Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broader generalisation and theories (Aqil Burney & Mahmood, 2006; Gabriel, 2013; Zalaghi, 2016). It is also referred to as the “bottom-up”, and is more open-ended in nature and exploratory especially at the beginning. It was used in this study as the research questions of this study are more of open-ended. Gabriel (2013) states that inductive reasoning aims at exploring new phenomenon or looking at previously researched phenomenon from different perspectives. She further states that it is usually
associated with qualitative research (Gabriel, 2013). Qualitative research is an educational research in which the researcher relies on the views of the participants; asks broad, general questions, collects data consisting lengthy responses (or text) from participants; describes and analyses these word for themes; and conducts the inquiry in a subjective biased manner (Creswell, 2012). This was fulfilled in this study as the researcher collected data in the form of words through semi-structured face- face and focus group interviews. The researcher used the inductive reasoning strategy for interviews during fieldwork. The data collected was analysed to expand and develop themes based on the results of the questionnaire.
In this research, a qualitative design, which is explorative, descriptive and contextual in nature was utilised in order to examine the perceptions, factors and barriers, which may retard the integration of computer technology in TTC mathematics classrooms (Strydom, 2013).
3.4.3.1. Exploratory nature of the research study
In this study, the exploratory study was used to investigate the persistent phenomena of the use of computer technology as experienced by lecturers and students in TTCs. It also serves the purpose of testing the feasibility of the study and developing additional investigation (Babbie, 2013a; Babbie & Mouton, 2010; Royse, 2011). The exploratory nature of qualitative study leads to the development of new themes (Chapter 5, section 5.4: 142) and knowledge, which provide satisfactory and conclusive answers to the research questions. The exploratory focus of this study was valuable in that it provided deeper insights into the perceptions of lecturers in the TTCs mathematics classroom.
3.4.3.2. Descriptive nature of the research study
The essence of the descriptive nature is to discover facts or to describe reality accurately as possible in order to gain an overview of the current statutes of the situation (Strydom, 2013). The aim of this study is to determine how lecturers and students experience the use of computer technology in their colleges rather than explaining them.
3.4.3.3. Contextual nature of the research study
The content analysis occurred in a specific context as the college lecturers and students’ experience of perceptions were explored and described within the context
of their life. The lecturers’ actions and experiences were understood and meaningful when I was placed in the setting of the lecturers’ lives and the lives of the people surrounding them (Engel & Schutt, 2010; 2013). I established the context of participants’ experience through individual face-to-face, focus group videotaped interviews and the observational notes, which were made.
I employed the explanatory design for the following reasons: Firstly, to obtain different but complementary data on lecturers and students’ perceptions/attitudes towards the use of ICT and to best understand the factors that may influence ICT use in mathematics classroom (Creswell, 2012). I obtained statistical, quantitative results from a population of lecturers and then made a follow up with a few individual lecturers and students in order to explain those results in more depth (O’Cathain, Murphy, & Nicholl, 2007) (see Figure1). Secondly, the design was used to cross check and validate the findings to increase the depth and quality of the results and to provide valuable guidance to my teaching practice (Creswell, 2012). Thirdly, the explanatory design helped to improve the consistency and accuracy of the data, which provided a more complete picture of the lecturers’ perceptions toward the use of ICT in mathematics instruction (Halcomb & Andrew, 2005). Moreover, I strived to gain a deeper understanding of the lecturers’ perceptions by triangulating the numerical data from quantitative research with the detail of qualitative research (Creswell, 2009).
Explanatory sequential design
Figure 1: Explanatory sequential design
3.4.4. Purpose statement for explanatory sequential
The purpose of mixed methods can be to gain “understanding and corroboration” of the phenomenon (Jonhson, Onwuegbuzie, and Turner, 2007: 123). Greene,
Quantitative (QUAN) data Collection And Analysis Qualitative (QUAL) Data Collection And Analysis Data Interpretation Follow up with
Caracelli, and Graham (1989) however outlined five important purposes for using mixed methods in line with the purposes of the study such as triangulation, complementarity, development, initiation, and expansion. These purposes helped the researcher in enlightening the perceptions of the lecturers on the use of ICT in the mathematics classroom. For instance, the purpose of triangulation in this study was two-fold: firstly, it helped to corroborate the positivist paradigm with the interpretive/constructivist paradigm. Secondly, triangulation dealt with issues of trustworthiness in the qualitative design. Complementarily, triangulation elaborated on or clarified quantitative data (numbers) using qualitative data (the voices of the participants).
In clearer terms, the results of quantitative data helped in selecting qualitative participants purposively. These participants were interviewed to check whether they use ICT when teaching mathematics. Initiation was employed to recast the research questions. The expansion purpose was to increase the breadth of the quantitative data with qualitative one.
The study investigates the perceptions of lecturers on the use of computer technology in the mathematics classroom. An explanatory design was used by collecting qualitative data after the quantitative phase in order to explain the quantitative data in more depth. In the first quantitative phase of the study, the questionnaire data was collected from Mathematics College lecturers in all TTCs to test the pragmatists’ theory, which explains what, how and why, the perceptions of lecturers could influence the use of computer technology. The second qualitative phase was conducted because the voices of the lecturers and students on the perceptions of the use of computer technology in the mathematics classroom seemed unresolved. In this exploratory follow up, the views of lecturers and students at three TTCs (one public and two privates) were tentatively explored. The explanatory follow-up was carried out in order to help explain the views of lecturers and students, which could not be voiced in a questionnaire for a more in depth understanding of the lecturers’ perceptions on the use of computer technology. Essentially, the qualitative study was to supplement the quantitative data (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007).
It is expected that the complementing of the findings in this study may make a more valid contribution to the existing body of knowledge on mathematics instruction. Moreover, it will also enrich the understanding of the research objectives (Macnee & McCabe, 2008). For instance, data from the qualitative interview was utilised to complement data from the quantitative that was from the questionnaires. Therefore, the participants’ written responses in the questionnaire were complemented during the interviews.