Selecting and Categorising Data
I then began to select or sort the data into categories or groups by comparing and contrasting statements (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), and by identifying patterns or ‘things that go together’ (LeCompte – p. 150).
Some of the selection of data was determined by the frequency of certain responses, other by the fact that they are not mentioned at all.
As mentioned earlier, the interview schedule was specifically divided into categories using Hay McBer’s nine dimensions of classroom climate measures (these are described in the questions section of Methodology).
Included within these dimensions were additional categories relating to specific school improvement focuses. These were:
- the emotional/pastoral support in promoting children’s confidence, self-esteem, independence, recognition of achievement, co-operation and self-help strategies
- the curriculum in terms of interest, level of challenge, equity, target setting, clarity of explanations
- the quality of the school environment – to include resources and the value of displays
- the extent to which behaviour of the children in the playground impacts on others, whether there is freedom from disruption in the classroom and whether the school rules are perceived to be appropriate and effective;
- the fairness of the school’s merit system and whether it is successful in celebrating achievement
However, with any selection or categorising process, inevitably there were areas of overlap and so data regarding behaviour and emotional and pastoral support were generated from more than one dimension. Statements in all dimensions needed particular consideration so that the data were not distorted merely to fit the categories.
Presenting Data
Producing the data in a form that was easy to take in at a glance had been a priority throughout the data collection process and so presentation was not a separate activity. The data had been word processed on first collection so that the data could easily be categorised and presented in a range of different ways by cutting and pasting activities.
Initially a table was produced for each class (Appendix A is an example of this). This had the questions to the right of the table and the three children’s responses in columns to the right.
Then all of the children’s responses were collated in the same format to get an overview of positive/negative responses to each question (Appendix B). This enabled further sorting by ability groupings, gender, and ethnic origin. Data was deleted from Appendix B as appropriate (Appendix C is an example of this) and summaries of any salient findings written.
The information from Appendix B was then used to do a quantitative analysis (Appendix D), with a commentary running alongside describing the qualitative findings.
Finally, Appendix D was scrutinised with regard to the quantitative and qualitative data relating to the school improvement categories.
The Interpretation of Data
I found this to be the most daunting element of Miles and Huberman’s analytical process. My fears of bias and subjectivity initially froze me into inaction. However, I was aware that continual reflection on the data collection had been essential from the beginning and had already involved some interpretation at each stage, no matter how minimal. I, therefore, tried to convince myself that this was not a separate, discrete stage, but a natural progression and a bringing together of all the information.
My main anxiety was Miles and Huberman’s expectation that ‘a practical theory or model would be constructed to fit the situation which had been researched’. I knew that my study would develop an approach (which would change in line with circumstances and priorities), and not a definitive model or theory of school self-evaluation. I was concerned that ‘an approach’, relying on qualitative evidence might not be sufficient to validate the project.
I returned to my initial data on the responses from the full sample and firstly looked for quantitative data within each dimension. I was very surprised at the amount of data that could be analysed in this way and this gave me the confidence and a firm base from which to approach the qualitative analysis. The findings from these are reported upon in (haven’t yet numbered sections)______.
External Perspective
Within this research project there has been much discussion around the need for objectivity because of the subjective nature of such a study. It was, therefore, very important to gain an external perspective by the involvement of people outside the school.
Therefore the data shown in Appendix B, the responses of the whole sample, were given to the school’s ex-deputy Headteacher and ex-literacy subject manager. These two teachers left the school eighteen months ago, due to starting families, but both still do regular teaching within the school. They were asked to take on the role of ‘critical friend’ to review the data and the quality of the questioning. I felt they were well placed to do this knowing the school and its character and yet no longer being personally involved as class teachers. They had also taken leading roles within the school whilst in Special Measures when ‘critical friendships’ were first developed within the school. They were, therefore, accustomed to being both critical and challenging.
The school’s primary adviser had also agreed to act as a ‘critical friend’ and data had also been given to him but, due to the restrictions on his time, he was unable to give feedback within the time-scale.
Two weeks after the data had been given to the former colleagues a separate meeting with each ‘critical friend’ was arranged. They had each written notes regarding the questions themselves and a summary of what they felt were the pertinent issues emerging from the children’s responses. These formed the basis of our discussions, along with the sharing of my own summaries and early findings.
