In the second part of data gathering, I used semi-structured interviews and was guided by the work of Bogdan & Biklen (1992) and Kvale (1996). The process of interviewing each interviewee took up to two hours. These interviews took place during the period between October 2006 and April 2009 and some were conducted at the respondents’ homes and others at their schools, as was their personal choice. Each interviewee one-to-one “conversation” was audiotaped and then transcribed verbatim. Where permission for audiotaping was not granted, extensive notes were taken. These written notes in addition to the tape recording were also taken for cross-checking purposes. Before the interview, teachers completed a brief questionnaire, on which basic biographical information was recorded (See Table 1).
The use of the interview method allowed me access to more in-depth information and a greater understanding of the research problems than might have been achieved by means of a survey. With the interviews, data collection could remain flexible, providing opportunities for each teacher to explain their responses at length. In addition, the use of semi-structured interviews provided opportunities for teachers to revisit their responses via transcripts, to clarify ambiguities and misunderstandings, and to meet with me to provide feedback and comments about their final accounts before the preparation of this dissertation. Moreover, undertaking interviews over an extended period of time increased the chance of gaining access to the thinking and verbalised experiences of teachers, given that such “crucial revelations are much more likely to emerge from change incidents, extended comments, and both informal and formal gatherings” (Bryman & Burgess 1994: 250).
According to Birley & Moreland (1998: 45), the interview is a “tactical and strategic instrument that gives the researcher a prerogative to make follow-ups on crucial and incomplete information that the respondent may give as the
respondents answer the questions in the presence of the researcher.” Conducting an interview is a more natural form of interacting with people than having them complete a questionnaire, do a test, or perform some experimental task. It therefore fits well with the interpretive approach to research. Interviews are also very useful when a researcher wishes to gain a full understanding of someone’s impressions or experiences, or to learn more about their answers to questionnaires. I wanted to gain access to the Arts and Culture teachers’ worlds, both in terms of them being individuals and being part of a larger group within the same bounded context. This allowed for the responses and experiences of teachers involved with implementing their learning area within their different contextual backgrounds to be explored.
Checking of responses and the discussion of transcriptions and the interpretations of interviews was undertaken with all six respondents. The interviews became increasingly informal in the latter part of the research, which was an experience also noted by Adler & Reed (2000). I sought to hear and make sense of each respondent’s voice about the A&C learning area in relation to the NCS, as well as in relation to how the NCS would, and did, impact on their Arts and Culture understanding and practice. I sought to identify fluctuations in the way in which they addressed issues relating to curriculum change. The notes made and memos recorded in connection with the encounters were not, in all cases, returned to the respondents, but were often triangulated with further conversations or encounters, or checked against earlier notes or interview data.
The following six teachers were interviewed individually; their profiles are illustrated below. The reason for constructing biographical profiles of individual teachers was to ensure that all relevant data concerning the context of the study was collected. The profile was also designed to find out about the teachers’ characteristics, such as their training and experience in teaching A&C. The profile included notes on the impressions of the physical and social fabric of the schools and their surroundings, such as the type of housing in the locality of the
schools and the condition of the school buildings. The importance of including the teachers profile as part of my data gathering was based on my theoretical framework and as suggested by Lewis and Maruna (1998) that individual life histories and biographies may be useful analytical tools for investigating the implementation of public policy. These researchers hold that recent work in this tradition shows how the life stories of implementing agents help to account for the way they make sense of and respond to reform proposals.
