Stage 5: Observation

All of the interview data collected were ultimately expected to develop into a detailed account of the views of specialists, staff and the pupils. However, although data yielded from interview is beneficial, reliance on second hand accounts alone would not have been appropriate for this type of enquiry. This is, firstly, because one cannot always be certain that what a respondent says in interview is synonymous with what he or she actually does or thinks (Cohen et al., 2011) and, secondly, because interviewees' personal perspectives can be overly subjective. With the probability that their perceptions would differ from the other respondents in some respects, their accounts were only to be used in support of findings from observation of the pupils in their settings.

As this project was an investigation into what mathematics learning is like for pupils with Asperger Syndrome in the classroom, for me, an essential part of the process

120

incorporated a critical examination of the workings of the secondary mathematics learning environment. To ascertain the extent to which pupils with Asperger Syndrome are supported with certain mathematics activities in terms of teaching and learning, classroom observation was seen as a crucial data collection methodology. Observation was expected to provide the best opportunity for in-depth examinations of the students' in-class interactions with their educators, their Teaching Assistants, and their peers. Moreover, the observations of non-verbal behaviours were expected to contribute a substantial amount of data for analysis.

The enquiry was based around the experiences in the mathematics classroom of a comparatively small section of society. The members of this group were anticipated to exhibit a fairly common set of distinct characteristics, so, including those from the pilot study, the practical data collection phase concentrated on a cluster of ten cases. I determined that this sample would be sufficient for a detailed, in-depth analysis. According to Patton (2002), there are no rules governing sample size in a qualitative enquiry, with the sample chosen dependent on ‘what you want to know, the purpose of the inquiry, what’s at stake, what will be useful, what will have credibility and what can be done with available time and resources’ (p.243). As Ehlers and Gillberg (1993) reported that there were only 36 cases of Asperger Syndrome per 10000, and this was the whole population including adults, finding a larger sample could have proven logistically prohibitive in terms of time and cost. Further to this, on account of the quantity of potential data for analysis relating to each case study, widening the net might have rendered the research findings to some extent shallow, superficial and incapable of providing enough focused detail to generate an informative final report. Finally, by limiting the number of study cases, both personal classroom

121

observation and the subsequent analysis were predicted to be reasonably manageable within the time constraints of this enquiry.

With its inherent capability to limit disruption, observation from a distance was selected as appropriate for the practical data collection period. This was, in part, due to the sensitivities of members of the chosen group in this study and partly to facilitate production of representative data through observation of the pupils in their usual naturalistic environments performing their normal social and educational activities. According to Yu (2010):

If you want to know what motivates a guy to take up skateboarding, you could bring him into a sterile laboratory and interrogate him … or you could spend a week in a skate park observing him interacting with his friends, practicing [sic] new skills and having fun. [Through] observing people’s behaviour in their own environments, […] you can get a holistic understanding of their world – one that you can intuit on a deeply personal level.

(Yu, 2010:5).

As observation within a naturalistic setting is regarded as capable of generating substantial realistic and honest evidence, and can ‘portray […] what it is like to be involved in the situation’ (Lincoln and Guba, 1985 cited in Cohen et al., 2011:241), I expected the findings from the practical observations to produce most of the data needed to satisfy the main objective of the enquiry. Individual case reports pertaining to each separate establishment were anticipated to contribute to a collection of sufficiently rich data on which to conduct an extensive qualitative analysis. This would subsequently allow me to compare and contrast findings with a view to developing comprehensive cross-case conclusions.

122

When pupils are personally chosen in advance of an observation, this could be suggestive of a positivist approach, i.e. one in which the observer selects ‘who is observed, when and where they are observed, what is observed, and how the observation is recorded’ (Kawulich, 2005:15). However, in this study, while the schools and pupils were selected in advance, they were not personally chosen. My approach was dependent to a degree on the availability of the pupils and schools. Other than stating that observations of the pupils needed to be conducted within mathematics lessons, I did not decide who, when, where or what to observe (ibid.). Nevertheless, I did anticipate that the series of whole class observations arranged would be enough to allow me to assure myself about each pupil’s suitability for inclusion in the study. I did not expect the pupils to be so-called ‘high fliers’. Rather I envisaged that they would be more likely to exhibit difficulties relating to, in part, anxiety and poor motor function, and that they might not always find mathematics easy. Indeed, it was always a possibility that there would be nobody suitable in any of the schools, in which case the investigation net would have had to be widened. I had already made the decision, subsequent to the initial stages, that students finally selected for inclusion would be those whose mannerisms most closely resembled the two from the pilot study. Nevertheless, in most cases, other than where I had the opportunity to select from a group, it was not necessary for me to make any qualified judgments as the pupils chosen by the in-school teams matched, closely enough, Andy and Ben from the pilot phase.

