According to Punch (2009) interviews are the most prominent data collection methods within qualitative research. He also points out its ability to access individuals’ perceptions, meanings, and construction of reality. Interviews are defined by Kvale (1996, p. 14) as “an interchange of views between two or more people on a topic of mutual interest, sees the centrality of human interaction for knowledge production.” Interviews are generally categorized on the variation of the degree of the structure during the interview (Punch, 2009) structured, semi-structured, and unstructured. Structured interviews, as the name implies, are scheduled by the interviewer in order for the interviewees to receive the same stimulus from the questions. Therefore, all interviewees will experience the same sequence of questions. Generally, questions in a structured interview are specific and offer a range of answers for the interviewees (Bryman 2001). Semi-structured interviews differ from the structured interviews, in that they allow the interviewer to ask follow-up questions that rise from the interviewees’, and thus do not follow a schedule strictly. Questions in this type are more of general nature. Unstructured interviews, on the other hand, do not follow a schedule or a sequence of questions; they cover a number of the main issues or topics of the research through an informal setting. As far as this study was considered, a semi-structured interview approach was used to allow the researcher to follow up any other issues that arose from the participants’ responses (see appendix 3). This approach could be justified by the fact that the training course, feedback and insight from the participants on the training course, the delivery of the course, and the content had to be developed along the way. Bryman (2001) also points
out the importance of rapport, which means a good relationship with the respondents, as it encourages them to take part in the interviews. This relationship should allow the respondents to maintain an interest in taking part in this study.
As parts of this study were carried out while I was in the UK, online data collection methods were seen as appropriate for conducting interviews, focus groups and observations. Hine (2004) claimed that online research methods have generated more interest over the last decade and O’Connor et al (2008) pointed to the potential and the value of adopting online research methods in that it allows to compensate for distance and space between researchers and participants. Although all the pre course interviews were face-to-face, during and post interviews were carried online. In carrying these interviews, Mertens’s (1998) recommendations regarding telephone interviews were followed. In that, before carrying out an interview, a suitable time for the interview and the use of the online medium was discussed and agreed upon with the participants. When an online call was established, usually using Skype or Facebook call service, the participants were informed of the purpose of the interview and a description of the questions was provided. The use of a voice recorder was mentioned and they were assured that the data will only be used for research purposes.
Reflecting on the context of the study and the fact that I was a student and a current lecturer, I believe that there was a good relationship between the participants and I. However, too much rapport could lead the interviewees to concentrate on pleasing me as a researcher more than reflecting their ‘true’ views. As this study tried to evaluate the ICT CPD intervention, pre, during and post-course interview stages were built around the evaluation levels. The framework for evaluating ICT CPD in this study was adapted from Kirkpatrick (1976) and Stufflebeam (1983). The former developed a four-level framework for evaluating training programs to measure changes that occurred as a result of training. This focused on
participants’ reactions to and satisfaction with the training; participants’ learning including new knowledge, skills and attitudes; and changes in behaviour as the extent to which participants adopted ideas, practices and strategies. Kirkpatrick’s (1976) framework has been adapted to overlap with Stufflebeam’s (1983) framework, which focuses on four main elements: context, input, processes, and product. In this model context refers to the identification of problems, needs, and opportunities that can guide programme planning. Input evaluation refers to allocation of resources to the evaluated program, and also allows for the evaluation of alternative strategies to achieve programme goals. Process evaluation focuses on implementation, while product evaluation focuses on teaching outcomes. The first three levels of Stufflebeams’ framework comprise the first three levels of evaluation in this study, namely, context, input, and process. As for Kirkpatrick’s framework, reactions, learning outcome and change completed the framework adopted in this study. Following from this, a detailed description of the interviews will be discussed.
