When should you use observation as a method of data collection when should you use interview?

Observation provides the opportunity to monitor or assess a process or situation and document evidence of what is seen and heard. Seeing actions and behaviours within a natural context, or as they usually occur provides insights and understanding of the event, activity or situation being evaluated.

The key to using observational data as evidence in an evaluation is to take a systematic and consistent approach as you collect, organise and analyse what is observed.

These notes should be read alongside the general advice on understanding quantitative data and qualitative data, as observational data can include both types.

Advantages

• Observation is a flexible approach to data collection, suitable for a broad range of contexts.
• Observation can produce a mix of qualitative and quantitative data. For example, when observing people in a group situation, you might count up how many times certain behaviours or interactions occur (quantitative), while also taking freehand notes about the nature of the group dynamics (qualitative).
• Structured observation helps provide measures or records of behaviours, without relying on people’s (those being observed) capacity to report what they do or estimate how often they do it.
• Observation can be a low impact way to collect data. When planned appropriately, the observer may have only a minor effect on the activities or blend into the observation setting.
• The discussion of feedback from observation can lead to valuable reciprocal professional learning conversations.
• Teachers can also observe teaching and learning in their own classes using digital recording technologies, such as 360 degree cameras or other appropriately placed recording devices.

Relationship to other methods

Observation can be used as stand-alone data collection tool. Often, however, observational data is used in conjunction with other approaches as part of an evaluation design. For example:

• Initial focus groups, interviews or surveys might identify a set of behaviours that are of interest. Observation then allows the evaluation team to assess how common the behaviours are, or to look for patterns in the circumstances or triggers that give rise to them.
• Conversely, an evaluation might start with some exploratory observations, and then follow these up with interviews where participants are asked to comment on their experiences in the situation.
• Data from interviews or surveys (about classroom management practices, for example) might be used in conjunction with data from observations (of classroom management) to build a more complete assessment of the effectiveness of a strategy being used in the classroom to improve student engagement.
• Observations can be used in conjunction with other data, such as administrative records or document analysis. After reviewing a mathematics program (document analysis), the evaluation team may use observations to support or challenge claims found in the documents about the effectiveness of the program.

Limitations, and how to manage them

Observation needs to be carefully planned, with a clear understanding of the questions to be answered and the particular behaviours or attributes of interest. This helps avoid being overwhelmed by a vast amount of data, or getting stuck at the analysis stage wishing ‘If only I had kept an eye out for…’.

It is valuable to have two or more people undertake observations, as one person alone might miss things that someone else would see.

Conducting observations can be labour intensive, in preparation, data collection and analysis.

Depending on the rigour required for the evaluation there may be a need to allocate time for pre-observation discussion to ‘calibrate’ the observers. Time may also be needed at the end of the observation for discussion, checking consistency between observers and reflection of what was collected.

Like most measurement in a social setting, the process of collecting observational data will have an influence on what is being measured and can result in unintentional biases that we need to be mindful of.

Skilled observers are good at being unobtrusive or ‘fading into the background’ when they need to. Early data may need to be discarded while subjects are still getting used to the observer, especially if using video to record the activities. The more familiar people are with observation – the more ‘normal’ it becomes – the less this problem arises.

Answer:

When should you use observation for evaluation? When you are trying to understand an ongoing process or situation. Through observation you can monitor or watch a process or situation that your are evaluating as it occurs. When you are gathering data on individual behaviors or interactions between people.

• 

• 

• 

  Tama Yan maronong ba kayo umintindi

• 

  'wag mo kami lokohin bj comedor cinopy pste mo lang yan sa g00gle credits naman jan tol

By Chron Contributor Updated May 17, 2021

Interviewing and observation are two methods of collecting qualitative data as part of research. Both tools are used by academic researchers and in fields such as market research. There are two types of observation.

In a participant observation, the researcher will make herself part of the community that she is observing. A direct observation can be more focused, as the researcher often calls in her subjects and observes them for a specified amount of time. Interviews vary from structured, in which a set list of questions is asked of every interviewee, to unstructured, which is open-ended. These different techniques lead to many differences in conducting and analyzing the research data.

The more open-ended the research method, the longer it takes, both to conduct and to analyze. A participant observation, for example, may take months, as the researcher must establish herself as part of the community that she is observing. However, structured interviews using a single set of questions can take only a matter of hours. Observations, questionnaires and interviews are all useful sources of information, but you must choose what best applies to your specific needs and resource limitations.

Interviewing is usually conducted with the aid of a tape or digital recorder. The contents of the recorder are then transcribed, coded and analyzed. With direct observation, it is possible to use a wider range of tools, including video, which is good for recording non-verbal interactions. Participant observation is obviously difficult to record directly as the researcher is, by definition, involved in the action she is observing. The researcher usually records her observations after the fact.

With an observation, you see what people do. It is not an intervention, and even participant observers try to be as unobtrusive as possible. This is done to make it unlikely that the actions you observe are staged or deceptive. With interviews, the data you gain is more complex and subjective, says Penn State University. People are telling you what they think, which is not necessarily the same as what they do. In any case, it can be colored by their perception of what you want to hear or what they think they ought to say.

The most straightforward analysis comes from a structured interview. However many interviews you conduct, because they are all based on the same set of questions, you can compare answers directly. Unstructured interviews and participant observations are the most difficult to analyze, partly because there is so much data, according to Conjointly. Unstructured interviews require a lot of synthesis before responses can be compared.