Semi-structured interviews

In qualitative research, the interview is commonly used to gather information from the participants. Burns (1997), for example, referred to the interview technique as a “verbal exchange, often face to face … in which the interviewer tries to elicit information, beliefs or opinions from another person” (p. 329). The interview is a purposeful conversation that can be used in two ways. “[Interviews] may be the dominant strategy for data collection, or they may be employed in conjunction with participant observation, document analysis, or other techniques” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 103). The interview recognised that what the participants had to say was an important means for developing insight on how the participants interpret the world. In this study semi-structured interviews were employed twice. In Phase One, the interview was used to gather data from the teachers. In Phase Two, the interview followed up on video observation of the classroom.

162

A concern about the use of data from interviews is that it is self-report and therefore open to subjectivity and also personal interpretation. This method was therefore counter-balanced by using other forms of data collection, especially classroom observation.

In effective interviews the subjects are put at ease and talk freely about their views and understandings. Quality interviews should produce rich descriptive data, filled with words that reveal the participants’ perspectives. An effective interviewer will demonstrate a personal interest in the participants’ views by listening and giving appropriate nonverbal responses, and where necessary will use verbal prompts to probe for clarification and specificity (Burns, 1997; Hitchcock & Hughes, 1995).

Burns (1997) listed four advantages of interviewing: repeated contact, where greater periods of time are spent with the informant and thus greater rapport develops; presentation of the informant’s perspective rather than the imposition of the researcher’s perspective; the use of natural language to express informants’ points of view; and the informants’ equality of status with the researcher, because they are the holders of the knowledge.

As with other qualitative methods, interviews may vary according to several factors, such as the degree to which they are structured, the information required, the type of questions asked and the degree of control the interviewer has over the interview (Hitchcock & Hughes, 1995). At one end of the continuum is the formal, interview with a structured schedule where questions are predetermined, concisely written, and presented in the same format to all of the participants. This form of interview is useful to those researchers who need to interview large numbers of participants, cover a wide area of information and seek

163

generalisations. The aim is to decrease interviewer bias and the subjectivity of the data.

At the other end of the continuum is the informal, open-ended and unstructured interview procedure. The unstructured interview or conversation provides the researcher with scope for prompting, deviating or probing for further information. It also allows the interviewee to answer questions in his/her own way. Hitchcock and Hughes (1995) maintain that the aim of the unstructured interview “is to provide for a greater and freer flow of information between the researcher and the subject” (p. 162). The apparent lack of structure can provide a window into routinely constructed interpretations and elicit unexpected and relevant material for the researcher.

In this study the semi-structured interview provided the main form of data collection for Phase One. The interview followed a set schedule with planned questions, enabling me to collect common aspects of the phenomena, but also allowed for deviation and a greater depth of information to be gathered. In this way, while the purpose of the study was kept in mind, I could probe and prompt in particular areas for further understanding. I was able to conduct conversations with the teachers in my office off site or in quiet rooms in their schools. The semi- structured interviews took approximately 45-60 minutes and followed an interview schedule (see Appendix 11), during which time the teachers’ responses were audio-taped. The teachers were given a pseudonym, and the interviews were transcribed by a professional transcriber, then checked by me as I listened to the audiotapes. The transcripts were then returned to the teachers to ensure that their intended meanings were captured. Often the teachers made changes, by clarifying points or completing sentences.

164

A semi-structured interview was also used in Phase Two (see Appendix 12). The interview with Kat took place in August, a month after my observations of her teaching sessions in July. The purpose of the interview was for Kat to reflect and comment on her teaching and discuss her sessions, but also to share her understandings of the participants’ engagement and what they achieved with their writing. While the interview was taken post teaching to gain an overall discussion of the three teaching sessions, brief anecdotal comments were also recorded after the videoed sessions.

4.5.2 Observation

Observation involves a process of gathering data from everyday, real-life situations. In this research I closely observed the behaviours of the participants in their natural setting and video recorded a number of teaching sessions. Patton (1990) claimed that there is “simply no substitute for direct experience through participant observation” (p. 202). He maintained that the researcher could miss opportunities observing what was actually taking place “in situ” if they depended only on explanations from others.

