RESEARCH DESIGN

RESEARCH DESIGN

The main aim of this study was to identify and describe the qualitatively different ways in which upper primary children experience learning in government schools in Brunei. Specifically the research question was, ‘What are the qualitatively different ways in which upper primary children experience learning in government primary schools in Brunei?’

A discursive phenomenographic approach to research

As explained earlier, the overall design of this study followed that of discursive phenomenography. According to Hasselgren and Beach (1997), the steps of discursive phenomenographic research include conversations, transcription, compilation, analysis and conceptions. For the purpose of this study, the researcher used the term interviews rather than conversations, because there is a difference between the former and the latter. Interviews, according to Kvale (1996), are different from everyday conversations as it has a particular structure of questioning and listening aimed at obtaining information about a certain phenomenon from relevant sources. Kvale (1996) added that,

The research interview is not a conversation between equal partners, because the researcher defines and controls the situation. The topic of the interview is introduced by the researcher, who also critically follows up on the subject’s answers to his or her questions. (p. 6)

Interviews in this study were transcribed verbatim and transcripts were compiled for analysis. Details of these steps will be presented in more detail in the sections that follow. The research design of this study will begin with a report on the pilot interviews, followed by data collection and finally data analysis.

Developing interview protocols

A list of predetermined interview questions was drawn and pilot tested with several upper primary children in Brunei prior to the launch of actual data collection. Pilot interviews, according to van Teijlingan and Hundley (2001), increase the likelihood of success in data collection.

Initial interview questions (see Appendix 1) were pilot tested informally with several primary school children from a government school in Brunei. These pilot interviews, although conducted informally, proved to be beneficial to the current study because they gave the researcher an opportunity to practice phenomenographic interviewing skills and ensured that the questions were effective in eliciting in‐depth data illustrating variation in the ways in which the Initial interview questions (see Appendix 1) were pilot tested informally with several primary school children from a government school in Brunei. These pilot interviews, although conducted informally, proved to be beneficial to the current study because they gave the researcher an opportunity to practice phenomenographic interviewing skills and ensured that the questions were effective in eliciting in‐depth data illustrating variation in the ways in which the

The pilot interviews in this study were audio‐recorded, transcribed verbatim and presented to the supervisory team. As a result of both pilot interviews, several changes were made to the interview questions. Both upper primary children involved in the pilot interviews were reticent to respond to interview questions and gave limited information about learning. They seemed unsure about the responses that they gave about learning. It was then decided, in conjunction with Professor Ference Marton (via personal communication, September, 2006) that scenario‐ based interviews might elicit richer descriptions about learning. Based on the children’s limited responses in both pilot interviews, a scenario was constructed (see Table 7). In this way, the scenario draws on the children’s actual experiences of learning at school. The scenario and a list of questions were pilot tested to ensure that the children’s views were elicited appropriately. The scenario‐based set of questions enabled the children to reflect on their experiences of learning and share their understandings of learning with the researcher. Actual data collection was then carried out in September 2006 using the scenario (see Table 7).

However, despite using the scenario‐based set of questions, the children remained reticent in giving in‐depth responses about their learning experiences in school. It However, despite using the scenario‐based set of questions, the children remained reticent in giving in‐depth responses about their learning experiences in school. It

Table 7: Scenario (Phase 1)

The scenario

Data collection (Phase 1) September 2006

A couple of weeks ago I was talking to a boy called ‘Ahmad’ who is in Primary 4 in Brunei. I thought I would tell you his story about learning.

When I asked him about what subjects he liked at school he just said, “None, I don’t like any because I just learn all of them”. He told me that in maths he could remember his tables. In Science, he wrote down notes but he was really bored and couldn’t say too much about what he had learnt. When I asked him about Geography

he told me that “The teacher asked us to do some work on what we had learnt that day… and sometimes the teacher just explained stuff”. He said “If the teacher asks us to do some work, I just do it”.

The things he did love were art and computers at school. He said that in Art, “We did whatever we wanted to… as long as there’s a shape and in computing they sometimes played games”. This boy loved playing computer games like Pin Ball and Kid Pix. He would often race home from school in the afternoon, have something to eat quickly and then start playing his computer games. He did not do any homework usually because he loved playing games so much. He was so good at learning how to play his Play Stations. Whenever he wanted to know how to play one of the new games, he would read the instructions, and work the game out by talking to his best friend who lived next door to him. Sometimes he would re‐read the instruction manual just to make sure he had worked out how to make the correct moves in the game. He even started reading computing games magazines to find out more about how other games worked and which games were the latest rage.

