2.1 Design of the methodology
2.2 Country selection
2.3 Sample size
2.4 Case studies
The methodology was designed specifically to identify issues and implications of the main research question 'to what extent have rural primary schools attempted to use agricultural experience as a means of contextualising teaching and learning?'. The process started with a brainstorming session to construct a set of sub-questions which would be used as the basis for the questionnaire:
1. To what extent is contextualisation of teaching and learning reflected in education policy statements at different levels?2. What practices have teachers developed and used in order to contextualise learning?
3. What are the existing levels of knowledge, skill and attitude amongst teachers towards the process of contextualisation?
4. What are the attitudes of learners, community members and policy makers towards contextualisation?
5. What evidence is there to suggest that teachers use agricultural experience as a means of contextualising teaching and learning?
6. What factors enhance or constrain the use of agricultural experiences as a means of contextualising teaching and learning?
7. What is the impact of contextualisation on the process of teaching and learning?
8. What is the role of contextualisation in strengthening and developing linkages between the school, home and community environments?
9. What are the implications of contextualisation for educational planning and practice in the future?
These research questions were then used to identify key issues, methods of data collection, potential sources of data, and the type of data to collect, in order to obtain information on the key issues. This information was displayed in tabular form and was continually updated throughout the period of research methodology formulation. It was also used during the fieldwork as an important reference document and checklist.
Designing the methodology was a long process and required modifications before and during the fieldwork. It was envisaged that questions by themselves would not provide a sufficient standard of qualitative information, because it is unlikely that the people being questioned have ever undertaken long interview sessions. Also, since the sample size is small, no concrete conclusions can be drawn if only one methodology is used. With these points in mind, and to encourage more input through working in groups and to stimulate thought and discussion, a mixture of semi-structured questionnaires and participatory activities were used. The methodology proved, through the use of a qualitative, triangulated approach, to be very successful in meeting the aims of the research. Figure 1 illustrates the research process undertaken for this study.
The selection of countries for the study was made on the basis of published papers that included, either directly or indirectly, some reference to contextualising teaching and learning in rural primary schools. In some cases (Tanzania and India) direct contact was made with the authors of the papers, who then became the collaborating partners. In the other countries (Ethiopia and Sri Lanka), following contact with the authors, recommendations were made to find appropriate collaborators.
The sample size is small due to the nature of the research work. The work is innovative and few qualitative studies have been carried out in this area of educational research. The case studies are not meant to be representative or comparative of the particular country's situation. They are intended to be illuminative, illustrating in a unique study what actually happens in the classroom of a selected rural primary school. This can help deepen understanding of the constraints under which teachers work, the nature of their practice and its strengths and weaknesses, and the perceptions of pupils, parents and policy makers of teaching and learning processes in rural primary schools.
Figure 1 The research process
Eight case studies were carried out; these were located in two rural primary schools in each of four countries, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka and India. Field work of one week in each school (except Ethiopia) was undertaken to obtain an understanding of the particular school in relation to the key issues. Schools were selected by the collaborating partners following a set of guidelines, the most important being as follows:
· One case study school was recognised as an "innovative" school, where a school is perceived to be innovative if it conforms to some or all of the following:· there is a degree of flexibility in the curriculum, either in the basic construction or in the way the teacher interprets it and teaches it;· children are able and encouraged to discuss issues in class;
· some attempt is made to use children's out of school experience in the learning process;
· teachers use and/or develop resources based around children's out of school experience and knowledge;
· there is some degree of continuous assessment;
· parents and community members have some involvement with the school;
· there is an attempt to use local technology in teaching and learning (resources relevant to local community and easily obtainable);
· there is some degree of integration of subject matter across the curriculum;
· some evidence of teacher support;
· some element of decentralisation.
· The second school was in the same vicinity as the first, but did not necessarily need to have a reputation for innovation (an 'average' school).
· Brief overviews of two more rural primary schools were undertaken through one day visits, in order to provide more supporting data for the case studies.
2.4.1 The Interviews
Semi-structured interviews were carried out and, for this purpose, separate questionnaires were designed for each of the target groups. For teacher interviews it was not always possible to have groups with even numbers of men and women, as this depended on the gender balance of teachers in the school. With pupil interviews even numbers of boys and girls were always requested. For interviews with community members, it was desirable to interview men and women, but this was not always possible. All interviews and activities aimed to get equal representation from men and women. Informant groups and size of samples are indicated in Table 1. It is important to reiterate here that the small sample sizes were chosen to provide a greater depth of information as required for an illuminative study such as this, rather than to yield broad, comparative data.
