Stimulated recall interviews.

Having made the decision to interview a sample of students, it was then necessary to consider the type of interview that might be most appropriate. Stimulated recall interview is a techniq e that has been emplo ed in a n mber of different a s b t generall in ol es the repla of ideotape or a diotape of a teacher s lesson in order to stim late a commentar pon the teacher s tho ght processes at the time (Calderhead, 1981:211). Clearly elicitation data are not the same as video or audio-taped material, however, since

Chapter 6: Discussion of research tools

103 the p rpose of the inter ie as partl to tr to e plore the st dents thro gh processes when they were making their concept maps, it seemed to distinguish the interview from the usual structured / semi-structured or unstructured type and to have characteristics more in common with stimulated recall.

As mentioned previously, students may have difficulty in representing their conception of geography in a concept map. A follow-up interview, using the map to prompt, in

retrospect, a erbalised acco nt of his [or her] original tho ght processes (Calderhead 1981:212) therefore seemed very attractive. Whilst the technique has usually been used to provide commentary on interpersonal interactions (for example, in education and clinical psychology settings) Calderhead reports its use in contexts where participants are not involved in interaction with others for example by Peterson and Clarke (1978 cited in Calderhead 1981) to study the thought processes of teachers in their pre-lesson planning. A potential drawback of using stimulated recall interviews and the extent to which they enable access to thought processes is the problem that some areas of a person s kno ledge ha e ne er been erbalised and ma not be comm nicable in erbal form (Calderhead 1981:213). However, this refers more to behaviour that is automatic rather than planned. In this respect, Calderhead goes on to sa that the techniq e ma assist the researcher to gain access to the cognitive processes of more global units of teaching (plans) though perhaps not so easil to the processing in ol ed ithin s ch nits (Calderhead 1981:213, his italics).

6.2.1.1 The university-based interview schedule

A f rther consideration is ho to str ct re the inter ie . ..str ct ring the inter ie itself [has to be] weighed against the possibilities of imposing, or encouraging teachers to impose, unreal interpretations upon their behaviour. This is not to say that the use of models is inappropriate in research of this kind (Calderhead, 1981:214). The decision as taken to conduct the interviews in a semi-structured format using a series of questions and further prompts as a guide rather than a set sequence to be rigidly adhered to. The

Chapter 6: Discussion of research tools

104 questions were devised and then developed and refined after discussion with others

(appendix 23). Particular consideration was given to the order of questions and their nature. Following the advice of Bell (1999) and Cohen & Manion (1994) to begin by establishing a rapport and setting the interviewees at ease, some questions of a general nature were asked first and the students were given time to reacquaint themselves with their map. Then q estions abo t hat as sho n on the map ere asked to check for researcher understanding and to establish whether there was congruence between their conceptions and the researcher s interpretation of their conceptions. More probing questions followed that enabled the students to expand on their conception of geography, before asking them to relate their conception to three geographical persuasions. Questions about geography were asked before questions about pedagogy, partly because this reflected the order in which they were asked to do the elicitation activities, and partly because it was necessary to explore conceptions of geography before going on to discuss how one might teach aspects of it in the primary school.

Although a structure for questions was planned, this was taken as a guide and the nature of the inter ie as more of a con ersation in hich ideas ere disc ssed. Beca se of this, while each interview followed the same pattern of discussing conceptions of geography before conceptions of teaching and learning, there was some flexibility within each section of the interview and the schedule acted as a guide to check for coverage within the

con ersation as m ch as an thing else. This loose , semi-structured approach was felt to fit in well with the naturalistic aspect of interpretive research.

During the course of the interview students were asked to relate their conceptions to the analytical tools geographical persuasions and theories of teaching because this would be another way of checking for congr ence ith the researcher s interpretations, b t also because these were useful tools for prompting further discussion and reflection and reflected the researcher s aim (as co rse t tor) of pro iding alternati e conceptions for students to consider as part of the process of evaluating their own conceptions. A further tool was introduced at the end of the interview, which asked students to relate their developing thinking to epistemology (appendix 15) because, as mentioned previously, a theor as beginning to emerge that the al es nderpinning st dents conceptions ma be partly determined by their conception of knowledge. Calderhead suggests that an

Chapter 6: Discussion of research tools

105 a model from the teachers own commentaries in order to g ide f t re commentaries (p. 214, my italics). In this instance pre-determined categories were used because they had been used to aid analysis of the elicitation data. However, they were also sed as a g ide to f t re commentaries in the sense that a table of each st dent s conceptions as the related to the three tools was drawn up after initial analysis of the first interview. This table was then used to inform the first, in school, post observation interview after which it was revised and the revised version then guided the next post observation interview and so on. In this way it was possible to keep track of what seemed to be developing themes and to ask the student to comment on them at each subsequent point of data collection. It also s pported the researcher s aim of recording de elopment and change o er a period of t o years.