Probes Rationale What sort of learning do you think this boy

These probes were designed to help the liked? What sort of learning do you think this

children reflect on the Ahmad’s learning boy was good at? Why?

experience. The aim was to elicit detailed descriptions of what the children think about Ahmad’s way of learning.

What sort of learning do you like at school? At These probes were developed to shift the home? Why?

children’s focus to their own experiences of learning. They were encouraged to share

How do you know that you have learnt incidences, which they thought were something in (…something they say they like…)? meaningful learning experiences and gave How do you know that you have learnt reasons why these incidences were something in (…something they say they meaningful to them. dislike…)?

How do your teachers teach you? What do they These probes were included to help the do to help you to learn?

children describe learning experiences in their respective schools.

What do you think learning is at school? At home?

Table 8: Scenario (Phase 2)

The scenario

Data collection (Phase 2) November 2006

A couple of weeks ago, I talked to two students who go to a government primary school in Brunei. They are both in Primary 5 and they told me their stories about learning. Let’s just call student A ‘Ali’ and student B ‘Bahar’ okay? Although Ali’ and Bahar go to the same school, they go to different classes. I’d like to talk about Ali’s story first....

When I met Ali, I asked him to tell me about his favourite subject and why he likes the subject. He told me that his favourite subject is science, because in science, his teacher always ask them to do a lot of activities in groups such as experimenting with real things like sugar, water, dissecting fish, drawing, going to the garden and looking at flowers. He told me that he likes learning through these activities because they don’t bore him in class. He also said that he had learnt a lot about the different groups of animals because they did a project on that topic. He said that the activities helped him to learn the topics in science better.

Meanwhile, Bahar told me a different story about learning. When I asked him to tell me about his favourite subject, he told me that he likes mathematics because he likes doing all the exercises in his mathematics workbook. To him, it is a good practice for the exam. He also likes to listen to his teacher’s explanations and watch how his teacher works out the examples on the white board carefully so that he can do the exercises later on.

Probes Rationale What do you think about the two boys?

This probe was planned for a general discussion about the two learning experiences, which were different to one another.

What sort of learning do you think Ali likes? Why These probes were designed to elicit the do you think he likes that sort of learning? How

children’s thoughts about the different about Bahar? What sort of learning does Bahar

learning experiences. like? Why do you think he likes that sort of learning?

How about you? What sort of learning do you These probes were included to shift the like? Why? What subjects do you like learning?

children’s focus to their own experiences of What do you usually do to learn this subject?

learning. It was expected that an earlier Why do you like to learn this subject? How about discussion on two different learning the subject that you find difficult to learn? Why

experiences would help the children to do you find this subject difficult to learn? What

open up more about their own learning are the signs that show that you have learnt

experiences.

something really well? What happens if you feel like you haven’t learnt something? How do you know when that happens?

Table 9: Phases of pilot interviews and data collection (April – December 2006)

Month Phases

April 2006 Interview questions were drafted and revised. A letter of application to conduct research in government

primary schools was prepared and sent to the Ministry of Education in Brunei.

May 2006 Confirmation of Candidature Seminar with an application to articulate to the PhD program.

Approval letter from the Ministry of Education to conduct research in government primary schools was received.

Application form to conduct research with upper primary children in Brunei was completed and submitted to the University Human Research Ethics Committee.

June 2006 Application to conduct research was approved by the University Human Research Ethics Committee.

June – July 2006 The first pilot interview was carried out. The pilot interview was translated and transcribed verbatim. The transcript was submitted to the supervisory team via e‐mail for perusal. Discussions on phenomenographic interview techniques were carried out with the supervisory team via teleconference.

Mid ‐August 2006 The second pilot interview was carried out. The pilot interview was translated and transcribed verbatim. The transcript was submitted to the supervisory team for perusal.