Two types of observational positioning are noted in the literature: participant and non-participant (J. Bell, 1993; Cohen, et al., 2007; Lichtman, 2010). A participant observer is someone who lives as much as possible with and in the same manner as the individuals being investigated. This stance has been criticised for presenting a potential for bias and posing a threat to research objectivity. This could occur when the observer loses objectivity, becoming so familiar with the environment and characteristics of the participants that he or she overlooks aspects evident to an objective outsider or non-participant observer (Cohen, et al., 2007). In contrast, researchers who are non-participant observers remove themselves from the group so that there is no interaction with

165

those under observation; they merely observe and record (J. Bell, 2010; Cohen, et al., 2007).

Brown and Dowling (1998) maintained that data may be collected using a range of recording techniques. These range from a highly structured form of recording to informal semi-structured forms, unstructured and anecdotal forms of collection. Brown and Dowling (1998) proposed that “the descriptive power of the categories is a key element in establishing the validity of the schedule as an instrument for collecting data" (p. 49).

• Collecting observational data in a highly structured manner presumes that the researcher knows in advance what they are looking for, and that the data is to be recorded in terms of specified categories.

• Semi-structured observations operate in a less, predetermined and systematic manner. The data are hypothesis-generating rather than hypothesis-testing. Semi-structured observation allows for a more open-ended exploration of the setting. Burns (1997) maintained that in this case the researcher is guided by broadly defined research interests and revisits the data, analysing inductively, noting trends, relationships or patterns, then imposing a tighter structure on the data as a focus is developed. • Unstructured observation recognises that while the observer may

have a clear idea of the purpose they may be less clear about the detail. Therefore the researcher needs to observe what is taking place before deciding on the significance of the observation. Judith Bell (2010) stated that unstructured observation is when the researcher starts with no predetermined categories; they have no checklists or charts. Observations are made in a natural open- ended way. When patterns in the data emerge structure will be imposed.

166

• Anecdotal notes or reflective field notes record personal thoughts that are related to hunches, insights, ideas or themes or even questions to prompt further thinking. These notes are often made during the observation or at the end of it, as the researcher is leaving the site.

For the purpose of this study, I operated as a non-participant. The children were familiar with visitors in the classroom and they continued working and interacting with their teacher, largely ignoring me. Using a video camera enabled me to enter the research context with an open mind and capture complex classroom activity. Videoing took place over three teaching sessions of approximately 20 – 40 minute sessions. After the initial session, the camera was stopped when the teacher engaged in organisational processes such as asking students to move from the mat back to their desks or to sit with a peer for discussion purposes. The camera was placed mostly behind the children at the back of the room using a wide-angled perspective, an over-shoulder-angle of students so I could capture the teacher’s actions and dialogue. Some occasional close- up recording took place, when I focused on partner discussions to cut out other classroom noise or when I wanted to see what Kat was demonstrating on charts or in her modelling book.

Camera work can be used in an uncomplicated manner to take inventories of objects in a setting but their typical purpose is to record people in action. Researchers ”want a visual record of how their subjects look in their natural setting” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 113). In this study I was interested in capturing the interactions and nuances of conversation and actions so I could revisit the classroom context numerous times in an attempt to interpret teacher-student interactions.

167

Some concerns regarding observations and video data as a data- gathering technique relate to research bias and selectivity, which have the potential to impact on the trustworthiness of the research process. To overcome this, as stated earlier, the video camera was placed at the back of the room taking a wide-angled perspective. Another concern is that the researcher’s presence can influence students’ performance, in particular when a camera is used. Participants may change their behaviours to try harder or react in ways they consider the researcher may expect (Cohen, et al., 2007). To address this concern Kat spoke to the children explaining my purpose was to record her teaching. I familiarised the students with the camera by trialling the videoing sessions earlier. All of the teaching sessions were videoed.

One of the strengths for collecting data via video recording is that for close up analysis the data can be reviewed many times. An observer seated in the classroom with recording schedules may get distracted, affecting the trustworthiness of the data collection.