4.1.1 Selection of Participants
The FGI participants were selected so that there would be, wherever possible, the same number of male and female students within each group so that the views of both
genders were equally represented. Although the sample for the questionnaires as a whole was not split equally by gender, the views of equal numbers of male and female students was important as a means of not only avoiding gender bias (Sackett, 1979) but also because the questionnaire responses revealed that the female respondents were more negative in their perceptions of the science teacher(s), comparative to male respondents within the same class. Therefore, within the FGIs, an objective was to investigate the experiences and perceptions underlying such responses. Most FGI groups had six members. With some groups, however, given the small class sizes, being rigid about the size of a focus group would have excluded one or two students. If this was to unwaveringly be the case, all of the students within the age group were included. One class group contained only male students, and therefore all nine male students from that group were interviewed. Therefore, in total, 47 students were
involved in the FGIs as follows: Group 1 – 6 students aged 10-11 (3 male, 3 female); Group 2 – 9 students aged 10-11 (all male); Group 3 – 8 students aged 11-12 (5 male, 3 female); Group 4 – 6 students aged 11-12 (3 male, 3 female); Group 5 – 6 students aged 12-13 (3 male, 3 female); Group 6 – 6 students aged 12-13 (3 male, 3 female), and; Group 7 – 6 students aged 12-13 (3 male, 3 female). Prior to each of the seven FGIs the objectives of the session were outlined, concluding with all students being asked if they were willing to participate and voluntarily gave their informed consent. None of the students withdrew from their respective FGI at any stage.
4.1.2 Timing and location of the Focus Group Interviews
All of the FGIs were conducted in the same room within the main school building. This room was located away from classrooms and offices so that students were less likely to feel that their discussions were being overheard, from outside the room, by their science teacher or other members of the school staff. The researcher was the only adult present during each FGI.
133
4.1.3 Recording of the Focus Group Interviews: the security of recordings and transcripts
The FGIs were recorded on two separate digital voice recorders, with one acting as an auxiliary device in case the main digital voice recorder failed to record the FGI. The
recording was transferred to the researcher’s computer and then transcribed. Once the recording had been fully transcribed, the recording on the digital voice recorder was erased. The recordings and transcribed interviews were held securely on the researcher’s computer within password-secured folders and files.
4.1.4 Questions used as the basis for the Focus Group Interviews
The emphasis with each of the FGIs was that it should be semi-structured, with a common framework of questions as the structure for each FGI whilst enabling the researcher to explore any of the questions in greater detail with further, supplementary questions. The structured questions central to the FGIs stemmed from common similar responses within the questionnaires, and explored:
1. The students’ relationship with their science teacher outside the classroom;
2. Relatedness – the quality of the teacher-student relationship during science lessons and the factors / teacher behaviours informing the students’ perceptions;
3. Competence, especially perceived competence, including teacher behaviours that had a positive or negative influence upon students’ perceived competence levels; 4. Autonomy within the classroom such as the opportunity to decide the direction
and content of learning activities, including investigations;
5. The teacher behaviours that were perceived by student as being autonomy supportive;
6. Aspects of classroom learning that, the students’ view, promoted or inhibited the feelings of motivation to learn and make engaged efforts within science lessons, and;
7. Factors perceived as having either an engaging or disengaging influence upon students’ learning and / or participation within science lessons.
8. The key behaviours and methods central to the perceived ‘ideal science teacher’.
134
4.2 Thematic Content Analysis of the Focus Group Interviews
The transcribed Focus Group interviews were analysed using Thematic Content Analysis protocols (TCA: Anderson, 1998, 2004) (see Appendix 4.1: this summarises the main conclusions drawn from the focus group data). TCA enables the descriptive
presentation of data collected using qualitative methods such as focus group interviews. The advantage of conducting a TCA is that the outcomes are descriptive and analytical
(Cresswell, 2009; Fischer, 2006; Smith, 1992, 2008). However, TCAs are also a form of intuitive inquiry: a constructivist epistemology and ontology based upon the intersubjective, inferential interpretations of subjective data that has been focused by the interviewer’s
selection of questions and the order in which they are asked (Anderson, 1998, 2004). As TCA is a form of interpretive inquiry, quite often the data collected and its analysis usually leads to far more questions than have been posed and answered (Aldridge et al., 1999, p. 50).
Throughout, therefore, it is acknowledged that the current TCA, herein, is grounded within the assumptions associated with interpretivism, which are based upon subjective and interpretive paradigms (Thomas, 2009).
The transcribed FGIs were analysed in order to identify common themes across the sample as a whole and individual year groups (Appendix 4.1 summarises the main
conclusions drawn from the focus group data). TCA involves selectivity on the part of the researcher as themes are selected on the basis of focusing upon areas that help to answer the research questions and provide an overview of:
1.
The self-perceived affective, cognitive and self-attributional factors that students regard as being influential upon their engagement with learning;2. The key motivating teacher characteristics and behaviours regarded as mediating influences upon the initiation and sustaining of engagement behaviours;
3. Specifically, the key teacher behaviours that;
a. Inform students’ views of the quality of the teacher-student interpersonal relationship during and outside science lessons;
b. Inform students’ self-attribute perceptions, such as competence for learning science and self-efficacy within science lessons and activities
c. Encourage or inhibit students’ participation and autonomy within learning activities within the classroom and written assignments, and;