Late August 2006 Interview questions were modified and changed into a scenario‐ based set of questions to gain rich and in‐depth responses from the participants. A scenario was created based on the responses given by the children in the first two pilot interviews. Questions accompanying the scenario were open‐ended and flexible enough for the participants to share deeper understanding about the phenomenon.

The first scenario‐based set of questions was pilot tested. September 2006

Phase

1: Actual data collection using the first scenario‐based set of questions commenced.

September – October 2006 A sample of eight interviews were translated and transcribed verbatim and submitted to the supervisory team for discussion.

October 2006 Another scenario was constructed based on the responses elicited in September 2006. The second scenario‐based set of questions was pilot tested.

November 2006

Phase

2: Follow‐up interviews using the second scenario‐based set of questions commenced.

Research sites

This study was conducted in two government schools in Brunei. The decision to focus on the phenomenon of learning in government‐funded schools was made on the basis that the majority of children attend government schools in Brunei. These schools provide free education to the citizens of Brunei, with an annual school fee of only five Brunei dollars per annum (equivalent to AUD $4). The government through the Ministry of Education in Brunei financially supports government schools. According to the 2007 statistics published by the Ministry of Education in Brunei, these schools enrol a total of 32 525 children, and these children are accommodated in a total of 122 schools all over Brunei. In comparison, there are only 55 non‐government‐funded preschool and primary schools registered in Brunei (Ministry of Education, 2007a).

The two research sites used for official data collection in this study were: Pekan Belait Primary School (pseudonym) and Pekan Temburong Primary School (pseudonym). These schools were selected on the basis of accessibility and purposive sampling.

Pekan Bangar Primary School Pekan Bangar Primary School is situated in Temburong district. This school

accommodates approximately 200 children. Eight Primary 5 children from this school volunteered to participate in this study. Like other government‐funded accommodates approximately 200 children. Eight Primary 5 children from this school volunteered to participate in this study. Like other government‐funded

Pekan Belait Primary School Pekan Belait Primary School is situated in the largest district in Brunei, that is, Belait

district. Despite being the largest district in Brunei, Belait district only has 17 government primary schools with a total population of 4 198 children, and Pekan Belait Primary School accommodates approximately 200 of them. A total of eight upper primary children, ranging from Primary 4 and Primary 5 volunteered to participate in this study. Like other government‐funded primary schools, this school also practices bilingual education system.

Participants

A total of sixteen upper primary children participated in the study. In order to ensure sufficient variation in ways of experiencing, Bowden (2005) suggests that there needs to be enough interviewees, ‘but not so many that makes it difficult to manage data’ (p. 17). In practice, most phenomenographers find twenty to thirty participants sufficient to elicit variation (Bowden, 2005). However, Trigwell (2000) states that, a sample size of ten to fifteen participants, is feasible in phenomenographic studies. Other phenomenographers such as Bruce and Gerber

(1994), and Ballantyne, Thompson and Taylor (1994) have used a similar sample size to elicit variation in their studies Towards University Lecturers’ Conceptions of Student Learning and Principals’ Conceptions of Competent Beginning Teachers respectively.

Recruitment and characteristics of participants

Upper primary class teachers from Pekan Bangar Primary School and Pekan Belait Primary School were contacted to assist the researcher with the recruitment of participants. These teachers helped with the distribution of information sheets and consent forms to potential participants and parents. Upper primary children who were deemed to be articulate in English were purposively selected to participate in the study. Only children whose parents signed the consent form were selected to form the final participant pool of the study. To address variation and reveal as many viewpoints as possible, factors such as age range, academic abilities, gender and different upper primary levels were taken in consideration when selecting the sample size (Bowden, 1996). The participants ranged between eight and eleven years old. In terms of academic abilities, seven of the participants were average students, two were below average and another seven were above average according to previous examination results. Five of the participants were boys and the remaining eleven were girls. Twelve of the participants were in Primary 5 and four of them were in Primary 4. Children in Primary 6 did not participate in the actual data collection because they were preparing for the Primary School Assessment (PSA) examination.