A further consideration was the timing of the interviews. Time and the location of the geography component at the beginning of the PGCE year made it impossible to conduct interviews immediately after the first concept maps and written accounts of teaching and learning had been done. The interviews were therefore conducted towards the end of the Autumn term, after the geography component had finished, and after the students had done their first block school experience of three weeks. This had the disadvantage of the second concept maps annotated versions of the first ones being fresher in their minds and potentially acting as a block to recall of the first elicitation exercise. On the other hand, it meant that the st dents tho ghts abo t if, ho and h their conceptions ere changing could be explored.

6.2.1.2 The school-based lesson observation and post-observation interview schedule

There are er strong arg ments in fa o r of treating obser ation as a gold standard or method of choice in q alitati e research (M rph & Ding all, 2004: 4)

As Murphy and Dingwall point out, while neither observation nor interview data can be regarded as straightfor ard reprod ctions of realit , obser ations do minimise the chain of transformation [ beca se] the are s bject to j st one transformation as

researchers render the reality they observe into a form s itable for anal sis (ibid). Inter ie s, on the other hand, are transformed once thro gh the choice of inter ie er s

Chapter 6: Discussion of research tools

106 q estions and again as the inter ie ees select from the totalit of their original e perience and reformulate that experience into their responses (ibid). Ho e er, inter ie s do offer participants the opportunity to comment on observation data and the researcher to probe more deeply for explanations of certain behaviour during teaching. For these reasons a combination of observation and post-observation interviews was used.

A pilot was conducted using a simple observation format for recording as much as possible what teacher and children said and did during a lesson, leaving space for interpretations of these utterances and actions in a column to the right hand side (appendix 24). Two copies of these notes were made one to be left with the student so we could each write our interpretations and these could then be compared. The aim of this was to enhance the validity of the interpretations being made by me, and to enable the student to have some control over the interpretations being made of her own practice. However, in the pilot it was very difficult to encourage her to find time to make these annotations. For a number of reasons, including the phenomenon noted by Oleson (2003) mentioned in section 5.3 above, she was hesitant about committing herself to paper, so this method was abandoned. The basic approach of making notes on a simple sheet about what I saw and heard during an observation was retained, but the third column was now for the purpose of identifying questions (e.g. prompting me to ask the student for clarification or justification of action or speech) that would form the basis of the post-observation interview. Issues regarding the selection of what to record and therefore level of accuracy and, or bias by omission clearly need discussing in relation to this tool. However, the post-observation interviews were the key data for analysis the purpose of the lesson observation notes was to act as a stimulus for recall for these interviews and, as such, did not form a major part of the data.

The procedure for school-based data collection was as follows:

1. Preparation beforehand making a s mmar of st dent s elicited (concept maps) and espoused (stimulated recall interview) conceptions to date; collaboration with headteacher and student that I could observe and conduct interviews on agreed dates and times; request to student for lesson plan and medium term plan to be available on the day

Chapter 6: Discussion of research tools

107 2. School visit agree with student whether I will be introduced to the children,

where to sit and so on; record observations by hand on observation schedule; spend time going through notes and writing questions (while children are at play or tidying up at end of day etc); conduct interview with student using observation notes and questions as basis for discussion

3. Follow-up immediately afterwards (usually in the car) put entry into research diary focusing on any reflections, thoughts, aspects of the visit that might be significant; later on (usually in the same week) spend time on a more detailed reflection, including making comparisons between conceptions in action and those espoused at an earlier stage of the course, and enter into research diary.

1. Ask st dent to relate lesson to concept map. For e ample here o ld o place this lesson on your concept map? Which aspect of your conception does it

reflect?

2. Using the observation notes ask student to elaborate on actions and discuss thinking at the time. For e ample Can o talk me thro gh h o said / did

?

3. Ask student to relate ideas about geography, teaching and learning to the three models geographical persuasions, theories of teaching, nature of knowledge.

Table 6.4: Post-observation interview framework.

The purpose of the post-observation interviews was similar to that of the post-elicitation inter ie s, namel to e plore f rther the st dents thinking abo t a process. Ho e er, in this case there was the additional element of exploring their conceptions in action in a geography lesson. The tool used to stimulate recall here was the lesson observation notes made by the researcher during the lesson. For this reason it was not seen to be appropriate to design an interview schedule, because each lesson would raise different issues or points for discussion, so an interview framework was devised that provided a means of ensuring some commonality in terms of structure (table 6.4).