Research Approach

Unlike the other two websites that are a part of this overall research project, the forum interactions on the WickED site were unsuitable to be used for any sort of analysis. This is largely due to the fact that the primary focus of the site is on the provision of quality learning activities, and forums available for students to use on the site were supplementary to this. Student use of these forums was infrequent and limited to general postings that were purely salutary and social.

For this reason no qualitative analysis was made of website participation, with this research relying instead on the following, three key elements:

1. Interview with website development team

A face-to-face, group interview was held with members of the WickED website development team, including the project manager, in March 2006. The purpose of this interview was to establish the intention behind the development of the website, to gain an understanding of how the site is currently managed, and to discover what the team considers to be working well or in need of further development on the site. This visit also allowed the team to demonstrate to the researchers the various features of the site.

2. Survey analysis

The website development team provided the researchers with copies of surveys that had been completed by 49 students at the end of a series of training workshops they had held in schools towards the end of 2005. The research team collated this feedback, which is summarised in some of the graphs that appear in this report to support or contrast with the feedback from interviews.

3. ‘In-School’ Interviews

Securing interviews proved difficult despite continued and determined efforts to contact schools.

At the beginning of October 2005, a list of schools with whom the WickED development team had worked with was received. This included schools they had approached for training and schools who had requested it themselves. In the first instance names of nine schools were given. A further three were shared after a researcher became available to work in Wellington.

Initial contact was made through an email to all schools identified in Auckland (four), Wellington (three) and Christchurch (five), introducing the project and the aims of the evaluation, and requesting that it be forwarded to the appropriate person on the staff. It was hoped that an advance email would give time for the teachers and classes who had been involved in WickED to be identified and ultimately save time in locating active users. The email explained that a researcher would be calling the school in the next few days to speak to that contact, and was accompanied by the appropriate ethical consent forms etc. This email was sent out on the week beginning 16 October 2005.  Follow-up calls began at the end of that week.

In the event, most phone calls, proved to be difficult and time-consuming, as the email had invariably been passed off as spam, or referred to someone who was not there or not available. One school refused outright to even discuss the possibility of researchers coming into the school. It took several calls in most cases to firstly identify a person to speak to, and then to make contact with that person. In one case, the researcher had to call the school five times before contact was made with the principal.

On reflection, a number of schools appeared to be ‘wary’ of the word ‘research’ when the team were seeking to establish an opportunity to visit and interview staff. In one case, after securing a phone call with a principal of a centre which had received training, the researcher managed to capture her support and a promise to bring the matter to the staff meeting that week to identify some teachers for interviewing. The research assistant passed on the information to the interviewer. When the interviewer made contact to arrange a time to visit the school, the principal explained that the teachers did not feel confident enough to be interviewed as they did not have enough knowledge of the site. Giving emphasis to the notion of evaluation, and using phrases such as ‘discuss’ and ‘provide feedback’ appeared to make a difference, and combined with the reassurance that the teacher or student did not need to be an expert, the conversations were slightly easier to conduct.

However, it was still difficult to establish specific times to meet. In one case, after many attempts at contacting the principal of a Kura Kaupapa school and explaining our wish to receive feedback on what the site was like for Maori and speakers of Maori, the interview still did not receive permission to go ahead. A similar experience occurred in a Wellington school where, after several interactions, the researcher was informed that the teacher who had been involved in the previous year had just left the school and that they didn’t see any merit in the researcher visiting the school.

Because of the issues described above, a smaller sample than desired was used. Interviews were conducted in just one Auckland school, one Wellington School and three Christchurch schools. Interview participants comprised 7 students ranging from year 5 to 8, an ESOL teacher aide, an ICT specialist aide and four classroom teachers.

4. Other research data supporting this report. Additional research data mentioned in this report includes TKI server statistics¹ and researchers observational notes, made during the data collection phase. 

 

Footnotes

1. Stats for TKI