Conduct of interviews

In phenomenographic research, one‐on‐one in‐depth or semi‐structured interviews are the most commonly used method of data collection (Marton, 1986). Semi‐ structured interviews consist of open‐ended questions that allow flexibility for interviewees to reveal as much as they can about the phenomenon and at the same time provide a structure that keeps the interview in focus. Semi‐structured interviews are also described as ‘qualitative interviewing’, which Mason (2002) refers to as ‘loosely structured forms of interviewing’ (p. 62). Most importantly, semi ‐structured interviews are aimed ‘to encourage participants to reveal their ways of understanding…’ (Akerlind, 2005, p. 104).

Although data collection in phenomenographic research can be done through other methods, the one‐on‐one semi‐structured interview or qualitative interviewing was chosen for this study because it enables ‘a way of finding out what others feel and think about their worlds. Through qualitative interviewing you can understand experiences and reconstruct events in which you do not participate’ (Rubin & Rubin, 1995, p. 1). In this study, each child was interviewed twice (once in each phase) and the total duration of interviews was between thirty to forty‐five minutes. According to Trigwell (2000), such duration is common in phenomenographic research, although in most cases, interviews in phenomenographic research can take longer than forty‐five minutes. All of the interviews occurred in both research sites mentioned earlier. It was more convenient for the participants to be interviewed at their schools, as their comfort was a priority to the interview process. A familiar Although data collection in phenomenographic research can be done through other methods, the one‐on‐one semi‐structured interview or qualitative interviewing was chosen for this study because it enables ‘a way of finding out what others feel and think about their worlds. Through qualitative interviewing you can understand experiences and reconstruct events in which you do not participate’ (Rubin & Rubin, 1995, p. 1). In this study, each child was interviewed twice (once in each phase) and the total duration of interviews was between thirty to forty‐five minutes. According to Trigwell (2000), such duration is common in phenomenographic research, although in most cases, interviews in phenomenographic research can take longer than forty‐five minutes. All of the interviews occurred in both research sites mentioned earlier. It was more convenient for the participants to be interviewed at their schools, as their comfort was a priority to the interview process. A familiar

The interviews began with ice‐breaking sessions to establish rapport with the participants. The researcher introduced herself as a university student interested in finding out more about what children think about learning and that the children’s experiences are valued as an essential piece of information for her study. Rather than asking about the children’s experiences of learning immediately, the researcher asked the children to tell her about their hobbies and talk about the things that they like in general. The aim was to make sure that the participants felt comfortable and at ease with revealing as many conceptions as they could about the phenomenon of inquiry (Bowden, 2005). At the same time, the researcher carefully preserved her awareness of certain aspects of her knowledge about learning in Brunei so that the children’s thoughts and experiences of learning were elicited and reported as faithfully as possible. This step was taken to ensure ‘selective bracketing’ (Adawi, Berglund, Booth & Ingerman, 2002, p. 86) and also to ensure that the participants felt appreciated and valued for their contributions to the study. Ashworth and Lucas (2000) stressed the difficulty of total bracketing in phenomenographic research and they noted that ‘the attempt to bracket will only

be partially successful’ (p. 299). Adawi et al. (2002), nevertheless, argue for a selective bracketing to avoid leading data and analysis in a certain preconceived direction.

Both scenarios depict actual learning experiences of upper primary children in government schools in Brunei. Predetermined questions were drawn from each scenario to approach the phenomenon in question from a range of perspectives. Discussions generated with the participants were followed with probing questions such as “What do you mean by …”, “When you said … can you give me examples of what it means?” and “Tell me more about …” until a mutual understanding between the researcher and the participants about what was discussed was achieved. For analytical purposes, interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed verbatim. Details of the analytical process undertaken in phenomenographic research in general and in this study in particular, are presented next.

Conduct of analysis

There is a variety of ways in which researchers conduct phenomenographic analysis. Phenomenographic analysis has been conceptualised by Marton (1981) as a complex process that involves various methods of arriving at a limited number of categories that depict the conceptions of a target phenomenon. Some phenomenographers argue that it is not possible to prescribe a set of techniques for phenomenographic analysis (Bruce, 1997; Johansson et al., 1985; Prosser, 2000; Säljö, 1988). Rather, analysis is devised and adapted to each particular investigation. Bruce (1997) explained that each phenomenographic study is the 'interplay between the researcher’s understanding, the nature of the phenomenon being studied and the style of the database’ (p. 104). Akerlind (2002) affirms that there are variations in the practice of phenomenographic analysis. These variations, There is a variety of ways in which researchers conduct phenomenographic analysis. Phenomenographic analysis has been conceptualised by Marton (1981) as a complex process that involves various methods of arriving at a limited number of categories that depict the conceptions of a target phenomenon. Some phenomenographers argue that it is not possible to prescribe a set of techniques for phenomenographic analysis (Bruce, 1997; Johansson et al., 1985; Prosser, 2000; Säljö, 1988). Rather, analysis is devised and adapted to each particular investigation. Bruce (1997) explained that each phenomenographic study is the 'interplay between the researcher’s understanding, the nature of the phenomenon being studied and the style of the database’ (p. 104). Akerlind (2002) affirms that there are variations in the practice of phenomenographic analysis. These variations,