I found it very helpful to receive their external views as they each challenged and in some cases reflected my own initial ‘theories’. The meetings also gave the opportunity for the data to be probed with more rigour and with less sensitivity than was possible with present teaching staff.
Having received their feedback I then reflected on my initial findings in line with their perceptions and adjusted my thinking where I thought it appropriate.
Highlights from Data
The full results from the analysis are shown in the appendices. The purpose of this section is to pick out the main highlights. This section, therefore, contains only some of the responses that gave me particular insights into the children’s ‘inner world’ of school (Cullingford, 1991) and those that either challenged or confirmed my earlier perceptions.
I was very surprised and pleased at how confident and relaxed all the children were during the interviews. I felt that this was a very encouraging indicator of the children’s self-esteem and self-confidence.
Although the data was analysed by looking at different ability groupings, gender and ethnic origin I was very pleased to note that there were no significant differences highlighted within these groupings. It seemed from the data that these groupings within the sample felt well supported liked school and were happy to come. The only difference was that in the Participation section, in the question relating to whether the children preferred to listen or join in with discussions, the two children who said they would prefer to listen were in the less able grouping. I, therefore, felt this was a very positive result.
Regarding the sample as a whole, although being mindful of the small scale of this, I was very reassured by 89% saying they liked school and the very positive reasons given as to why they did. Examples of these reasons are: ‘teachers are really nice and we do fun things’, ‘because there is always someone there to help you’. The two children who said they did not like school gave the following reasons:
‘you have to work hard after playtime’
‘because I don’t want to get out of bed. Like it when I get there because you do fun things’.
I was also pleased that 83% of the sample said they felt happy to come to school (15 children out of eighteen) with the other three saying ‘usually’ but not when they were feeling either sick or tired.
It was interesting that, whilst all the children said they felt they could talk to a teacher if they had a personal worry, only 78% of the sample (14 out of the 18), felt happy to ask a teacher if they were ‘stuck’ in their work. One girl said she would be scared the teacher might tell her off. The two other children from this class in the sample said they would probably ask a helper rather than the teacher because the teacher was usually busy. The teacher when looking at this data was very surprised and concerned about the children’s responses and I feel she received a very powerful message. There were also lots of very positive responses from her children to soften the issues highlighted by the data.
Fortunately, everyone in the sample agreed that it was important to behave well although a very high percentage of children (67% of the sample) said that sometimes other children stopped them from doing their work. Eight of these children had good strategies for dealing with the disruption, the others said they would tell the teacher. By probing further, I found that the disturbance was in the form of sometimes other children chatting to them and no one seemed unduly worried by this.
The majority of the children (94% of sample) knew the school rules. One boy in Reception said he did not know these. 56% of the sample said that children kept them the rules with 28% of the sample saying that children usually did. One boy said ‘lots of children fight’. Luckily this was not mentioned by any of the other children but would need to be investigated further with a wider sample of children.
All of the children in the sample seemed to have a clear sense of what behaviour was expected and were aware of the consequences if they were to behave badly.
I was surprised that the children in the sample all felt that the school merit system was fair. I hope that this is the case but felt that the answer to this question may have been so positive because I was asking it. I am sure they associate me strongly with the merit system as I see the children individually when they achieve a merit and I give out the certificates. I would, therefore, like to ask a wider sample of children to see if this was really as good an incentive as it appears and that there was an equity of rewards and sanctions. On the whole I felt that the children had a good understanding of the merit system.
I was disappointed that only one out of the sample (a Year 2 boy) saw making a mistake as being a positive experience: ‘ I don’t mind (making a mistake) because it’s just about learning isn’t it?’ The same boy when asked about the sorts of things that could help him when he was ‘stuck’ said that he would ‘ask a friend ‘cos they learn something new by helping someone’. This boy was in the lower ability grouping but was very sensitive and articulate and, I felt, had a high self-esteem and was confident to ‘have a go’. I was also concerned at the number of times ‘rubbers’ were mentioned, perhaps we need to discourage the use of these to establish a more ‘it’s okay to make a mistake’ culture.
