Intervalo de confianza (IC)

3.2.1 The preliminary interview

Before collecting the main data, the researcher conducted a preliminary interview to ensure that the questions in the interview schedule were comprehensible to the participants and that the data gathered would meet the requirements of the study. As Opie (2004) stresses, this type of study is important as it may help eliminate any

ambiguous, confusing or insensitive questions from the interview schedules. This was done in the Mafeteng District of Lesotho. The Maseru District was reserved for the major data collection, as, has been pointed out, “inclusive schools” are very sparse in Lesotho. Both districts have many schools situated around the town centres, although the town of Mafeteng is much smaller in area and in terms of developments.

The participating teachers (n = 5) in the preliminary study were selected from schools around the Mafeteng town centre. Five teachers signed consent forms for participation. However, only three arrived for the interview (the other two excused themselves with less than three hours’ notice, citing unrelated “final minute emergencies”). Consequently, the number of participants in the final interview schedule was put at three. Hancock et al. (2007) make it clear that sometimes focus- group interviews have to proceed with fewer participants than expected. Following the preliminary interview, feedback was obtained from the participants and most interview questions appeared to be clear to the participants and were finalised. Furthermore, the researcher was made aware of the importance of considering a short break in the middle of the interview, in order to give participants time to rest.

Other modifications to the interview schedule – as a consequence of the preliminary interview – involved relocating some questions. Question six was relocated to position three, because the responses to questions one and two appeared to link well with those for question six. Furthermore, the participants stated that question 4(a), “Are there opportunities/benefits of inclusive education? If yes, mention them”, appeared to cover question 4(b), “How could they be utilised optimally?” Consequently, question 4(b) was removed and the “explanation” component was attached to 4(a), so as to strengthen it even further: “...If yes, mention and explain them.” Then, question 4(a) was renumbered as question five. Also based on participant feedback, question 10(b), “What are your success stories?”, was elaborated on to read: “What are your success stories regarding your teaching of children with different abilities and/or special educational needs in your school?” Finally, the researcher adopted the suggestion of having a short break immediately after question seven. The final interview schedule is attached as Appendix B.

3.2.2 Interviews

It has already been stated in section 3.4, that permission to conduct the research was given: first by the College of Education Research Ethics Review Committee of the University of South Africa (UNISA); second by the Ministry of Education in Lesotho; and third by the principals of the secondary schools in the Maseru District of Lesotho (to access any of the teachers in their schools). The participants and the researcher agreed upon the interview venues, dates and times. The second interview was conducted after studying the transcripts from the first one. The interview venues (which happened to be two secondary schools), dates and times were chosen in collaboration with the participants – based on ease of access and their convenience. The first interview was conducted over the weekend (on Sunday), but the second interview was conducted on a Thursday.

Prior to the interview sessions

The researcher arrived at the interview venues an hour before the scheduled time of the interviews. He then arranged the seating for the groups and tested the recording equipment. When the participants came in, he offered them refreshments. Dawson (2006) suggests that the interviewer should do this if he cannot afford to pay the participants. Thereafter, there was time for introductions and some informal conversation between the participants and the interviewer, and among the participants, all aimed at creating rapport. Still conscious of time, the researcher re- explained the purpose of the interviews, and demonstrated how they could benefit the participants. He re-emphasised some of the items which were explained in the consent letters – for example, what would happen to the data, the assurance of confidentiality, freedom to speak in English as well as in Sesotho, and that their names would be omitted from the final copy of the research. There was also an agreement about the ground rules – for example: no interruptions; no use of the real names of people, schools or privately owned places; cell phones were to be switched to silent mode; dominance was to be avoided in the discussions; and nobody could leave early, unless they had a health problem.

The interview sessions

After an agreement was reached to record the interviews, the researcher started the recording device. The interview guide was used to lead the discussion in the direction of the study topic, ensuring that each participant responded to the same question. The group would then discuss that question. Neutrality was key to the researcher throughout the process, and probing questions were used to seek clarification of ambiguous responses. Overall, both interviews proceeded smoothly. The participants for both interviews contributed almost equally in the discussions. This is because the interviewer applied the idea of Dawson (2006) and persuaded those who seemed to be shy, to contribute more. At times the participants wanted to stray from the topic of discussion, and this was ameliorated by repeating the questions, probing, paraphrasing and summarising statements (Dawson, 2006). The researcher also made some notes to record the non-verbal information. The interview sessions lasted 3 hours 40 minutes each, on average. The assumptions for the interviews were that the participants revealed all the information they had concerning their knowledge and experiences of IE, and that their responses and comments during the interviews helped them to reflect and hence grow in terms of their knowledge and understanding of IE.

End of the interviews

At the end of the interviews, the researcher stopped the recording device, thanked the participants, and left them with his phone number in case they wished to follow up on any of the issues they had raised during their discussions. They were once again reminded to seek a published version of the thesis if they wished to have one. Each interview was transcribed, starting a day after the interview was conducted. This meant that the researcher could vividly remember much of the non-verbal information, which was also captured in the field notes. Travel and lunch costs were provided to the research participants.