Once the final group of pupils had been decided upon for their representativeness, I intended that all observations would be personally conducted so that reliable evidence could be gathered about how the pupils interacted and behaved, both verbally and non-verbally. For accuracy and consistency, I felt that data gathered by

123

me as a sole researcher, observing all pupils, rather than inclusion of observational records from other researchers was imperative. Lincoln and Guba (1985), cited in Cohen et al. (2011:242) advise that an individual researcher's personal accounts of observations are central to the authenticity of a final report; thus, they say, any biases will be consistent across cases. Furthermore, the solitary researcher, utilising individual observational strategies, is in a good position, personal bias aside, to notice similarities and differences between cases. There was just one concern about the personally gathered field notes produced during the observation period. As they were not confirmed by any other observer, I was aware that personal preconceptions or interpretations may inadvertently have skewed the findings from this part of the enquiry despite attempts to eliminate all elements of partiality. Nevertheless, through reference to existing literature and alternative viewpoints from the interview and questionnaire responses, along with subsequent peer checking of the work, all biases were, I believe, sufficiently minimised.

In acknowledgement of the likelihood that the very nature of the observational studies involved in this type of research could have affected how the observed behaved and reacted, disruption to the normal workings of the mathematics classroom was kept to a minimum. To avoid the pitfalls associated with direct observation techniques, indirect methodology using recording equipment is, for some researchers, the preferred medium (Edwards and Westgate, 1994) and, for this study, it was an initial consideration. But, although it is believed by some that the use of 'inanimate' recording apparatus is less intrusive than an unfamiliar person in the classroom, there is some evidence that pupils find such equipment threatening (Cohen et al., 2011). In addition, Shaughnessy et al. (2003 cited in Cohen et al., 2011:473) report that, in the face of a recording device, pupils are less likely to

124

behave as they normally would. In this study, even supposing that the individual pupils with Asperger Syndrome would not have reacted to the equipment in the room, as they do not like to draw attention to themselves (NAC, 2009), the conduct of others in the vicinity would undoubtedly have affected the behaviour of the pupils of interest (Labov, 1969 cited in Cohen et al., 2011:205). Secondly, it is argued that parents, carers and Headteachers are less likely to agree to engagement in a research project if there could be a permanent record of it (Ochs, 1979). Thirdly, in this study, the pupils in question might have found audio or video recordings invasive and upsetting. Finally, as the investigation concentrated on the experiences of just one pupil together with his resources and educators in each classroom, although possible, it was not expected to be likely that as many issues of importance would be missed as might be if an entire group were under scrutiny. Awareness of these issues caused me to question the merits of recording equipment. Hence, the effectiveness of indirect observational methods for this piece of research was, in my opinion, uncertain. In view of the greater challenges attributed to indirect observations over direct methods, not least the potential for distress in the pupil as detailed above, despite sacrificing the opportunity to review footage of the observations in this study, audio and video recordings of the sessions were discounted as impractical.

For the direct observer, any one of a structured, semi-structured or unstructured observation technique can be used, this dependent upon opportunity and individual requirements. Structured observations often make use of schedules and questionnaire-style forms, with such questionnaires or tick sheets completed by the observer in situ. In this style of observation, the hypothesis has usually already been decided upon and any data gathered will either 'confirm or refute' (Cohen et al.,

125

2011:457) the theory. It is possible to observe the workings of the classroom using a pre-planned tick sheet if one simply wants to reveal the frequency of one particular type of incident. But, when the individuals being observed have the potential for unpredictability, pre-planned observation schedules can be quite restrictive. As a data collection method, if the document includes a large amount of detail, and there is limited time in the classroom to scan for the correct boxes in which to enter specific pieces of information, its use can be prohibitive in terms of efficiency. Vital incidents could go unnoticed as a result. Nevertheless, because all the categories have already been defined, the analysis stage is usually straightforward. A thoroughly thought through and meticulously formulated schedule requires less work than does a series of semi- or unstructured observations, apart from potentially time- consuming data entry into a software package.

Cohen et al. (2011) advise that, when applying direct observational strategies, where there is a plethora of potential points of interest, it is preferable to make use of unstructured or semi-structured techniques to gather data. Semi-structured observations are more flexible as, although certain questions require definite responses, there is some provision for unexpected events to be recorded. Finally, an unstructured observation is the least rigid in that there is no predetermined agenda and the researcher is free to record any point of interest or critical event, even those which may initially seem to be irrelevant to any preconceived idea of how the enquiry might unfold. Semi-structured observations can produce a wealth of material upon which to base an analysis. Specific detail can be determined more easily through the use of a semi-structured process than via a simple tick sheet. Biases notwithstanding, one way to determine any similarities or differences between cases is through use of a semi-structured observation schedule where freestyle records

