This study drew upon multiple sources of information: documents/archival records, teacher and student questionnaires and interviews, and direct and participant observation of classroom activities (Yin, 2003). Multiple sources of data allowed for triangulation of the data in order to corroborate the evidence. When data from different sources conflicted, interview data took precedence over all other sources, following the dominant-less dominant model of Creswell (1994 , as cited in Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003). First-hand participant accounts and the opportunity for me to clarify responses during interviews provided the most accuracy and detail.
The documents/archival records examined were teacher unit and lesson plans, student workbooks and assignments, the textbook, and student work displayed around the classroom. In-classroom observation occurred during regular class time over five days, for periods of 2-4 hours. Both document examination and observation were looking for similar evidence. Evidence of instruction in the process of creative problem-solving, creative thinking, or the construction of useful and original outcomes, was sought. I also searched for additional evidence on the use of Bloom’s Taxonomy, ill-defined and well- defined problems, contextualized learning in real events, questioning the status quo, and learning activities synonymous or well-associated with creativity, such as divergent thinking or being an inventor (which I called creative activities). From a student’s perspective, the search for evidence focused on demonstration of creative problem- solving or thinking, and its outcomes, as well as self-directed learning of the creative problem-solving process and self-questioning using Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Two questionnaires were used at each site in this study in order to explore the experiences of both student and teacher participants. A teacher questionnaire was designed to retrieve information associated with environmental leadership, instructional decision making, and general citizenship. A survey by Wideen, O’Shea, Pye and Ivany (1997), which tracked classroom practices, formed the basis of the teacher questionnaire. To this survey, three constructivist instructional strategies were added. Two items were removed and one open-ended question was included. Completing the five-page teacher questionnaire were questions exploring constraints and supports, activities synonymous or clearly associated with creativity, the use of Bloom’s Taxonomy, and environmental
learning activities. All questions utilized a 5-point Likert scale to measure various criteria; namely, effectiveness, frequency, importance and level of support. One teacher at each site completed the teacher questionnaire, which is provided in Appendix D: Teacher Questionnaire.
Many items on the student questionnaire were modifications of teacher questions with the educational lexicon removed. Additional questions explored personal creative problem-solving experiences, self-confidence, and group creativity. The 13 questions of the student questionnaire used a combination of 5-, 4-, 3- and 2-point Likert scales. Scales with an even number of responses were intentionally designed to exclude a neutral option. This was done in order to avoid respondents making an easy, indecisive choice that would require little thought and provide little useful information to the researcher. Questions with 3- and 2-point Likert scales were designed for greater simplicity.
Nineteen students at the urban site and eight students at the rural site were surveyed. The student questionnaire is provided in Appendix C – Student Questionnaire.
Once the questionnaires were designed, they were scrutinized by a faculty
member and then pilot tested by two faculty members and two teacher colleagues prior to use.
Interviews were conducted in private locations with each teacher, 11 students at Site A, and five students at Site B. Individual questionnaire responses that required elaboration had been marked prior to the start of interviews and were followed
sequentially unless the direction of the interview was altered by participant responses. Interview rapport with some students was minimal. Some interviews required frequent probing to provide more detailed information. Other student interviews flowed like a friendly conversation. Interviews were recorded using digital computer software and were transcribed verbatim at a later date.
Interview transcriptions, questionnaire responses, and archival records/researcher observations were corroborated through triangulation to increase credibility (Yin, 2003).
3.3.1
Stages of Data Collection
Drawing on multiple sources of data had its benefits but also presented
challenges, particularly when data was gathered across two sites. Careful and methodical collection of data was required and occurred in the following stages:
1. Informal discussion with the classroom teacher to discuss the nature of the class, the school’s delivery model of SHSM-E, current learning
opportunities, and future learning that promoted the development of creativity/ingenuity.
2. Direct observation of classroom activities to acquire a broad
understanding and familiarity with the participants and the setting, as well as to allow participants to become familiar with me.
3. Completion of student questionnaires. 4. Completion of the teacher questionnaire.
5. Completion of selected student interviews to elaborate on and probe distinctive questionnaire responses and investigator observations, including written notes taken by the investigator.
6. Participant observation of classroom activities to gather data from participants working, interacting and collaborating in groups, and using the creative problem-solving process.
7. Examination of documents and archival records (e.g., teacher unit and lesson plans, student workbooks, textbooks and other materials) to gather detailed evidence of actual learning and teaching of creative problem- solving, to examine planning prior to my arrival, and to examine available classroom resources.
8. Interviews to clarify student questionnaire responses and to further
question students in light of new findings from participant observation and document examination.
9. Interview to clarify teacher questionnaire responses and to further question the teacher in light of new findings from participant observation and document examination.
10. Completion of the teacher interview, which was open-ended and audio recorded.