61% of the sample said they did not mind making mistakes in their work and, although seven children said they worried none of them seemed to do so excessively. One child recognised that although she worried it wasn’t ‘that bad really because the teacher will help me but I still worry that she might tell me off’, with another saying that she ‘felt nervous – I don’t get told off but worry in case I might’. Interestingly, six out of the seven ‘worriers’ were girls. The boy’s response was much more positive:
‘Sometimes, if it’s a big mistake, I worry. Otherwise I don’t mind. I cross the answer out and ask the teacher. She gives me a bit of help without telling the answer and asks me to look at it again’.
Fifteen children from the sample (83%) said they enjoyed or ‘loved playtimes with 89% saying they enjoyed playing with all of the children in their class. Again there were very positive reasons given for this such as: ‘they’re (the children in his class) all good at something in my game’, ‘because it’s a happy class’, ‘they’re all nice and help me’. The two children that said they did not like playing with all of the children in their class mentioned children that ‘didn’t let them play with them’ or ‘some of the children can be hurtful’. I was saddened to hear one boy talk about the difficulties he experienced with friendships although I had been aware of the incidents he discussed. Although I think he now feels safe within school he is obviously lonely.
The same percentage of children (83%) said that they thought other children liked playing with them with one saying ‘maybe’ and smiling shyly! One of the two other children said they did not think other children enjoyed playing with them because the other children were unkind to him.
I was pleasantly surprised at the positive responses regarding playtimes because I have been very concerned over the severe behaviour difficulties four boys in school exhibit. Each of the boys receives support from outside agencies. One has been statemented, two receive ear-marked funding and one is in Reception. They have all needed considerable support at playtimes and during class time. Even with this support there have been a number of incidents that I felt could have affected other children’s perceptions of safety within school. Only one child made mention of these boys and he did so in a very tolerant, mature way, ‘they try to be good but it’s difficult for them’. Obviously a bigger sample would be needed to allay my anxieties but the result was more positive than I had hoped.
In the Fairness section 78% (14 children out of the 18) felt that everyone had a turn in class discussions. 17% of the sample said that sometimes it felt like just a few but at other times it was everyone. One girl, interestingly from the more able grouping, said that ‘the teacher only chooses children that have good ideas’. The other children in the sample from her class fortunately did not feel this.
In the past year we have tried to make Circle Time a more effective vehicle for supporting children with PSHE issues. We had an INSET session in February for all staff. The COUNTY PSHE adviser ran this as we were wishing to explore a wider range of activities to support children n this area. We had found that most children have difficulty responding to questions they may perceive as being ‘probing’ and so we have tried to give other opportunities to explore feelings through role-play activities and stories. The purpose of the question asking if the children had the opportunity to discuss their worries in Circle Time was to receive feedback as to whether this activity was valued by the children.
From the data it would seem that Circle Time does not yet appear to be effective. However, I also realise that the question was not quite right to judge the impact of the new initiatives, as children would not necessarily link drama with Circle Time activities. The question would need to be more open – for example ‘Do you have any opportunities to talk about your worries during class?’ This area needs further discussion with staff and it would be interested to talk to other Infant staff about this. Perhaps this may be a more effective tool at KS2 as children at this age are not, quite understandable, able to express their feelings on demand.
I was very concerned that most of the children did not seem to feel a true sense of achievement when they have completed a good piece of work or reached a target. Only one child said they felt happy when they had done a good piece of work or reached a target although many talked enthusiastically about teachers saying ‘well done’ and giving them stickers. I was really shocked that one child felt nervous instead of pleased that she had reached a target in case she had to move to ‘a harder group’. We need to be aware of these feelings when always feeling we have to ‘move children on with their learning’. Next time I would ask the children how else they would like to celebrate their achievement, perhaps this could also be included as an area for discussion at the School Council.
The questions relating to targets highlighted some confusion with some children saying they did not have targets, whilst others in the same class said they did and were able to talk about the process. Reception seemed the most muddled, which is not surprising considering the age of the children. We also need to discuss whether the word ‘target’ is appropriate to use with such young children. Certainly the term ‘target’ and the children’s understanding of this, need more careful consideration and explanation.
