In addition to teachers’ interviews, I also interviewed focus groups and individual lower attaining pupils. The focus groups consisted of children I selected and assembled to discuss and comment on aspects of continuous assessment from their personal experiences. Although focus groups are forms of group interviewing, there are differences between focus groups and group interviewing. According to Gibbs (1997) group interviewing involves interviewing a number of people at the same time, the emphasis being on questions and responses between the researcher and the participants. Focus groups on the other hand, rely on interaction within the groups based on topics that are supplied by the researcher. Further, Mertens (1998) explains that the key feature which distinguishes focus groups from group interviews is the insight and data that are produced by the interaction between participants.
Denzin and Lincoln (1994) state that the term “focus group” was coined by Merton et al., in 1956 to apply to a situation in which the interviewer asks group members very specific questions about a topic after a considerable research has already been completed (p. 365). Kreuger (1988) defines a focus group as a “carefully planned discussion designed to obtain perceptions in a defined area of interest in a permissive, non-threatening environment” (p. 18). In this study I adopted the focus groups after I had done the self-completion questionnaires and interviews with teachers. I also asked the lower attaining pupils specific questions concerning their feeling about class tests and general performance.
As compared to individual interviews, which aim to obtain individual attitudes, beliefs and feelings, focus groups elicit a multiplicity of views and emotional aspects of information in a shorter period of time. Focus groups interviews were particularly effective in enabling primary 6 lower attaining children who otherwise would shy away or say very little in the presence of an adult to engage in healthy discussions about their classroom experiences. Lewis (1999) explains that the focus group method provided a nurturing environment that encouraged the children’s disclosures.
Furthermore, the method enabled the lower attaining children to challenge and extend each other’s ideas and introduced new ideas into the discussion (Lewis, 1992). As Catterall and Maclaran (1997) point out focus groups interviews enabled me to gather valuable information about lower attaining children classroom experiences, how such children respond in situation where they are exposed to views and experiences of others.
As explained in the previous paragraph, I used focus groups in conjunction with other data collecting techniques in the study. This is acceptable in research, Fontana and Frey (2000) state that focus groups can be used in conjunction with other data collecting methods in a study. It is essentially a qualitative data collecting technique that relies upon systematic questioning of several individuals simultaneously in either a formal or informal setting.
Opinion varies on the optimum size of focus group; whilst some authorities suggest 8- 12 (Robson, 2002); others have suggested 6-10 (MacIntosh, 1993); 15 people (Goss and Leinbach, 1996; Kreuger, 1988) or as few as four (Kitzinger, 1995). Lewis
(1992) notes that a group of around six or seven is an optimum size, though it can be smaller for younger children. According to Stewart and Shamdasani (1990) the size of the focus group depends on the objective of the research. However, Kreuger (1988) suggests that smaller groups are preferable when the participants have a greater deal to share about the topic and have had intense or lengthy experiences with the topic of discussion. In this study the size of each focus group was five (n = 5) and the children had a great deal to share because of lengthy experiences of lower attainments.
Also, Gibbs (1997) points out that the number of times researchers meet focus groups varies. In some studies researchers use only one meeting with each of several focus groups, others meet the same focus groups several times. In the present study I used one meeting of each of the four focus groups. In addition, I organised the interviews at a neutral location (the senior staff house at the University of Education at Winneba) for two groups because there was no convenient place at their schools. However, this is acceptable in research, according to Powell and Single (1996) and Gibbs (1997) the use of neutral locations in focus groups interviews can be helpful for avoiding either negative or positive association with a particular site or building. Following the advice of Lewis (1992) at Swedru I ensured that the teachers of the children did not interfere with the interviews. I conducted the interviews with the pupils in a classroom away from where their teachers and other children were.
Another issue worth discussing is the focus groups’ characteristics. Some authorities prefer the use of heterogeneous group while others like homogeneous. As noted by Gibbs (1997), there is a debate about whether or not it is beneficial to use homogeneous or heterogeneous groups. Some authorities argue that if a group is too
heterogeneous the differences between participants can make a considerable impact on their contributions, on the other hand if the group is homogeneous diverse opinions and experiences may not be revealed.
However, Bines, Swain and Kaye (1998) state that homogeneous groups provide better forums in which pupils feel freer to participate and comment. This is endorsed by Robson (2002) who explains that the use of homogeneous groups facilitate communication, promote exchange of ideas and experiences, give a sense of safety in expressing conflicts or concern which may result in ‘groupthink’, that is, unquestioning similarity of position or views.
