Tools of Inquiry- Observation

To conduct a pilot observation I decided to observe lessons that have been filmed and stored on teachers.tv for public viewing.
I looked at the new OFSTED observation grid and criteria for observing lessons and from there decided what i would be focusing my observation on. I decided to look at how the teacher had adapted the lesson to make it more creative and the childrens' response to what wa being taught.

Observation is time consuming, particulary when you are unsure of exactly what you are looking for or, like me have no experience in observing others. However there are some huge benefits of using observation as an inquiry tool. Observation allows you to create a full picture of what is happening in any given situation. There is no way to 'fake' the information, unlike in a survey or interview. The benefit of using video (or audio-visually recording your observation) means that one can revisit the material many times, this may mean you can obtain information you may have missed the first time.

The limitations of using observation is that it relys on one person, the researcher, interpreting the data. I had to be careful not to let my opinion get in the way of what I was observing and record the facts. It is also easy to get distracted by floods of information. All five senses are engaged in live observation. It is important to stay focussed.
The OFSTED observation grid was complex. I have decided to create my own observation grid highlighting the specific parts of the lesson i want to observe.

Tools of Inquiry- Interviewing

I chose to carry out two pilot interviews.

• The first was a telephone interview where I took notes. In this interview the questions were structured.
• The second interview was a face to face interview, for this I used a semi structured approach. I decided to record the second interview and take notes.

What did i learn?

During the first interview I discovered that some of the questions needed to be re-phrased, required more information or in one case, needed to be completely re-worded and broken into two separate questions. I found that the structured approach was too formal and was not optimal for uncovering information. On reflection, this is the type of interview one might use when interviewing someone for a job. It is useful if you know what you want to hear. However I wanted to uncover the participant’s thoughts, feelings and experience. I also found that being on the telephone and taking notes created uncomfortable moments of silence where I was attempting to capture, through note taking, what the participant had said. The positive side of this was that it allowed me to feedback to the participant what she had said to make sure I was accurately recording her responses.

The second interview was extremely different from the first.  The face to face approach meant that both the researcher and participant felt at ease. The interview was also conducted on neutral ground. I decided to use the semi- structured approach to allow the participant more freedom in their answers. This worked extremely well and one question prompted another which meant that a lot of experience and knowledge was uncovered. By phrasing the questions in a conversational manner, I felt that the answer became more conversational and relaxed. Although the interview was being recorded (so that I could transcribe and if necessary quote from the interview at a later date) I also took notes. This proved extremely useful as I was able to make a note of the sub questions that came from the original line of questioning. Using a semi- structured approach to interviewing ensures that the researcher does not influence the participant or ask leading questions.

Through these pilot interviews I was able to consider what is needed to foster an optimum environment for conducting an interview. I had not previously considered the affects of the location, tone of voice, body language, eye contact, the way the questions are asked and the order in which they are asked and the benefits and implications of note taking during an interview. (Extract from my first draft, Inquiry Plan)

Critical Reflection on Tools of Inquiry; Survey

Reflecting on the pilot survey

My initial thoughts about using a Survey as a research tool were extremely positive. I used SurveyMonkey to create the survey, which was simple to use. I have also seen how other people used and interpreted this tool. It was interesting to see how choice of colours and layout affected the way I felt about completing the survey.

I was pleased with the way my survey was presented and the order of my questions however I feel that I could have gone into more depth with some questions. A good example of an in depth survey is Mark's, his questions required a lot of thought and detail.

The results
SurveyMonkey is a great tool as the results are automatically and analysised and the percentages are calculated for you. I was pleased that 86.7% of the people who completed my survey included their email address and place of training. This is useful in order to contact people for interviews in the future!
Unfortunately only 8 people completed my survey and a few questions were skipped, therefore the results were inconclusive. Surveys are useful for collecting quantitative information; data, facts and figures.
I think that my line of inquiry will require a more qualitative approach to discover individuals thoughts, feelings and reasons behind the choices they make.

What would I improve;
-Include some more in-depth questions.
-Require an answer to each question or always include another option box, if that question is not relevant.
-Target a specific audience
-Email the link to people
-Send out a cover letter/email to explain what the survey is about and to ensure participants that their personal details will not be disclosed, in accordance with the data protection act of 1998.