Table 1 Interview groups
|
Key informants |
- interviewed individually or in teams, which ever was appropriate. Persons interviewed included: ministry personnel, teacher trainers, researchers and curriculum developers. |
|
Headteacher |
- interviewed individually |
|
Teachers |
- interviewed in groups (2 groups of 4 teachers per school), [based on an assumption of 1 teacher per class and an 8 grade system, but this depended on the local education system in each country]. |
|
Pupils |
- group interviews of 6 to 8 per group. The sample size (number of groups) depended on the school size and organisation. Ideally a sample was to be selected from a spectrum of year groups within the school (e.g. lower, middle and high grade classes) for in-depth observation and interviews. |
|
Community members |
- group interviews of 4 - 6 persons per group, including parents and teacher-parent association members if possible. |
General background questions (e.g. name, position, qualifications) were kept to a bare minimum but in some questionnaires (headteacher and teachers) it was necessary to obtain data such as school numbers, teacher training, length of service, attendance rates, etc., in order to get some important background information on the school. As questionnaires were structured with the research question in mind, questions were very specific and direct in the objectives they were tying to achieve. In some cases it was necessary to ask a number of indirect questions in order make a particular question understood, the reason for this being that if some questions were asked outright it was likely that they would not be understood. For example, to explain the concept and process of contextualisation proved to be very difficult in all of the countries and a problem that had been envisaged prior to starting the field work. It was very important to use this indirect approach to asking questions with pupils, for example 'can you describe a time when your teacher asked you about your experiences outside school?' and 'can you tell me about a time that you used something you learned at home when you were at school?' were asked rather than direct, technical and complicated questions.
2.4.2 Pairwise Matrix Ranking
Matrix ranking was used to obtain some information on the teaching and learning practices in the school. The method was first tested in Tanzania and proved to give some valuable information to support what was said in interviews. As the fieldwork progressed, the methodology for this activity changed slightly (mainly in the methods of learning identified by the schools) and became more refined to a point were it was a valuable tool in the whole methodology.
Photo 1 Matrix ranking activity (teachers), Sri Lanka
The process involved ranking ten methods of learning against each other by preference, and was undertaken by pupils and teachers. Pupils and teachers were asked which methods of teaching were used in the school and depending on their responses new methods were added or old ones deleted to produce a matrix ranking specific to the school (in practice there was little variation in the matrix headings between schools or countries). A matrix ranking table is illustrated in Photo 1 and Photo 2. The method for completing the matrix was explained by the in-country researcher, and it was important to stress that the activity was not a test or assessment. It was also important that the pupils or teachers were not advised in their decisions in any way by the researcher.
Photo 2 Matrix ranking activity (pupils), India
2.4.3 Mapping Activity
Pupils also completed mapping diagrams (Photo 3 & Photo 4), a drawing activity that was designed to illustrate 'what pupils did at home', 'what pupils did at school' and whether there were any learning connections between the two environments. The activity was used as an 'ice breaker', emphasising that it was not a test and also was for their enjoyment. Pupils were asked to write their name, age, parents occupation and school year on the back of their diagram, which prevented the need to ask pupils background questions during the group interviews. The mapping diagrams were then used as a starting point for interviews with pupils. Pupils (in a group) were asked to describe their drawings, and questions from pupil's questionnaire schedule were asked where appropriate. This also allowed more time to look at the diagrams and try to understand what the pupils had drawn/written. A mapping diagram by a pupil in Sri Lanka is illustrated in Figure 2 and in each country's section.
Photo 3 Pupils mapping activity, Sri Lanka
Photo 4 Pupils mapping activity, Ethiopia
2.4.4 Additional Comments on the Field Research
In-formal observations formed an important part of this research. Throughout the fieldwork observations were made daily on what was happening in the school and in the classroom. During the participatory activities with teachers and pupils, their comments and reactions to the activities were observed. As more time was spent in each school, it was noticeable that teachers and pupils, and also local community members, became more familiar with the researchers, and vice versa. Once there was a clear understanding that the research visit was not some form of official inspection, an atmosphere of trust began to emerge, and in many of the schools the interaction between the researchers and the school community became noticeably less forced. Some teachers began to talk with the researchers informally between lessons and pupils came to show pieces of work which they had completed. Many comments and opinions were elicited as a result which helped greatly to inform the researchers' understanding of the processes taking place in the schools. The open nature of this interaction may also have reduced to some extent the likelihood of the respondents telling the researchers what they thought they wanted to hear. Clearly this could not be avoided entirely, but the daily interaction and increasing familiarity between the researchers and school and local communities may have helped to reduce its occurrence.
In all of the countries visited it was necessary to work in the local language in addition to using English. Collaborating researchers generally acted as translators, as well as being partners in the research process, and their understanding and translations of the questionnaires and activities were vital to the success of the research. In the case studies which follow, italicised text within quotation marks is used to present direct comments and statements made by interviewees in English, or, in some cases, translations from the original statements. In the process of translation some meaning is always lost, but the researchers feel that the inclusion of even a translation allows a better understanding of what the respondent conveyed at the time than to rephrase it in the researchers' own words.
All direct statements and responses presented in the case studies were obtained during verbal interviews with key informants, headteachers, teachers, community members and pupils unless indicated otherwise. The inclusion of such a statement or comment does not mean that the researchers support or agree with what was said, but its content indicates the view of the respondent at that time. Within the case studies, comments have sometimes been added by the authors in order to provide some insight into the situation by giving an explanation of why interviewees responded in the way they did. It is important to note that these are the researchers' own understandings and explanations and, unless otherwise stated, not to be treated as the views or perceptions of the respondents.
Figure 2 Example of a pupil's mapping diagram, Sri Lanka
