Interviews with Rectors and Heads of Departments

The qualitative part of the methodology comprises of interviews with rectors and heads of departments from 2 schools. The interviews aim at providing data which have not been captured by the quantitative survey and aim at providing an in-depth analysis of some practical aspects of the school conditions. The interviews were planned through a questionnaire, only to guide the participants and it was not strictly adhered to.

Interview Design

Semi-structured interviews were carried out with rectors and heads of departments of 2 selected schools. The sampling was a purposeful one as the participants were selected based on specific criteria. The rector and 3 HODs were selected for the interviews. Rectors and HODs were chosen as they form part of the School Management Team (SMT). The HODs of larger departments were selected (English, Math and Physics). A total of 8 interviews were carried out.

The face to face semi-structured interviews followed an interview protocol addressing the four elements of the PLC, school structure, school culture and the support of the school leadership.

The interviews were conducted for about one to one and a half hours and were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim.

The interviews would reveal the subtle aspects of the school system in relation to leadership, school structure, school culture and PLC which would not be revealed by the quantitative survey.

The quantitative results would help to shape the qualitative research questions and the data

147

collection. Open ended questions were framed in order to collect views on how school climate, school practices and collaboration in the departments were perceived by the rectors and heads of departments.

The questions included: How do rectors and heads of departments (HODs) describe their school environment/climate? What are the initiatives taken by the school leader and the HODs in order to promote collaboration? What are the opportunities provided for collective learning? How does the school function as a learning community and what are the relevant supportive actions of the leader? Hence the interviews with rectors and heads of departments would explore the existence of PLCs in the schools and how rectors are providing or not providing their support for the PLC!

After the first hand analysis of the educator survey data, we were in a better position to formulate questions that would complement the survey data and throw light on issues that were not addressed or revealed by the quantitative survey. Due consideration was given to the research questions, especially the third research question which is partly based on the qualitative data.

For rectors, to start, some general questions were asked in order to put them at ease; namely their experience as rector and a few words about their school in general. Then they were informed about the good level of collaborative work going on in their school and based on that, questions were asked about their views and examples of such collaborative work. Another important aspect was whether the collaboration is initiated and supported by the rector and to provide relevant examples. The staff’s attitude towards these collaborative efforts was evoked as well. They were then asked to give specific examples of how the educators work collaboratively in order to improve student learning. Finally, they were asked about the constraints that prevented the collaborative work and what they would like to see happening in their school to this effect.

For HODs, the focus was on the department as a unit of activity. They were asked some general questions concerning themselves as HODs and their departments. Then referring to the good level of collaborative work based on the survey, they were asked to give specific examples with practical details of such collaboration. Based on the PLC, their opinion was sought about the shared vision and values, then, they were asked to illustrate how they focus on student learning, how they share personal practices which lead to collective learning. HODs were encouraged to talk about how they are engaged in reflective practices which lead to continuous improvement

148

and to provide such examples. Then, they were asked whether there were constraints which prevent them from working collaboratively and to illustrate with examples. Their roles in initiating, facilitating and supporting collaborative efforts were then addressed and they were asked to give relevant examples.

During the interviews, the interviewees were allowed to express themselves freely and when some new elements were evoked, they were encouraged and probed to give further details. (Refer to Annex 3a and 3b).

A pre-test was carried out with 3 HODs in one school in order to see how the interviews could be improved in order to capture maximum information that would complement the quantitative data.

Analysis Techniques

The interview tape was used to prepare the transcripts verbatim by an independent person in order to avoid any bias. A first reading of the transcript was done in order to plan for the coding process using the software QDA Miner. Themes and categories were identified and the transcripts were coded based on the emergent themes and categories. It was important to ensure that the codes were not repetitive and overlapping; and that their meanings were clear so that the coding is as precise as possible.

After a careful and thorough analysis of one transcript (HOD English of school E), a first plan of the categories was made which was then readjusted in order to give a more precise coding system. The codes used were as follows:

1. Managing the Department

• Motivation

• Resistance to change

• Formal collaboration

• Informal Collaboration 2. Leadership

• Instructional

• Shared

• Transformational

• Support

3. Professional Learning Communities

• Sharing of good practices

• Student focus

149

• Continuous improvement

• Reflective practices 4. School Culture

• Culture

• School vision

• Values 5. School Structure

• Facilities

• Constraints

• Improvement 6. Students

• Student Monitoring

These categories were aligned as far as possible with the sections in the educator’s survey questionnaire. The responses were then sorted into categories based on the above codes. In some cases where the transcripts were vague and not well understood, and the coding was difficult, the audio tapes were reviewed in order to clarify the doubts and appropriate corrections were made in the transcripts.

150 Summary of Data Collection

Quantitative and qualitative data collection has been organized over 3 years, 2014 to 2016. The quantitative data collection was followed by the qualitative data collection as shown in the figure below. The time plan for the work packages is given in table 19.

Figure 7. Flow Chart showing Methods of Data Collection

Quantitative Methods

Pre-test for educator's and student's Questionnaires in 20 schools

Educator's and student's survey in 8 schools

Collection of data for School Academic Performance (CPE and SC results)

Trial Interviews with 3 heads of departments

Interviews with Rector and Heads of Departments for the 2 selected schools

Followed by Quanlitative Methods

151

Table 19. Work Packages and Applicable Time

Period Work Packages

January 2014 Pilot Testing for Educator’s and Student’s questionnaires March to April 2014 Pre-test of Educator’s and Student’s Questionnaires in 20 schools

May to September 2014 Create database in SPSS and carry out tests of Reliability and Homogeneity of Variance for Educator’s survey and Student’s survey

November to December 2014 Preliminary statistical tests in SPSS

January 2015 Distribution of Educator’s and Student’s questionnaires in 8 schools February to April 2015 Collection of Educator’s and Student’s questionnaires

May to September 2015 Create database in SPSS and carry out tests of Reliability and Homogeneity of Variance for Educator’s survey and Student’s survey

September 2015 Trial Interviews with 3 Heads of Departments of school F and analysis October to November 2015 Preliminary Statistical analysis

January to February 2016 Statistical Tests and analysis of Educator’s and Student’s questionnaires

March 2016 Interviews with 3 HODs of School F

April 2016 Interviews with 3 HODs of School E

May 2016 Interviews with rectors of School E and F

June 2016 Collection of data for school performance coefficient (CPE results from schools and SC results from MES website).

April to July 2016 Preparation of transcripts for the 8 interviews August to October 2016 Coding of qualitative data in QDA miner November to December 2016 Analysis of qualitative data

152