Tercer Momento Evaluación de los resultados obtenidos en el

In the first chapter, the researcher mentioned that the data for this study was drawn from different sources, using two tools. However, three modes namely questionnaires, interviews and field notes were used to capture the participants’ views, perceptions and experiences. The section below is a discussion of the techniques (methods) employed to obtain data from the participants.

3.10.1 Field notes

Field notes are one of the primary forms of data collection in qualitative field research. Notes taken in the field are meant to capture details about events, people, places, meanings attributed to interactions, and researcher reflections. Face-to-face interviews allowed the observation of not only verbal, but also nonverbal data (Hiller & DiLuzio, 2004). Contemporaneous scratch notes of observations of participants’ non-verbal physical expressions that filtered through during the in-depth interview process, were taken and then expanded as another data gathering source.

The participant and the researcher had access to facial expressions, gestures and other para verbal communications during the session, which the researcher tried to describe and commented on, and included thoughts about the setting, the respondents and activities which enriched the meaning of the spoken words (Carr & Worth, cited in Knox & Burkard, 2009). Therefore, in this context, the field notes were understood as an objective record of observations made.

Schatzman and Strauss (1973) advocate the organization of notes into three categories:

 Observational notes; statements bearing events experienced principally through watching and listening.

 Theoretical notes; self-conscious, controlled attempts to derive meaning from any one or several observation notes.

90 | P a g e

 Methodological notes; statements that reflect an operational act completed or planned: an instruction to oneself, a reminder, a critique of one’s own tactics. In this study the ‘observational’ notes were applied since the characteristics fit well within the context of the research. Further, the researcher adopted an interpretative approach, and with this orientation allows the researcher to treat the participants’ social actions and activities as text (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

3.10.2 Questionnaires (Appendixes A – F: pg. 216-253)

To investigate the issues under consideration in this study, the researcher designed questionnaires of unstructured open-ended questions, which were answered by the three different categories of participants (students, lecturers and IT staff).

3.10.2.1 Designing the Questionnaire

The questionnaire was designed to investigate the individual’s background, the use and application of the systems provided by the institution to advance all of the respondents’ involvement in ICT engagement, and their use of ICTs in academic development (included in Appendix A: pg. 216; C: pg. 234 & E: pg. 250).

The figure below shows the areas covered by the questionnaire.

ICT use and adoption

Knowledge & engagement with ICTs

& ICT skill Social networks for academic purpose

Education background Adoption of ICTs Professional experience Incorporating ICTs in

teaching and learning Figure 3.5: Questionnaire protocol

Questionnaire Design

Background Information

Resource tools for teaching and learning

ICTs knowledge & use in teaching and learning

91 | P a g e

An open-ended questionnaire was designed to encourage full and meaningful answers using the subject's (participant’s) own knowledge, understanding and/or feelings. Open-ended questions also tended to be more objective and invited free ranging responses which were extremely useful in eliciting deep understanding of the respondents’ perspectives.

3.10.2.2 Administering the Questionnaire

The questionnaires were self-administered due to the proximity of the participants. Neuman (1997:38) lists two major advantages of self-administered questionnaires:

“The research can be conducted over a wide area, and distance does not present restriction, and this type of questionnaire offers anonymity and minimises researcher bias”.

Notwithstanding these advantages, the method was also subjected to a number of disadvantages as outlined by Bourque & Fielder (1995:14), DeVaus (1996:108) and Oppenheim (1992:102):

“No control over who responds to the questionnaire, and whether or not that person “consults” with colleagues or peers while completing it. Misunderstandings cannot be cleared immediately”.

However, adequate steps were taken to overcome or minimise these disadvantages to ensure authentic responses to the questions. A special appeal was made to the participants to respond to the questionnaire independently so that a clear understanding of the issue under study could be obtained. Also, piloting the questionnaire cleared up any handicaps in terms of the wording and layout.

A total of fifteen questionnaires (eight to students, five to lecturers and two to IT staff) were self-administered, of which eleven were received back (six from students, four from lecturers and one from the IT staff) indicating a good return. It is worth mentioning that the researcher had one-to-one discussions with each participant, explaining in detail the purpose of the questionnaire, their responsibility, as well as mine, and motivating them to respond honestly and to the best of their ability. There was also a written consent letter issued to them, assuring them of confidentiality (Appendix M: pg. 297; N: pg. 298 & P: pg. 299).