3.5.3.1 Pre-Course Interviews
As detailed previously in the needs analysis section, the pre-course interview was meant to try and uncover the nature of the participant in terms of teaching motives, perception of students, as well as an overview of their teaching practice and current use of ICT and CPD. In total 14 pre-course interviews were carried out to assist in the identification of problems, needs, and opportunities in order to guide programme planning, design, and delivery. As explained earlier, the purpose of this stage of data collection was to highlight the participants’ needs and develop a general idea of the context. A semi-structured interview approach was used to allow the researcher to follow up any concerns or issues raised or pointed to by the participants. For example, when discussing the participants’ past experiences with CPD courses at the university, some participants raised the issue of the mismatch between the training offered and the facilities available in the department and school. Generally the interview questions
included some items regarding the participants’ motive for teaching and how they became teachers, their perception of students, constraints and opportunities at the department and school, past experiences of CPD, evaluation of courses attended, and the possibility to attend future training events. Each interview lasted approximately 30-50 minutes, with all participants, with whom I contacted and arranged the interview to be during work hours and at a convenient time. The interviews were semi-structured as justified previously. As for coding and analysing the interviews, a detailed description will follow after presenting all three stages of interviews.
3.5.3.2 During-Course Interview
As discussed earlier in the evaluation framework adopted for this study, the stages of the evaluation also informed the interview questions, analysis and coding of the data. During this stage of data collection the context of the study, content of the training, process of delivery, reaction and satisfaction of the training, learning outcome, and change were the main themes of analysis. This approach allowed me to focus the interviews on specific elements of the training and gave me a systematic way of conducting the interviews. All of the participants were interviewed at this stage online as to provide more flexibility for the participants and to compensate for the geographical distance, as I was not available to be in SA during the entire time of the training.
The sections of the interview covered the six levels of evaluation. For example, in the context section, the participants were asked about the curriculum, type of students, class time, class size, and leadership support. The purpose of this section was to examine how the participants viewed their teaching and work-place environment, to give an indication to any concerns and conditions that may be viewed as constraints to ICT uptake and use of ICT in the language classroom. The second section of the interview focused on the input and content of the training.
It allowed the participants to reach conclusions about the content and gave indications of future use and attitudes towards using different application. This section also focused on identifying the different application and tools that the participants used or favoured. Questions in this section included, What tools have you enjoyed using? What tools have you used or tried to use? How did it go? Did you face any difficulties in using the tool? The third section dealt mainly with the process of delivering the training. The online platform was agreed upon to be a suitable approach for the training as it allowed the participants more freedom and room in learning about the tools in their own time. This section of the interview focused on the participants’ views on the online approach and how they felt about engaging in an online learning platform. Questions in this section included, What do think of the online design of the training? Did you enjoy discussions online? What do you think we should do differently in terms of the design of the training? It should be pointed out that the design of the training appealed to all the participants, however, one participant opted out, as he did not enjoy being part of an online community. The fourth section of the interview was intended to deal with the participants’ reaction to and satisfaction of the training in general. Specific questions on reaction in general and satisfaction of the content, design, and delivery were asked in this section. For example, What have you enjoyed so far in the training? What development should we make in regards to the content, delivery, and design? Of course during this section, development issues were discussed with the participants regarding the online community. For example, a number of participants thought that a combination of face-to-face and online sessions would benefit them. However, this was not possible, as I was in the UK at that time. The fifth section of the interview focused on the learning outcomes of the training. In this section, the participants were asked to evaluate their use of different tools and applications. For example, What tools have you used? How do you evaluate their use? How do you see your ICT use now? During this section the participants gave detailed account of the tools and
applications they have used and the reactions of their students on that use. In general terms, the participants also stressed positive and negative attitudes towards applications and tools, which will be discussed in the analysis chapter. The last level of framework was evaluated after the completion of the course, and will be discussed in the following section.
3.5.3.3 Post-Course Interviews
The third stage in the data collection was the post-course interviews. This stage was carried out with all the participants in the study. Generally, interviews were semi- structured and conducted online and lasted from 30 to 45 minutes. The aim of this stage was to evaluate changes in the participants’ practice after attending the ICT CPD course. Questions in this stage focused on asking the participants if they had adopted using ICT in their teaching practice, developed new use strategies, and their evaluation of ICT use in the language classroom. Questions in this stage included: How do you see the impact of the training on your teaching? How do you evaluate your ICT use now, after you have attended the training?
The post-course interviews were followed by group discussions as to give a much-detailed view of the ICT CPD in general and change in practice in specific.