the beginning of the project?

• What factors do you think have most strongly influenced your views on TMSJ?

b) How do you think your classroom practice has changed, since the beginning of the

• What factors do you think have most strongly influenced the development of your classroom practice?

• What impact do you think this has had on your students?

c) How do you think you have benefited from your participation in this project?

• What did you like most about the project? • What would you change about the project?

In order to stimulate reflection and discussion of classroom interventions and research processes during meetings, teacher researchers were asked to keep research journals

(provided at the first meeting). They were also encouraged to video parts of their lessons and to present these during meetings, although only one of them actually did this. It was also suggested that teacher researchers might wish to observe each other teaching and provide feedback on each other’s lessons during the meetings. Whilst there was initial enthusiasm for this idea, a lack of funding to facilitate visits to other schools meant that it didn’t happen. All of the research group meetings and the interviews were audio-recorded, and these recordings generated most of the data used to narrate the stories of teacher researchers’ participation in the project.

In order for students’ voices to be heard, I considered it important that data was also collected from students involved in the project. Bearing in mind the collaborative nature of the research and teachers’ in-depth knowledge of the classroom situation, I felt it most appropriate for teacher researchers to collect data on students’ experiences, and to decide themselves what form this data collection should take. My role in this decision-making process was limited to facilitating discussions, drawing on my own research knowledge, suggesting possible data collection tools (including conducting interviews or focus groups, carrying out surveys,

collecting students’ work), and ensuring consistency so that meaningful comparisons might be made across different classrooms and schools.

Following a discussion on the collection of student-level data at meeting 2, it was decided that carrying out a student survey at the end of the classroom intervention was most appropriate for exploring students’ attitudes and dispositions towards mathematics. Teacher researchers agreed to administer an anonymous survey during the first research cycle, which asked students to write down their maths group and sex, and responses to these two questions:

• How do you feel about maths?

• What do you think about the maths we did today?

The survey was reviewed by the research group at meeting 4, with a general consensus that the wording wasn’t clear enough for students to fully appreciate the aims of the survey or the

distinction between the two questions, i.e. between exploring students’ general dispositions towards mathematics and whether they felt any differently as a result of the classroom

intervention. A new protocol was agreed on how to introduce the survey during cycles 2 and 3, making the rationale for the two questions explicit (see Appendix 5). It was also decided to amend the wording of the first question to:

• How do you feel about maths in general?

The responses from the student survey were used by teacher researchers to reflect upon and evaluate their classroom interventions during meetings 3, 5 and 7. These were collected at the end of each meeting and extracts were used to provide additional insight, and students’ perspectives, when narrating the stories of teacher researchers’ involvement in the project. At the end of the project, teacher researchers were each asked to write a short report (approximately two A4 pages) on their experiences of being part of the research group, and the impact they believe it had on them personally, on their classroom practice, and on their students. This provided additional data on evaluating the critical research methods and processes, from the individual perspectives of the teacher researchers. The reports also provided an opportunity for teacher researchers to summarise their experiences, providing a useful personal record of their professional development, and facilitating the sharing of ideas from the project with other teachers.

Throughout the duration of the research project, I kept my own research journal to ensure reflexivity and to enable me to make explicit, during the reporting of the study, my own perspective and the lens through which the data was interpreted. I recorded my immediate thoughts following meetings, interviews, and presentations of initial findings at conferences and seminars. I subsequently recorded my reflections on, and development of, these thoughts, and how these informed the planning of future events. Notes from my research journal proved useful in evaluating the success of the critical research methods and processes, in particular the vital role I played within the research project.