126

can be documented. From these, if it were to be found, for instance, that there were no similarities between cases except for in one unique aspect, then this would be just as valuable as it would be if it transpired that the majority of cases in this study had a great deal in common. Both semi-structured and unstructured strategies allow the hypothesis and justification to come out of the data. Both are a flexible means of obtaining data where any particular incident can take precedence over another according to its significance at that time. Specifically, in relation to pupils themselves, they give the researcher the opportunity to look for causal relationships among variables. They are flexible enough to allow for conjecture and decisions based on solid foundations whilst allowing for unpredictability. In this study, boundaries were not clearly evident from the outset, and no control or manipulation was to be exercised so I decided that the observations in situ should be semi-structured (Benbasat et al., 1987). Structured observation schedules were rejected as they were considered to be unlikely to provide for the collection of necessary data to feed appropriately into this enquiry. Unstructured schedules were also rejected because I needed a pre-planned focus on specific teaching and learning strategies so that relevant comparisons between cases could be made and the subquestions answered effectively.

I was aware that the use of semi-structured over structured schedules could have allowed selectivity to occur, where only incidents that confirmed my prior beliefs would be recorded, and others which appeared to contradict these views would be ignored. However, the main aim of the research was to determine the typical AS student’s experience of mathematics learning in relation to individual teaching styles and environments so it was important that I recorded every event regardless of perceived relevance. As each of the interactions of interest generally involved just

127

one pupil and two members of staff in each establishment, I believed that semi- structured observation schedules would be an effective practical method of data collection through which to capture the relevant detail. Finally, as the data collection sheets for the observations in this study had less structure than those required for a typical quantitative study, they were easier to prepare. On the other hand, as a consequence of the potential for a large range of resultant field notes within these partially structured observations, the time needed for the analysis of data gathered was expected to be longer.

So that the information for this particular enquiry could be collected as unobtrusively as possible, my intended role in the classroom had to be thoroughly planned for. An observer-as-participant’s role is defined by Cohen et al. (2011) as one where the observer ‘may participate a little or peripherally in the group’s activities [but is] as unobtrusive as possible’ (p.457), and where the group is unaware of who or what is being observed. Conversely, participant-as-observer is one where the observer explains his or her role and collaborates with the pupils for their benefit (Armstrong, 1980). The role of observer-as-participant rather than participant-as-observer was imperative for this study as a low profile had to be maintained. During the pilot stage, the observation strategy at Arlidge Arts Academy necessitated my stance as non- participant observer working to an unstructured schedule. At Bowman Hill there was also no pre-determined schedule, but this time there was some participant observation, (see Table 3: Detail of Specific Observation Strategies in each Establishment). Subsequent to these preliminary observations, I determined that there was nothing more, and probably less, to be gained through participant observation than could be obtained through similar but non-participant observations. I found that my involvement might have affected my ability to manage the data

128

collection sufficiently well. Firstly, I might have missed important non-verbal actions, and secondly, writing up the field notes later, even though this was not long after, potentially reduced my ability to remember all incidents. Therefore, all subsequent observations were conducted from the position of non-participant observer. For me, as the researcher, taking the stance of non-participant observer in a situation where there was no intention to manipulate or intervene (Benbasat et al., 1987) was likely to be the key to identification of outcomes associated with different practices. Hence, except for at Bowman Hill School, the time in the classrooms involved only passive observation within which, whilst allowing for some kind of empathy in terms of quality time spent in the mathematics classroom, there was a sense of detachment that action research, for example, would not allow for. There was no intention to become involved with the classwork or to attempt to show understanding of how the objects of study, in this case the pupils with Asperger Syndrome, might feel (Cohen et al., 2011). This ensured that the findings were as realistic as possible. I felt that research which comprised isolated, experimental activity would not have produced accurate and credible data for analysis (Yu, 2010). However, there were only relatively short periods of time spent with each pupil; therefore, there was never full immersion in the ethnographic sense. Any kind of activity, even if intended to improve their prospects, had to be carefully considered. As these pupils had the intelligence to understand the world around them, they would not have welcomed interference (Asperger, 1979) or intervention (Wing, 1980). Thus, the final analysis of AS pupils’ experiences of learning mathematics was to be based upon findings from settings which were as naturalistic as possible. To summarise, the study was to be qualitative in nature with data recorded personally within naturalistic settings and gathered through semi- structured, non-participatory, direct observation.

129

In respect of the cases chosen for this study, the majority of the observation data came from the individual pupils in mathematics lessons. Each session was selected by the Headteachers for convenience according to when the mathematics lessons on the observation days in question were held. Just one day was booked at the majority of the schools because the respective Headteachers were unable or disinclined, it was not clear which, to offer more. At Epsom Boarding and Glebe Street two days were allotted, and at Drake Academy I spent a week observing Dan in various lessons including several mathematics sessions in the mainstream classrooms and in the Specialist Unit. At Glebe Street there were two pupils with