Table 1: Profile of Arts and Culture teachers
Teacher Arts and
culture specialist More than 10 years of teaching experience Number of years in teaching A&C NCS training courses attended Specialised teaching subjects Number of Arts and Culture teachers at each school Infra- structure at school for A&C TA No Yes 4 No Afrikaans and History 3 Under- resourced
TB Yes Yes 8 Yes Music and
ACE (A&C)
4 Well-
resourced
TC No Yes 7 Yes Needle-
work and Afrikaans
3 Under-
resourced
TD Yes Yes 8 Yes Music and
MA Degree (A&C)
1 Well-
resourced
TE Yes No 6 Yes Diploma in
Music Education
2 Medium-
resourced
TF Yes Yes 8 Yes Music and
Afrikaans
2 Medium-
resourced
In the interview schedule, I wanted to be as broadly inclusive as possible about all the features related to the curriculum implementation process and at the same time I wanted the respondents to relate to school contextual issues and to the issues of Arts and Culture education. My questions were therefore framed with this in mind. I also achieved this by having different parts to the schedule that
dealt with different aspects of the process. At the same time I had to remain true to my conceptual framework and my theoretical approach. I used elements of critical policy sociology (Ball, 1990, 1994a and Taylor, Rizvi, Lingard & Henry 1997) to frame questions on agency, legitimacy and representation. My own experience of the curriculum implementation process as an A&C teacher by attending all the training workshops also guided me in drawing up the questions related to teacher sense-making, prior knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of key players. First and foremost in the schedule were the critical questions of the study, although I reframed them somewhat. The final version is attached as Appendix B.
In the schedule one question in each section reflected the theoretical focus and the thrust of the other questions in that section. For instance, in Part A- 1- 4 (designed for biographical information and “specialised” A&C teachers) the central question reads: “What is your A&C or non-specific qualification and in what other subject did you major?” This question speaks about issues of teacher philosophies and prior knowledge and allowed the respondents an opportunity to indicate their own personal placing in the A&C learning area and in those of their schools. In Part B 5-6, I asked in question 5 indirectly why Arts and Culture was included as a learning area in NCS. The questions that follow in that section (6-8) are all related and provided me with an understanding of the contextual realities that would shape/not shape teachers’ sense-making concerning Arts & Culture education in the curriculum implementation process. According to Drake, Spillane & Hufferd-Ackles (2001), organisations also have histories that can be especially influential in the efforts of implementing agents to understand what a policy is asking of them. Hence the history of an implementing agency, as embodied in organisational norms and stories, serves as an influential context for implementing agents’ sense-making from and about policy.
Later in the schedule, I asked respondents how they went about translating to the calls of the NCS by putting the A&C learning area actually into practice. This
question allowed for free discussion from the respondents’ point of view of the whole process, not only their own contributions. It also gave them a chance to stand back and reflect. In these questions I wanted to allow the people being interviewed to bring their personal motives and reasons to the fore so that I could then interpret them. I wanted “thick” or rich data from which I could build a escription that captured a sense of actions as they occurred and placed events in context. My interview schedule was intended to encourage and inspire the flow of conversation.
I also used the schedule of questions to assure the participants of their confidentiality in their contributions and ask their permission to use their offerings.
Following is the question schedule used to collect data through the semi- structured interviews:
Biographical data
1. How long have you been teaching Arts and Culture (A&C)?
2. What is your A&C or non-specific qualification (and in what other subject did you major)?
3. Are you the only teacher in the A&C learning area?
4. Have you attended in-service training provided by the WCED?
General curriculum and A&C practice
5. What is your opinion of the combinations developed for the A&C learning area (consisting of four sub-disciplines in one area)?
6. Do you have a specific classroom for your learning area work?
7. Is your school resourced to provide A&C as a learning area, in line with the prescriptions contained in the policy document?
8. How many periods per week/cycle are made available for A&C at your school?
Personal practice
9. How do you spread the learning area subsections in your own school practice?
10. Are you, in your opinion, managing to do justice to the work? Provide a brief explanation of your answer.
11. What are the main ‘opportunities’ for making A&C work as a curriculum area in your school?
12. What, if any, are the impediments (hindrances) to making A&C a reality and meaningful learning area in your school?
General
13. What, in your opinion, would help you make the curriculum for A&C work at your school?
14. What is needed to make A&C work in your district?
16. Do you wish to make any general comments in regard to A&C?