In this study, the homogenous background facilitated open discussion among the pupils. The focus group method in a way helped the children to recall common experiences in continuous assessment events which provided additional insight from the interaction of ideas among the group participants (Fontana and Frey, 2000). The data from the focus groups were both revealing and diverse as shown in Chapter 7. For example, there were diverse opinions about current performance and feelings about class tests.
In terms of duration of interactions, Gibbs (1997) suggests that focus group sessions usually last from one to two hours. However, in this study, each focus group session lasted for twenty minutes. This was partly due to the fact that, the Ghanaian basic school child by nature talks less in formal sessions or presence of adults, because of factors such as cultural beliefs, up-bringing and training. Also lower attaining children by nature talk less than children who are higher attainers. Nonetheless, I collected
invaluable information within those short sessions to address the questions that made me to include children in the study.
Furthermore, Stewart and Shamdasani (1998) point out that ‘focus group research may be one of the research tools available for obtaining data from children or from individuals who are not particularly literate’ (p. 509). The use of the focus group method was appropriate since lower attaining children by nature are less ‘literate’ (Chapter 1). In fact, during the interviews some of the pupils mostly agreed with views from their peers and where they were encouraged to elaborate they ended up repeating the views their friends had made earlier on. This was not strange Lewis (1992) has identified this as one of the difficulties in children’s interviews.
In spite of these merits, research involving focus groups has its limitations; paramount among these are: the variable impact on dominant and shy participants (Estrada and Laurence, 2002 Greenbuam, 1988), and the relative lack of researcher control compared with quantitative or one-to-one interviewing (Gibbs, 1997).
To elaborate as Greenbuam (1988) explains, a dominant group member can influence the tone of the group or inhibit comments from other participants. A dominant group member is someone who likes to talk. Greenbuam (1988) suggests using the dominant participant “as a straw man against which the researcher can play the reactions of the rest of the group” (p. 65). Asking other group members whether they agree or disagree with the dominant member and why they feel that way allows others to talk and encourages a variety of opinions. In line with this, Estrada and Laurence (2002) advise seating the dominant individual beside the facilitator to exercise some control
through the use of body language and non verbal communication. When this strategy does not work, then the use of a more frontal tactic of verbally shifting attention may be required. For example, saying: “Thank you. Are there others of you who would like to comment on the question?” (p. 18).
On the other hand, shy respondents tend to say little and speak in soft voices. Extra effort is required to get these individuals to elaborate their views and to feel that their comments are wanted and appreciated. The researcher should place shy respondents directly across the table to maximize eye contact (Estrada and Laurence, 2002). The moderator has to allow participants to talk to each other, ask questions and express doubts and opinions, while having very little control over the interaction other than generally keeping participants focused on the topic (Gibbs, 1997). However, some of these problems can be overcome through careful planning.
In order to ensure that I did not lose any of the information provided by the children, I recorded the interviews and took notes; this is acceptable practice. Robson (2002) indicates that audiotaping is generally recommended and it is good practice to have written notes made even if the session is recorded. The recording also enabled me to describe accurately what transpired during the interviews in order to eliminate biases. According to Wright, Hycox and Leedhan (1994) accurate description of information from participants is vital because it enables researchers to understand the world of the participants through their own eyes using their own frames of references.
However, Gibbs (1997) states that tape recorders are prone to pick up background noises. The microphone and recorder should be set up prior to the interview and
should be visible to participants. The moderator must encourage participants to speak one at a time to avoid garbling the tape (Kreuger, 1988). Howe and Lewis (1993) suggest that members of the group need to identify themselves before they speak. Although, I used the tape recorder I also took notes during the focus groups’ interviews. As Morgan (1988) suggests the pieces of advice I followed facilitated the analysis of data.
With respect to the selection of focus groups, I asked each teacher to provide a list of ten pupils who generally performed poorly in continuous assessment tasks. The following records were used to inform the decisions about the performance of the pupils: exercise books and previous records (see detail in figure 4.1). In order not to bias the sample of children, I selected the names with odd numbers from the lists that had been provided to form the focus groups. I therefore, used a systematic sampling technique as recommended by Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2003) to select the focus groups.
Figure 4.1: Lower attaining pupils’ aggregated achievement scores 2001-2003
Pupils' attainments scores for 2001-2003 (N=20)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Number of pupils Scores B4 B5 B6
The scores comprised aggregated marks obtained by the pupils, for example, in English for the first and second terms of the respective years (B4, B5 and B6). I did not include the third term of each year because that of B6 was not ready during the fieldwork. I did not compare pupils across schools because the motive to use the records was to establish whether each pupil had improved (self-comparison), rather than compare pupils across schools.