92 | P a g e

3.10.2.3 Discussion of the Questionnaire

The questionnaire comprised twenty questions grouped into three sections (Appendices A: pg. 216; C: pg. 234, & E: pg. 250).

Section A comprised one question, made up of eight sub questions soliciting the demographic characteristics of the participants (gender, qualification, school, experience etc.). This provided the opportunity to link the information given to their experiences and understanding of issues.

Section B was made up of four questions targeting the participants’ ICT background knowledge and experience with respect to ICT productivity tools and resources that are available in the institution.

Section C consisted of fifteen questions seeking information on ICT knowledge and usage. These covered the application, infusion and transformation stages of ICT development (cf. chapter 2).

The questionnaire data was captured for each case, question by question, in order to identify similarities and categories that emerged (Appendices B: pg. 220; D: pg. 238 & F: pg. 253)

3.10.3 Interviews

Interviews are one of the most common forms of qualitative research methods (Flick, Von Kardorff & Steinke, 2004; Silverman, 2011; Mason, 2002; Merriam, 2009), which involve the construction or reconstruction of knowledge. Anderson (1990:222) defines an interview as “a specialised form of communication between people for a specific purpose, associated with some agreed subject matter”. Kvale (1996:77) puts it this way: ‘The qualitative research interview seeks to describe the meanings of central themes in the life world of the subjects’. The main task of interviewing is to understand the meaning of what the interviewees say. Cohen and Manion (2007) suggest that research interviews serve three main purposes. They are a principal tool for gathering data; can be used to test a hypothesis or generate one, and as a supporting tool for the purpose of triangulation; or can be used to probe deeper into elements uncovered by other methods.

93 | P a g e

Despite its disadvantages, such as being prone to bias, time-intensive and time consuming, the advantages, such as providing more detailed information than other data collection methods, providing a more relaxed atmosphere in which to collect information, providing rich and thick data, providing insight into respondents’ perspective, gathering new knowledge and thoughts, and developing a personal relationship in interacting with participants, far outweigh the limitations and pitfalls. To counteract these pitfalls and limitations, the researcher undertook corrective action during the process.

The style of interview conducted in this study is greatly influenced by the overarching qualitative paradigm. Kvale & Brinkman (2009) describe the qualitative research interview as a construction site of knowledge. An interview according to my understanding is literally an ‘interview”, an interchange of views between two persons conversing about a theme of mutual interest. The interview was designed as an in-depth interview, which involves conducting intensive individual interviews with each participant to explore their perspectives on the issue under study. McMillan and Schumacher (2009) contend that the in-depth interview extends and formalises conversation, and is often referred to as a conversation with an objective.

McNamara (2009) contends that interviews are useful for getting the story behind a participant’s experiences, where the interviewer can pursue in-depth information around the topic. The interviews may be useful as a follow-up to certain respondents’ questionnaires to further investigate their responses and interviews. Seeking to unpack both factual and meaning levels through the latter was quite difficult. (Kvale & Brinkman, 2009).

A careful study of characteristics outlined by Kvale (2007), that a qualitative interview focuses on the everyday life of the interviewee, seeking the meaning of central themes in the daily life of the subject, through the use of normal language to obtain descriptions of specific situations and positions relative to the research questions and theoretical framework, made interviewing one of the appropriate data collection methods for this study.

94 | P a g e

The interview was conducted for approximately 90 minutes per participant, and was recorded with prior consent from the participants, and thereafter transcribed. The semi-structure interview served two purposes: Firstly to get clarity on responses from the questionnaire, and secondly to probe the answers deeper, to uncover issues relevant to the research subject.

In order to probe the issue under investigation, the interview agenda was structured as illustrated in figure 3.6 below.

Figure 3.6: Interview protocol

Standardised, open-ended interview questions were used, so mostly the same questions were asked of all the interviewees that fell into the same case, though some follow-up questions differed. This approach was chosen because it facilitated faster interviews that could be more easily analysed and compared. Secondly, the participants had the opportunity to answer the questions; however they chose to respond, allowing in-depth responses to be obtained, along with a description or an explanation.

The interviews were conducted on a semi-structured basis, guided by a schedule of questions and issues (Appendix G: pg. 255 & H: pg. 256); these were flexibly structured, which allowed data to be captured in their natural form. Also, because the