In considering the number of transcripts to be analysed at one time, there are generally three key trends or methods: (i) considering the whole transcript (Bowden, 1994); (ii) considering a large amount of each transcript associated with a specific issue (Prosser, 1994); and finally, (iii) considering a selection of smaller excerpts viewed as representing meanings (Marton, 1986; Svensson & Theman, 1983). This study used the first and the third method. Other parts of the transcript that did not represent the children’s experiences of learning were not analysed. In this way, the third method had made the analysis of thirty‐two transcripts (two transcripts for each of the sixteen participants) more easily managed.

On the issue of collaborating with other researchers during the analytic process, some researchers prefer to work alone while others seek verification from other researchers. Both are acceptable ways of analysing data in phenomenographic studies (Akerlind, 2005). However, phenomenographers such as Bowden (1994), Walsh (1994) and Trigwell (2000) have highlighted the significance of collaborating with other researchers in analysing phenomenographic data.

Indeed, the process of arriving at a set of logically related categories of description involves complex and challenging procedures. Summarising a considerable amount of data into a manageable form of logically related categories is a difficult process, particularly when there is a debate on whether or not a stable set of categories should be ‘constructed’ or ‘discovered’ (Walsh, 2000). A process of construction suggests that the researcher follows a certain procedure in which she or he has a sense of control over the data (Walsh, 2000). Construction implies that a researcher has a better grasp of the phenomenon of inquiry and tries to fit relevant data into a predetermined set of categories. On the contrary, those who describe phenomenographic analysis as a process of discovering categories argue that the categories should emerge from the data (Walsh, 2000). In the process of discovering categories, it is assumed that the researcher tries to incorporate all aspects of the data with the intention to provide a holistic account of the phenomenon (Walsh, 2000).

Whether a set of categories is constructed or discovered, the process of analysis in phenomenographic research constitutes a relationship between the researcher and the data (Akerlind, 2005). In the current study, the researcher’s perspective was evidently influential in the determination of categories. The challenge, however, was to let the categories emerge in such a way that these categories represent the data as faithfully as possible. Indeed, the practise of preserving preconceived ideas about how learning might be experienced by the children was a difficult task. Transcripts were read several times while keeping in mind the question: ‘What are Whether a set of categories is constructed or discovered, the process of analysis in phenomenographic research constitutes a relationship between the researcher and the data (Akerlind, 2005). In the current study, the researcher’s perspective was evidently influential in the determination of categories. The challenge, however, was to let the categories emerge in such a way that these categories represent the data as faithfully as possible. Indeed, the practise of preserving preconceived ideas about how learning might be experienced by the children was a difficult task. Transcripts were read several times while keeping in mind the question: ‘What are

The next step of analysis after a draft set of categories has been established is to explore similarities in each category and investigate differences between each category. Walsh (2000) emphasised that,

Focusing on the similarities in the data classified against a particular category develops a detail in that category. Focusing on the differences between sets of data where each set is classified against a different category elaborates the differences between those categories. (p. 25)

Features distinguishing each category of description are examined and characteristics that are qualitatively different in each category are highlighted. Guidelines outlined by Bowden (2005), Akerlind (2002; 2005), Marton (1992; 1994) and Walsh (2000) informed the analytical process of this study. Data analysis began after all interviews were transcribed verbatim. According to Bowden (2005), analysis should begin after all interviews have been conducted. He argues that,

If the researcher has already begun to analyse the early interviews before the rest are complete, there is a real danger that the later If the researcher has already begun to analyse the early interviews before the rest are complete, there is a real danger that the later

