CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

The aim of this chapter is to present the methodological approaches used in

this study. This chapter presents the research design, locale of the study, the

participants of the study, the sampling technique, the method used for data

collection, and the process for data analysis.

Research Design

The researchers employed phenomenology as their research design.

Moustakas (1994) said that phenomenology is suited if the goal is to capture and

describe perceived realities within a given context. Wa-Mbaleka (2018) further states

that phenomenology is the most suitable approach if the goal is to understand

human experiences. Additionally, it enables the researchers to build a more accurate

representation of people’s experiences as it requires them to set aside their

preconceived notions and biases during data collection and analysis (Morrow, et al.

2015). The design is naturally connected with the present study because it is largely

based on how cheating during major examinations is experienced firsthand by those

who are involved.

Research Locale

This research will be conducted in a public high school in Alangalang, Leyte.

The public high school is offering both Junior and Senior High School. The

participants will be interviewed in the guidance office or any comfortable place that

the respondents will choose. The study will be conducted in the second semester of

the School Year 2018 – 2019.

Participants of the Study and Sampling Technique

The participants of this study were 21 learners coming from different grade

levels of school year 2018-2019 in the public high school that served as the research

locale. The researchers will use the Snowball Sampling Technique in order to search

for the participants who can provide information about the phenomenon being

investigated. The criteria in selecting these participants are as follows: 1) bona fide

students of the public high school that served as the research locale; 2) and have

already cheated during major examinations. The initial participant was identified from

the personal contacts of the researchers; the succeeding ones were identified

through the chain-referral process following some ethical considerations. The

researchers ensured that the participants were fully willing to participate by carefully

explaining to them the nature and process of the current research project. The

participants were also told that they were free to withdraw from the study at any time,

and that such withdrawal will not be taken against them. Moreover, the researchers

promised the participants that all information that would identify them will be kept

hidden.

According to Wa-Mbaleka (2018), in many qualitative designs, a

predetermined number of subjects is not necessarily needed. In this study, the

researchers went with data saturation (a point where data becomes repetitive). To

reach this, the researchers just interviewed so many participants until they reached

the point of saturation (Kvale, 1994). Data saturation was achieved with 21

interviews and was confirmed by the last three (3) interviews.

18
 Table 1
Profile of the Participants
Grade Level Age Sex Participants’ Code
7 12 F P05
7 12 F P09
7 12 M P19
7 14 M P18
8 13 F P03
8 14 M P16
8 15 M P01
9 15 F P02
9 15 F P04
9 15 F P10
9 15 F P11
9 15 F P15
9 15 M P13
9 15 M P17
10 16 F P14
10 16 M P08
10 16 M P12
11 16 M P20
11 17 M P07
12 17 F P21
12 18 M P06

Research Instrument

The researchers used semi-structured interviews to gather all the necessary

data for this study.

The interview questions and the informed consent form constituted the

interview protocol of this study. The first part of the interview protocol is the informed

consent form that explains to the participants the aims of the research, its timeframe,

the privacy and confidentiality details, the voluntary nature of their participation, the

absence of physical or emotional risks, the use of audio recorders, and the

importance of honesty. This is to ensure that the participants had full willingness to

take part in the interview. The participants signed the informed consent form before

the interviews begin.

19
 The second part of the interview protocol are the researchers made interview

questions. The researchers prepared questions that covers the research topic; the

researchers gave follow up questions based on the responses of the participants so

as to provide more depth to the information given.

The researchers-made interview protocol were validated by three (3) experts,

two (2) of whom have expertise in the behavioral sciences, while the other one (1)

has expertise in qualitative research. Preferably, the first two experts are a guidance

counselor and a social worker. They will determine whether a question is phrased in

a sensitive manner that the participants might fail to give truthful answers. The third

expert is a research teacher who will ascertain the alignment of the interview guide

to the research questions and the overarching problem in general.

Recognizing that it is vital that the interviews yield data based solely on the

perspective of the participants, the researchers will do “bracketing”. To do this, the

researchers took into account his preconceived notions about the phenomenon

being investigated and put them in abeyance (Levitt, Wertz, Motulsky, Morrow, and

Ponterotto, 2016). Specifically, the researchers made a list (bracketing diary) of all

his expected outcomes prior to doing the interviews and resolve to set them aside.

The researchers will also limit his probing questions to ones that seek clarifications.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers used semi-structured interviews to carry out this study. It

featured open – ended interviewing which allowed the participants to elaborate and

explain their answers which provided more depth to their responses. The questions

used were all based on the interview guide prepared by the researchers. The

interview guide was validated by three (3) senior high school teachers, two (2) of

20
whom have expertise in the behavioral sciences, while the other one (1) has

expertise in research. After the interview guide was validated, the recorded

interviews began. Guided by the chain referral process of snowball sampling, the

researchers identified, asked for consent, and interviewed the research participants.

The researchers informed the participants that their responses must be recorded,

and that they are free to withdraw if they disagree.

In this study, it is vital that the interviews yield data based solely on the

perspective of the participants. To do this, a process called “bracketing” was

employed. In it, the researchers took into account their preconceived notions about

the phenomenon being investigated, and put them in abeyance (Levitt, Wertz,

Motulsky, Morrow, and Ponterotto, 2016). Specifically, the researchers made a list

(bracketing diary) of all their expected outcomes prior to doing the interviews, and

agreed to set them aside. They also agreed to limit their probing questions to

clarification.

Data Analysis

The data gathered were analyzed and described using Colaizzi’s method of

data analysis.

After the interviews, all of the audio recordings were transcribed. Transcripts

were read and the researchers identified the significant parts of the statements that

are of direct relevance to the study. In this stage, the researchers noted any

perspectives, thoughts or beliefs arising from their presuppositions about the

phenomenon being investigated (Tufford & Newman, 2010). After the identification of

significant statements, the researchers formulated more general statements or

meanings. Meanings were then clustered into themes that are common across all

21
the transcripts (Morrow, Rodriquez & King, 2015). The formulated meanings and

clusters of themes were then incorporated into an exhaustive description of the

phenomenon. This inclusive description was then reduced into a simple and dense

statement that captures the fundamental structure of the phenomenon under the

study (Abalos, Rivera, Rozzano, and Schoenhofer, 2016). Finally, a copy of the

interview transcripts and exhaustive descriptions were returned to the participants to

find out whether it captures their experience (Morrow et al., 2015).

Ethical Considerations

The participants of the study were identified through a chain referral process.

This means that no discrimination happened based on demographics, and that the

researchers only followed the stated inclusion criteria. The first participant was

identified from the personal contacts of the researchers who are willing to assist in

the current research endeavor. True to the chain referral process of snowball

sampling, the succeeding participants were identified and nominated by the initial

participants. To ensure that the nominated participants will not experience any

embarrassment from being revealed to the researchers without his or her

knowledge, the researchers asked the preceding participants to talk first to their

nominated contacts about their possible participation. At this stage, the researchers

did not collect any identifying information for the nominated participant. Once the

nominated participant agrees to join the study, his or her nominator will inform the

researchers, who will then set the time and date for the interview. Only at this stage

will the researchers secure the name and other relevant details of the nominated

participant.

22
 Prior to the interview, the objectives of the study were explained to the

participants and their consent were sought. The researchers also assured the

participants that they are free to withdraw, and that such withdrawal will not be held

against them. In addition, the researchers assured all participants that their identities

will be kept confidential, and that all recordings, transcripts, and notes will be used ]

[‘only for the purposes of this study.

Finally, the name of the public high school where the study was conducted is

kept confidential because the study investigated a sensitive matter which might

damage the individuals involved and the institution itself.

23