Problemas para abordar el estudio de la conversación

Data for the study was collected in two phases, four months apart. The first phase of data collection was done by means of the VASI questionnaire which has seven open-ended questions, with question 3 having two sub-sections, which assess two different NOSI aspects. In the second phase of the study, data was collected by means of semi-structured interviews with 20% of the participants. The main aim of this phase was to elicit elaboration on learners’ responses for VASI questionnaire responses from phase one. The section below provides a description of the research instruments and how these instruments were used for data collection.

3.7.1 The VASI questionnaire

The VASI questionnaire is an open-ended questionnaire developed with the main aim of assessing understandings about the NOSI, without including tenets of the NOS. Open-ended questionnaires are qualitative data collection instruments, which provides respondents with the opportunity to give responses based on their complete knowledge, understandings and feeling (Leedy & Ormrod, 2014). Creswell (2015) also emphasises the importance of using unrestricted open-ended questions, which will allow participants to “provide information without constraints” (Creswell, 2015, p. 29). The validated VASI questionnaire (see Appendix F) was adopted and used for the study, because it was best suited to elicit learners’ understandings about scientific inquiry.

The VASI instrument was developed by Lederman et al. (2014), as an improvement and modification of the VOSI questionnaire, developed by Schwartz et al. (2008). Just like the VOSI, the VASI questionnaire focuses on assessing the understandings learners (K-12), tertiary and teachers have about scientific inquiry. Even though the VOSI provided a good measure of understandings about scientific inquiry (five aspects), some three aspects about scientific inquiry, namely: “inquiry procedures are guided by the question asked”, “research conclusions must be consistent with the data collected”, and “explanations are developed from a combination of collected data and what is already known” (Lederman et al., 2014, p. 75) were not included in the instrument. As a result three additional questions were included in the VASI to accommodate these aspects (Lederman et al., 2014)

The eight aspects embedded in the VASI questionnaire align with the scientific processes and practices as promoted in the framework for K-12 (NRC, 2012) and the NGSS (2013). The standards and framework which frame science teaching and learning in United States schools, have been known to resonate with most science education reforms globally, inclusive of South Africa. As with the framework for K-12 (NRC, 2012) the NCS R-12, covered in the CAPS, emphasises the need for learners to engage in investigations that will enable them to solve real- life problems (DBE, 2011a). The curriculum encourages science learners to appreciate the relevance of scientific questions, the different types of scientific investigations and the ability to handle data and provide explanations for findings from scientific investigations. That is why the instrument as first piloted in a South African study by Gaigher et al. (2014) was considered suitable for the study.

Table 3.3 illustrates how the eight aspects of scientific inquiry are represented in the VASI questionnaire items.

3.7.2 Piloting the VASI

The VASI questionnaire as earlier indicated was first piloted in a South African study with 105 Grade 11 learners across a diverse spectrum of differently resourced schools (Gaigher et al., 2014). For this study, the main aim of piloting the VASI questionnaire was to ensure that the questionnaire was readable and explicit enough for participant learners. The researcher also used this phase to identify learners’ language preferences for the VASI instrument and ensure that what the participants wrote as a responses to a VASI questions, were indeed what they meant as understood by the researcher.

The first step in piloting the VASI questionnaire was done by translating and back translating the questionnaire from English to isiZulu, an African language commonly spoken by the inhabitants of Johannesburg and its environs. The purpose of translating and back translating the questionnaire was to ensure that core meanings of questionnaire items were not lost if participant learners preferred a translated version. However, all participants of the pilot and main studies preferred the English version of the questionnaire, as English is the language of science teaching and learning for most Johannesburg schools.

The researcher also acknowledges the bias of considering forward and back translation in only one language, as this excluded the rest of the learners who spoke different official languages.

3.7.3 VASI questionnaire data collection for the main study

In the first phase of the study, the VASI questionnaire was administered to all 90 participant Grade 12 learners under examination conditions. Prior to the administration of questionnaires, the researcher discussed the overall purpose of the assessment with learners, reassuring them that the VASI questionnaire was not a test. She also mentioned that no collaborative answering of the items was encouraged, since the study aimed at assessing learners’ individual understandings about the NOSI. The researcher and science teachers were present to ensure that these conditions were maintained. A maximum of one hour was provided to complete the open-ended questions in order to accommodate all learners as informed by the times recorded during the pilot study.

3.7.4 Semi-structured interviews

According to Patton (2012), semi-structured interviews are interviews which already have several key questions patterning to the study, but still give the researcher the flexibility to pursue an idea. In summary, these kinds of interviews fall between structured and unstructured interviews in which participants are expected to answer predetermined sets of questions, which allow for “probing and clarification of provided responses” (Maree, 2010, p. 87). For this study a set of predetermined follow-up questions (see Appendix G) was used to cross-examine and validate individual learner’s responses to the VASI questionnaire and establish if any of the views provided in their questionnaire responses, changed.

The main aim of choosing semi-structured interviews rather than in-depth interviews was to elucidate learners’ responses on the VASI open-ended questions and not to start a deeper level of open conversations, which might have caused the participants to stray from the target responses relevant for answering the research questions.

As earlier indicated in section 3.6, the sample for the semi-structured interviews constituted 20% (18 learners) of the 90 participants in which a set of predetermined questions (Appendix G) was asked and learners’ responses were audio recorded. The sample size for this phase of the study was a recommendation by the VASI questionnaire authors, Lederman et al (2014). This phase of data collection commenced four months after all the VASI questionnaires had been administered, collected, coded and analysed.

In establishing the sample for semi-structured interviews, the VASI questionnaire data, had to be completely analysed. Firstly inter-coder reliability of learners’ responses to the VASI questions had to be established. A random 10% sample of the completed VASI questionnaires were read and coded independently by eight different coders, including four of the VASI questionnaire authors who are science education experts. An inter-coder agreement of more than 90% was reached for each VASI item. Learners’ responses were then classified as naïve, mixed or informed understandings. Naïve understandings referred to responses, which were not consistent with the NOSI aspect or were contradictory, while mixed understandings referred to responses which were only partially consistent with an aspect or were correct, but learners could not provide a satisfactory explanation for their reasoning. Informed understandings on the other hand, referred to responses which were completely consistent with an aspect and learners could provide satisfactory explanations for their reasoning. Post-coding

of the entire data, numerical values were attributed to the codes, in order to generate scores on the questionnaire responses. The scores included no response coded as zero, naïve responses scored one, mixed responses scored two and informed responses scored three. After computing questionnaire scores, a stratified sampling technique based on the scores was employed to select 20% percent of the first phase participants for semi-structured interviews in the second phase of the study. Three strata, namely informed, mixed and naïve understandings were created and the questionnaires separated accordingly. Six learners were then selected using convenience sampling from each of the strata for follow-up semi-structured interviews.

The rationale for including semi-structured interviews was for learners to elucidate and elaborate on the responses which they provided in the VASI questionnaire, as recommended by the questionnaire authors (Lederman et al., 2014). Furthermore the semi-structured interviews provided an opportunity for the researcher to triangulate the data for the study. During the interviews, the researcher also probed for new insights as to the sources of the views, which the participants expressed about scientific inquiry. All the interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. The transcribed text was coded using a hybrid of predetermined deductive and open coding.