The main task of researchers in phenomenographic analysis, according to Marton (1994), involves ‘identifying and grouping expressed ways of experiencing the phenomenon’ (p. 4426). Following Marton’s (1992) example, the analytical process of this study involved repeated readings of transcripts and identifying utterances relevant to the research question. Each of the steps taken throughout the course of analysis in this study is now discussed in more detail and these steps include transcription and translation, organising the data into individual profiles, grouping utterances into pools of meaning and an iterative process of drafting categories of description. Figure 6 summarises the steps of discursive phenomenography (adapted from Hasselgren and Beach, 1997, p. 197) that guided the design of this study.

•Conversations are typically derived from interviews . Interviewing has been the primary

method of data collection in phenomenographic research (Marton, 1986).

Coversations

•Transcription of conversations. Interviews are transcribed verbatim, as transcripts are the main source of analysis for phenomenographic research.

Transcription

•Interview data are compiled for analysis.

Compilation

•Phenomenographic analysis involves an iterative process of rereading transcripts and redrafting categories of description. The main focus of phenomenographic analysis is to look for meaning (the referential aspect) and structure (the structural aspect) that link and

Analysis

differentitate ways of experiencing a phenomenon.

•Phenomenographic research aims at describing the conceptions of a certain aspect of the world held by a group of people and these conceptions are captured in a set of logically

Conceptions

related categories of description.

Figure

6. Steps in discursive phenomenography

Transcription The first step taken during the process of analysis was to transcribe the interviews

and translate utterances in Bahasa Melayu (henceforth called Malay) into English. All of the interviews were transcribed verbatim. The transcription process is crucial in phenomenographic research because the transcripts are the focus of phenomenographic analysis. The current study acknowledges the centrality of transcription in qualitative studies (Poland, 2002). Transcriptions, when not carried out appropriately, can notably affect the way participants are understood, the information that they share, and the conclusions portrayed (Oliver, Serovich & Mason, 2005).

All interviews were carried out in English but the children were informed that they could respond in Malay if they felt more comfortable speaking in Malay. Some children responded to certain questions in Malay. Accordingly, one of the challenges faced by the researcher was the need to translate several utterances made in Malay into English. Although translations can be viewed as a limitation that can challenge the authenticity of data in qualitative research, in the case of this study, the translation did not involve conceptual changes and thus, did not create a limitation to the quality of data and analysis. The translations were direct and unambiguous.

Nevertheless, in order to ensure rigour, a bilingual primary school teacher in Brunei was invited to verify the translations before formal analysis began. Some examples of utterances in Malay that required translations were: memahami, which translates directly to understand, and pembelajaran, which means learning. By the end of the translation and transcription process, the researcher was familiar with utterances that were perceived as relevant to the research question. These utterances consisted of statements that depicted the children’s ways of experiencing learning. The familiarisation process provided an overall impression of the topic in question, through which the researcher became intimately familiar with the data (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000).

Individual profiles The next step involved reading the transcripts a number of times and setting up

individual profiles to keep track of relevant utterances and terms introduced by individual participants during the interview. Each individual profile included excerpts to illustrate the participant’s ways of experiencing learning. The main purpose of setting up individual profiles was to organise the data into a manageable form. An advantage of keeping individual profiles according to Ashworth and Lucas (2000) is that, unique experiences of each participant are recognised and respected throughout the process of analysis. However, it is important to note that the individual profiles were not used by the researcher to construct categories of description. Rather, the individual profiles were used as an organizing tool to manage a considerably large amount of data and each individual profile provided a summary for each transcript in the study. Furthermore, the process of setting up individual profiles provided an opportunity for the researcher to become familiar with the data. During this process, transcripts were read as whole and excerpts describing the participants’ experiences of learning were noted.