There was also a mixed response to the question regarding pupils being given support to evaluate their own work. At least one child in each class in Year 1 and 2 said they were involved in this and the setting of new targets. Only two out of the less able grouping said they were involved. This was particularly surprising, as I would have thought they would have been more aware of their targets through their Individual Education Plans. The process certainly needs to be clearer and perhaps non-contact time given for the teachers to talk to the children about their learning.
In the Interest dimension I was also pleased at the children’s seemingly positive attitude towards maths. Nine children (50% of the sample) stated this as an area they felt they were particularly good at. At the time of Special Measures, maths was one of our Key Issues – as was writing. Considerable training was given and a lot of hard work put in all by all staff – teaching and non-teaching – to increase the opportunities for all children to engage in developing open-ended, investigative activities. This, alongside the implementation of the National Numeracy Strategy, has significantly impacted upon attainment. Classroom observations show children to be confident in this area (verified by Ofsted) and these data would seem to suggest that, very importantly, children enjoy the subject too. Obviously the small size of the sample has to be remembered, but I do feel that the data reflects the general enthusiasm of the children for this subject.
The children’s perceptions regarding writing were more of a concern. Nine children (again 50% of the sample containing a mixture of both girls and boys) said they felt they were not so good at writing. Most of the concerns were regarding the mechanics of writing for example joining up letters, scribbly handwriting and not being able to sound out the words. Three children said they enjoyed writing in the writing area perhaps because they see this as being informal with less emphasis on accuracy. This needs to be explored further as a staff to try to interest and motivate children more. One suggestion form the literacy subject manager was to increase the opportunities for shared writing.
Five children (all boys, from all ability groups) said they found reading difficult. Interestingly these children were in Reception and Year 1, there were none from Year 2. A lot of new books have been purchased in Year 2 specifically to motivate boys – these include a range of non-fiction material and adventure/mystery stories. We obviously now need to review resources in Reception and Year 1 to enable us to motivate reluctant readers in Reception and Year 1.
I was very encouraged by the apparent sensitivity and diversity of groupings within the classes as the children seemed unaware of ability groupings until Year 2. When asked about whether the children prefer to work in mixed or single gender groups, the boys were surprisingly honest with nine of them saying they worked better in a mixed group.They made comments such as: ‘we don’t chat so much when we’re with the girls,’ ‘sometimes my friends distract me if we’re all boys together’, girls are more sensible than boys – boys get a bit silly when they’re together’.
When given the choice of who the children preferred to work with (a friend, the teacher, in a group) generally the split was quite even, although all three children from one class said they preferred working with the teacher. This would lead me to question the level of independence fostered within the class and/or the level of challenge of the activities set. The teacher and I discussed this and she said although she felt the data did not reflect the whole class it was certainly an area to be aware of. This particular teacher at the time of the study had got a small class, a full-time LSA and had just had a PGCE student, and so there had been a high pupil/teacher ratio.
I was surprised and quite concerned by the high percentage of children that said they usually found the work hard (61% of sample). Under-achievement by the more able was another of the school’s Key Issues during Special Measures and has, over past years, been another major focus area. I am now anxious that now the level of challenge may be too great. Hopefully, the fact that 16 out of the 18 children in the sample said they liked school is perhaps an indicator that this is not the case; especially as concern over the level of difficulty of the work does not appear anywhere else in the data.
In the section on the environment there were eighteen references to the displays of children’s work, all giving very positive views which, I feel, reflect the value the children put on seeing their work on the walls. In response to Question 1, asking whether the children thought the school always looked bright and attractive and why/why not, one child summarised this by saying: ‘yes, the displays – people say “what excellent work” and children like to have their work on display’.
A focus area for the school has been to encourage the children to see ‘getting stuck’ as a real learning opportunity – a celebration of new learning about to happen. Teachers in Year 1 and 2 have discussed and promoted self-help strategies with their classes and a list of ideas had been compiled by the children to serve as a reminder. I felt it important that the school receive feedback as to how this has impacted on the children regarding their self-confidence, independence and self-esteem and whether these strategies are in use and remembered. In exploring this area it was hoped to find out whether pupils saw themselves as independent learners, able to take responsibility for their own learning. I was very pleased that 67% of the sample had at least one self-help strategy. The four children (22% of sample) who said they would ask a teacher without trying any strategies first were from Reception.
