Necesidades del Cliente

Several data collection methods were used in the qualitative part of the study: semi-structured interview, focus group interview, and documentation related to the HOTS programme implementation. Using observation as the data collection tool was also considered by the researcher. Teachers, however, were not in favour of conducting observations in their classrooms, arguing that students would feel uncomfortable when being observed and would not perform up to their abilities. The researcher, on his part, decided not to insist on having teachers participate in observations, believing that this would affect their motivation to take part in this study.

3.3.2.1 Individual interviews

The method of semi-structured interviews was chosen in the present study. A semi-structured interview with open-ended questions is claimed to have a number of advantages: flexibility, the ability to go into more depth, and the possibility of clearing up any misunderstanding (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). An interviewer can create a friendly atmosphere of informal conversation and, at the same time, a set of pre-determined questions prevents straying from the subject of interview. Also, questions that are not included in the guide may emerge to elaborate on or clarify the information delivered by the interviewee (Fontana and Frey, 2000; Kvale, 1996).

53

This type of interview, on the other hand, has its limitations. It is time consuming, both in terms of data collection and analysis of data. As an interview lasts for a long time, only a relatively small number of such interviews can be conducted and, therefore, results may not be representative of a particular population. In addition, the effectiveness of this method depends significantly on the skill of the interviewer (Cohen et al., 2007).

As Bryman (2012) states, there is little agreement about the minimum sample size in qualitative investigations. But taking an account such factors as interviewing teachers of different disciplines and with different working experience and that half of the teacher intervention group (ten out of twenty teachers who had studied under the HOTS in-service programme) was interviewed might contribute to the representativeness of the results for this participant group. Relevant literature (Cohen et al., 2007; Fontana and Frey, 2000) was studied as to gain knowledge on conducting interviews and advices about this procedure were given by ‘critical friends’.

The aim of interviews with teachers was to learn about the teachers’ intervention practices, perceptions of their personal and professional development, and the problems they experienced in the course of implementation of the HOTS programme. One can see in Appendix 2 (part A) the types of questions asked. The first question of the interview concerned the general characteristic of the contribution of the HOTS programme to the respondent’s personal and professional development. The questions two through fourteen were intended to identify the pedagogical strategies used by the teachers in the classroom. The last two questions dealt with the presumed impact of the HOTS programme on the school culture and teachers’ perception of school as culture of thinking. Appendix 14 includes the examples of follow-up questions (2a and 3a) that elaborate on respondent’s answers. One of these questions (2a) was asked to clarify about the necessity of teaching thinking dispositions, since the teacher was focused on fostering cognitive domain of students’ HOTS. Another one was asked to clarify about the use of thinking strategies in teaching history and because the respondent strayed away from the issue of thinking strategies by talking about the intervention problems (this issue was to be addressed in the interview question 9). The average length of an interview was one hour and fifteen minutes.

54

All the interviews were conducted at the times and places convenient for respondents. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim to preserve all the details of participants’ discourse.

3.3.2.2 Documentary analysis

Hammersley & Atkinson (2007) embraced the use of documents in qualitative research, arguing that the presence and significance of documentary products provides researchers with a wide range of analytic topics, as well as a valuable source of data. Materials of the HOTS intervention programme were reviewed in order to learn about the Educational Ministry guidelines on teaching HOTS in Israeli schools and about theoretical foundations of developing HOTS and a detailed description of the methods used for this purpose. Twenty teachers’ annual instruction plans for the 2011-2012 academic year (general plans for the whole academic year) were analysed to find out how teachers implemented the recommended methods in their instruction. In the plans, teachers noted which skills students would be expected to learn and how these skills would be taught and assessed during the year. The plans included the notes on the topics in which inductive instruction could be implemented, when to use thinking guides, where to make cross-curricular connections, problem-based learning issues, and other methods for developing the HOTS of students. In the written reports, intervention group teachers described the learning activities provided within the programme implementation. Teachers were required to focus on the following aspects: organization and implementation of the activity and student behaviours and attitudes thereto.

In addition, thematic analysis was provided of students’ written responses to the four questionnaire statements (see Appendix 3, part A). These questions refer to the level of metacognition in thinking (statement 2), problem-solving abilities (6), transfer of thinking skills (11), and teamwork abilities (15). This was done in order to examine students’ perceptions of their thinking abilities and their attitudes to learning prior to and after the intervention. The purpose was also to find out whether differences existed between the perceptions of the two groups of students. It has been mentioned in the Introduction chapter that this study represents the first step in the longitude investigation of implementing the HOTS-based pedagogy in an Arab school. It was decided that at this stage, the use of written responses would allow for exploring the beliefs of a large number of students and having a general understanding of their learning habits in the new learning environment.

55

It has been stated (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007; Russ-Eft & Preskill, 2001) that documents intended for an analysis should be relevant to the issues examined in the study. The problem is that the information included in documents could be unavailable or out of date. In the current study, the regulatory documents dedicated to developing HOTS in Israeli schools were reviewed (Higher- Order thinking strategies, 2009; Goals and aims for years 2009-2012, 2009; Pedagogical horizons, 2007). The materials of the HOTS programme developed by expert teachers (see section 3.4.2.1) were examined. In addition, the information documents contain may be incomplete or inaccurate. To overcome this limitation, documentary sources were checked against other data collected: teachers’ reports were compared with the data obtained from teacher interviews. Students’ written responses were also checked against the information presented in teacher reports, instruction plans and interviews.

3.3.2.3 Focus group

Focus group is considered a method that can provide insights about the phenomena being studied by allowing all participants to speak up in front of an entire group. Conduct of a focus group is led by the purpose to reveal things that cannot be seen or heard, using other data collection tools (Bryman, 2012; Cresswell, 2002; Spradley, 1979). The dynamics of the focus group enables identification of balanced views and extreme opinions while differences of opinions may provide new topics for discussion. Krueger & Casey (2000) have noted that emotions and tensions, which emerge during the discussion, may help to confirm or reject the facts discussed.

The focus group conducted in the current study included six teachers from the intervention group and lasted almost two hours. The researcher sought to examine teachers’ collective perspectives on the implementation of the HOTS programme, including the successes they experienced and the problems they encountered. Appendix 2 (part B) includes the discussion guide which was prepared by the researcher. The guide indicates the issues to be explored, drawing upon the research questions. The researcher acted as a moderator, keeping the discussion focused and ensuring that all participants voiced their opinions. The participants were informed that one person could talk at a time and were ensured that each opinion would be respected, whatever it may be, and each participant could express his/her opinion freely. Of the five interview questions, four are open,

56

enabling the participants to provide more detailed responses. At the end of the session, the researcher provided a short summary of the discussion and thanked the participants.

While focus group interview is a useful tool for qualitative research, it has limitations. Interviewees may be unwilling or uncomfortable to share views in front of others (Krueger & Casey, 2000). In case of this focus group interview, however, this was not the issue because all the participants were eager to speak out over their successes and were not hesitant to express their thoughts about the problems related to the programme implementation. At the beginning of the interview, some teachers seemed to dominate the discussion, but the researcher tried to draw out less vocal participants by soliciting their opinions. It was also important not to influence the participants towards any particular point of view by giving researcher’s personal opinions.