The children’s descriptions of learning and ways of learning Once individual profiles were set up for all participants, two aspects of learning

became apparent to the researcher’s attention, namely: the children’s descriptions of learning and ways of learning. Utterances indicating the two aspects of learning in this study were then organised into two separate tables (see Appendix 2 and Appendix 3). Tabulating the data at this early stage of analysis helped the became apparent to the researcher’s attention, namely: the children’s descriptions of learning and ways of learning. Utterances indicating the two aspects of learning in this study were then organised into two separate tables (see Appendix 2 and Appendix 3). Tabulating the data at this early stage of analysis helped the

The first table (Appendix 2) consists of utterances that outline the children’s descriptions of learning. The table highlights utterances that are focused on the children’s descriptions of content that they were learning. Other descriptions of learning that the researcher had included into the table were the children’s interpretations of learning as fun, easy, difficult, something important for our future, being creative, understanding something, when something sticks on my mind. Descriptions such as easy, difficult and so forth illustrate the children’s experiences and views about the topics that they learn in school.

The second table (Appendix 3) outlines the children’s ways of learning. This table consists of utterances that describe the children’s approaches to learning such as paying attention, concentrating, watching carefully, listening to the teacher, doing written work, memorising, doing experiments and school projects.

Pool of meanings In the next phase of analysis, the two tables were merged together in order to focus

on the meanings of learning as described by the children. Merging the two tables together was a way to analyse the phenomenon as a whole experience rather than separately. Actual transcripts were reread and the researcher focused on finding

descriptions that described the children’s learning experiences. Various meanings describing different ways of experiencing learning emerged from this exercise. Similarities and differences in terms of how the children experienced learning were noted, and as a result, a range of pool of meanings (see Appendix 4) was formed. Excerpts illustrating each pool of meanings were included to exemplify the qualitative differences between the children’s experiences of learning. The pool of meanings represented the researcher’s first attempt at categories. Throughout this process, there was awareness that the aim of phenomenographic research was not to group individuals in certain categories nor was it aimed at mapping individuals onto categories (Eckerdal, 2006). Rather, the aim was to look at the variation in the ways learning was experienced by a group of children. The pool of meanings, therefore, represented the participants’ ‘collective minds’ (Marton, 1981, p. 196).

Iterative process The process of arriving at a stable set of logically related categories of description

involved an iterative process of redrafting categories of description and rereading transcripts. The researcher’s first attempt at categorising ways of experiencing learning was developed further by looking at the structural aspect that distinguished each experience of learning. Comparisons were made between what was in the foreground and in the background of the children’s awareness in each of the categories. Aspects in the foreground constitute the internal horizon of the children’s awareness and those in the background represent aspects that constitute the perceptual boundary or external horizon. Each category of description is involved an iterative process of redrafting categories of description and rereading transcripts. The researcher’s first attempt at categorising ways of experiencing learning was developed further by looking at the structural aspect that distinguished each experience of learning. Comparisons were made between what was in the foreground and in the background of the children’s awareness in each of the categories. Aspects in the foreground constitute the internal horizon of the children’s awareness and those in the background represent aspects that constitute the perceptual boundary or external horizon. Each category of description is

The first draft of categories was presented to the supervisory team and PhD colleagues th on the 20 May 2007. Figure 7 presents a diagrammatic illustration of

the first set of categories.

Figure

7. First draft of the categories of description

Six categories of description were put forward for discussion and these categories were: learning as remembering or memorising, learning as understanding, learning as a practice, learning as doing school work, learning as following instructions and learning as an acquisition of skills. At this stage, the researcher had not determined

a clear logical relation between the categories of description.

After the first discussion, analysis resumed and transcripts were reread to explore distinguishing features that differentiated each way of experiencing learning. Three categories of description were found to have similar meanings and these categories were: learning as a practice, learning as doing school work and learning as following instructions. Aspects in the foreground of these categories comprised active and less active acts of learning. The children’s active acts of learning include hands‐on activities and doing written work, and their less active acts of learning include listening to the teacher and paying attention. The total number of categories in the second draft was reduced to five. The second draft of categories is presented in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Second draft of the categories of description

The second draft of categories of description was presented to the supervisory team and PhD colleagues for further discussion in June 2007. During the discussion, it was highlighted that two categories, which were learning as remembering or memorising and learning as understanding, were not clearly distinguished in terms of meanings. There were instances in the transcript where learning as remembering overlapped with learning as understanding. Aspects in the foreground of experiencing learning as remembering and understanding needed to

be explored further. Consequently, transcripts were revisited and reread to ensure authentic representation of meanings. It was then found that the children had used the term understand to describe their abilities to remember or memorise the knowledge and skills that have been taught in school. The term understand had also been used by the children to describe their abilities in terms of knowing what be explored further. Consequently, transcripts were revisited and reread to ensure authentic representation of meanings. It was then found that the children had used the term understand to describe their abilities to remember or memorise the knowledge and skills that have been taught in school. The term understand had also been used by the children to describe their abilities in terms of knowing what