Findings
I was very aware when writing the last section that the heading was ‘Highlights from the Data’. Although my intention was to be discerning about the data discussed I found this difficult because, in my view, all of the data is valuable. I, therefore, feel that this is a very powerful indicator of the worth of the study and the importance of listening to the pupils’ voice.
The interviews have given me the opportunity to find out from the children their views and feelings about areas such as PSHE and safety that I would not otherwise receive feedback on.
The interviews highlighted, in particular, two children’s vulnerability with other children. I already had concerns about both of these children but did not realise with one of the children the severity of the problem. The chatty nature of the interviews and the range of subjects explored gave a more natural opportunity for the children to share their concerns with me. I was also able to probe gently to try to get as full a picture as I could of the problems.
I was very perturbed by some children’s perception of my accessibility. Shortly after I had conducted the interviews a child stopped me in the corridor to enquire whether I was still ‘asking people whether they were happy or not as she had a problem’. I obviously explained to her that her and the other children’s happiness was always important to me but it gave me an uneasy feeling that the children might feel there is a set time and place to discuss worries. My anxiety about accessibility was further fuelled by a parent’s comment. She said that her child had been thrilled that I had spoken to him for such a long time and said ‘it was if the Queen had spoken to him’. This was quite a sobering thought as I had previously felt that I was accessible to the children and felt I knew most of them well.
The children’s responses seemed to have also had a powerful impact on the class teachers. Fortunately, within every class, the majority of the data was positive and gave cause to celebrate certain aspects of the classroom climate created. However, within every class the data also raised important questions for individual class teachers. Teachers discussed their feelings about this openly. They felt that when areas for development are identified by observations in classrooms it is perhaps easier for teachers to deny the issues as the teacher could feel that the observer is only reporting back on a ‘snapshot’ of the teacher’s practice. However, when issues are highlighted by pupils’ who are in the classroom all day, every school day, the teachers said that it felt more personal and powerful.
All of the teachers felt that they had learned about their practice and ‘classroom climate’ from the data and were enthusiastic about embedding this process into our present monitoring and evaluation systems. I was pleased that they also felt that the data was valuable but also reminded them that, when considering the responses, it was also important to remember the subjective nature of the pupils’ perceptions.
Throughout the process I have to admit to feeling slightly guilty that I was able to spend such quality time with the children and aware that the adults working with the children should also have this opportunity. Therefore, in future times, I am going to suggest that we split the interview schedule into three discrete sections. Some questions it might be more appropriate for LSAs to ask some for the class teachers and others for me. This way everyone has a sense of ownership of the system and the sample would then be able to be wider. In Hay McBer’s present pilot on classroom climate they advocate that seven children in each class be a more representative sample.
It is envisaged that these interviews are spread out over perhaps the autumn and the beginning of the spring term. This would enable there to be regular opportunities for evaluation so that it would not be just a yearly event! It would also help alleviate the pressure of time such a process might create. It is felt that the summer term is too late for the children’s perceptions to have an impact on their present teacher’s practice.
A significant number of researchers claim that one of the key factors identified as cementing student commitment to the process of learning is a meaningful, or ‘authentic’, relationship with an adult working at the school (Marzano et al, 1992; Gray and Wilcox 1995; Hopkins et al. 1997b, 1998). I feel such interviews would very much enhance the quality of relationships between adults and children.
This research tool trialled will, as I have said earlier, be part of a full framework for school self-evaluation, shaped by the school’s own needs and priorities. Whilst always being aware of the limitations of such a study and that every finding can only have a tentative status, I feel I have learned a significant amount about school and classroom climate, through being in the privileged position of being able to speak individually and at length to children. Listening and valuing the voice of pupils, I believe, promotes the attitudes described below by Brandes and Ginnis, which together create a conducive classroom climate to aspire to:
‘The most enabling quality that one person can display to another is unconditional positive regard, a phrase which describes the clear, non-possessive, non-manipulative attitude which seeks the growth and empowerment of the other …neither submissive nor subordinate, nor superior, but aligned with the students in following their endeavours and achieving the goals of the school’. (Brandes and Ginnis, 1990: 30)
