Código HTML de la página web

been covered during the term when I conducted my research (considering the fact that the case study had a time constraint) from the three sampled teachers (n=3)

from the three school sites, photocopying them, and returning them to the owners. I took the photocopies of the schemes/plans home for document analysis.

I used a document analysis protocol for data collection (see Appendix F). In order to facilitate simultaneous collection and analysis of data, I applied the rudiments of content analysis and counted the units of analysis, that is, the essential curriculum features, namely themes, topics and content, teaching methods and life skills, which participants had included in their schemes/plans. This would aid in determining the frequency of the curriculum features that participants had included. I used the actual curriculum guidelines (referred to as “criteria” in my protocol), as well as document analysis literature on the implementation of the AIDS curriculum, described in sections 1.10.2, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, to make sense of the curriculum. I thus listed all possible elements that could be expected to be used by curriculum developers, as well as those features that participants included but which were not suggested by developers, to determine the frequency of occurrence of the curriculum features that participants had identified. The above procedures would provide a general picture of how the participants interpret this AIDS curriculum at the symbolic level of implementation. In the activity, I followed Creswell (2005:242) and McMillan and Schumacher’s (2010:354) advice of taking descriptive notes to describe objectively the curriculum elements as they were presented by the participants. This activity was accompanied by the writing of reflective notes, which consisted of the themes, hunches, and insights that struck me most as being potential theoretical elements.

These notes were captured onto the researcher-devised document analysis protocol.

Drawing on McMillan and Schumacher’s (2010:354) observation, I applied the strategy of simultaneously collecting and analysing data, as it allowed me to separate tentative subjective interpretations from observed data in the schemes/plans. This would facilitate the task of data analysis.

Foregrounding this study is the epistemological stance of interaction with, rather than detachment from participants. For this reason, I strived to demonstrate reflexivity by discussing with teachers their schemes/plans in the interviews. This was a follow-up to my unassisted document analysis of the data on the protocols. I also capitalised on the post-scheme/plan interviews to cover other critical issues pertaining to the study and to triangulate findings with those from post-lesson and general interviews.

The purpose was to share insights and seek elaboration and clarification from the teachers on how they produced their schemes/plans, and why they produced them the way they did. Thus, in line with Cheek’s (2008:45) advice, I conducted this member-checking exercise, to treat participants as people who contribute to the production of knowledge, and not just as objects of research. I wanted to combine emic, etic and negotiated perspectives of data collection and analysis to obtain a well-balanced, credible description of the phenomenon.

The scheme/plan interviews were taped for later transcription and analysis, to strengthen data validation and enhance credibility and confirmability of the findings.

My third visit in the field involved conducting lesson observations. A key methodological and ethical issue concerning the use of observation was my observer role. I took the observational approach of an overt non-participant observer and did not participate in class activities. This enabled me to closely document teacher and pupil behaviours and the learning environment without any distraction from my data collection (McMillan and Schumacher, 2010:350). In Berg’s (2009:89) terms, I used the complete observer role, by sitting at the back of the classroom while observing and noting the participants’ behaviour, in order to avoid affecting the verbal behaviour of teachers and pupils, lest this influenced the validity and reliability of the data.

Since I had already achieved good rapport with the participants and we were now well acquainted, accessing their lessons was not so much of a problem as the greater methodological concern of not being biased in my observations.

By virtue of having taught HIV/AIDS education for many years, having trained student teachers, and having studied for and obtained an MPhil in Curriculum Studies at an internationally renowned university, the temptation was to invoke academic authority over the research issues. However, while appreciating the subjective influence of my biographical and experiential baggage on the research, and being obliged to transparently acknowledge it in my write-up I strived to follow Punch’s (2009:149) advice of minimising researcher-participant status differences.

This can be achieved by encouraging a more equal relationship based on mutual

To capture the data, I made use of structured lesson observations. Guided by Merriam’s (2009:70) ideas, I decided to enter classes not without any features that would offer me guidance on what to look for. Rather, I decided to focus my observations on selected teaching/learning elements, so as to circumscribe the parameters of the observed features around the theoretical framework that I had formulated in the design cycle. In keeping with the idea of simultaneous data collection and analysis, the use of predefined categories derived from the structured observation approach would facilitate data analysis. The predefined categories thus made up the rudiments of the observation protocol, onto which I recorded my field notes. The protocol thus captured descriptive notes of what I had observed, as well as reflective notes, representing my hunches, themes, and ideas (Creswell, 2005:213).

Using the structured observation strategy, I tried to follow the funnel analogy suggested by Gibson (2010:62) and Hennink et al. (2011:190). I first made general observations of the contextual setting, and then progressed to specific curriculum guidelines (analytical concerns), as set in my lesson observation protocol, to make sense of how teachers enact the curriculum.

The five lessons of each participant that I observed were followed by a post-lesson interview (which was taped), as a within-method form of triangulation (Berg, 2009:7).

Only one all-embracing post-observation interview, instead of an interview after every lesson, was required to circumvent the problem of potentially influencing the way in which participants deliver subsequent lessons as a result of such discussions.

After each lesson observation session, I thanked the participant, for the purposes of maintaining rapport.