Figure 9. Third draft of the categories of description

The third draft of categories of description was presented to the supervisory team and PhD colleagues in July 2007. The main critique given during the third presentation was the lack of distinguishing features that clearly differentiate each category of description, particularly between learning as knowing and learning as recalling. The internal and external horizons of each way of experiencing learning were not clearly discerned. For this reason, transcripts were reread and the The third draft of categories of description was presented to the supervisory team and PhD colleagues in July 2007. The main critique given during the third presentation was the lack of distinguishing features that clearly differentiate each category of description, particularly between learning as knowing and learning as recalling. The internal and external horizons of each way of experiencing learning were not clearly discerned. For this reason, transcripts were reread and the

Figure 10. Fourth draft of the categories of description

Further details within the structural aspect (the internal and external horizons) were discerned. Figure 11 presents the three categories of description along with the dimensions of variation in an outcome space. The fourth draft of categories of description was presented to the supervisory team and PhD colleagues on 9th July 2007. The same draft was presented to a group of university‐based phenomenographers on 18th July 2007 for further verification and critique in a phenomenographic workshop.

Figure

11. First draft of the outcome space

Feedback given during the phenomenographic workshop was noted and changes were made accordingly. First, the label for the third category of description was changed from knowing to doing as the latter gave a better representation of the Feedback given during the phenomenographic workshop was noted and changes were made accordingly. First, the label for the third category of description was changed from knowing to doing as the latter gave a better representation of the

Figure

12. Second draft of the outcome space

Feedback given during the Roundtable Discussion was noted and analysis resumed thereafter. In the final iteration, the categories of description were analysed using the ‘How’ (act of learning and the indirect object) and ‘What’ (direct object) aspects of learning model adapted from Marton and Booth (1997). A final version of the Feedback given during the Roundtable Discussion was noted and analysis resumed thereafter. In the final iteration, the categories of description were analysed using the ‘How’ (act of learning and the indirect object) and ‘What’ (direct object) aspects of learning model adapted from Marton and Booth (1997). A final version of the

Table

10: Phases of analysis and draft presentations

Dates Phases of analysis and

Focus

presentations January 2007

Analysis phase 1 Individual profiles of each participant were drawn. February 2007

Analysis phase 2 Excerpts of utterances were tabulated into two tables: ‘Descriptions of learning’ and ‘Ways of learning’.

March 2007 Analysis phase 3 The two tables were merged together. ‘Pool of meanings’ was established.

April 2007 Analysis phase 4 ‘Pool of meanings’ was organised into initial draft of categories of description. Transcripts were revisited to ensure authentic interpretations of meanings.

May 2007 Presentation 1 Initial draft of categories was presented to the supervisory team and PhD colleagues for verification. At this phase, six categories of description were created.

June 2007 Presentation 2 Feedback from Presentation 1 was noted and amendments were made accordingly. The changes were presented again to the supervisory team and PhD colleagues. Categories of description were condensed to five.

Early July 2007 Presentation 3 Further amendments were made based on feedback gained during Presentation 2. Categories of description were condensed to four. The amended version was presented to the supervisory team and PhD colleagues.

Early July 2007 Presentation 4 Based on the feedback given during Presentation 3, the categories of description were amended using the structure of awareness framework to provide clear distinctions between each category. Categories of description were condensed into three and presented to the supervisory team and PhD colleagues for further comments.

Mid July 2007 Phenomenographic A refined set of categories of description was workshop presented in a workshop with experienced phenomenographers, PhD colleagues and the supervisory team.

May 2008 Phenomenographic A fifth draft of outcome space was presented to conference European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Special Interest Group: Phenomenography and Variation Theory Conference, Kristianstad, Sweden.

July 2008 PhD supervisory meeting Final iteration to include the ‘How’ and ‘What’ aspects of learning.

This section has elaborated the different phases of analysis undertaken in this study. The sections that follow will discuss issues relating rigour of the study.