There is always the possibility of error in the observation process. Fassnacht (1982:43) reviews Campbell’s (1958) classifications of errors in representing data in psychological and social studies. Some of these errors frequently occur when making judgements and primarily concern language behaviour:

a) error of central tendency

b) error of leniency or generosity

c) primacy or recency effect

d) halo effect

e) logical error

A first error occurs in using a rating scale. Hollingworth (1910) called the effect ‘central tendency’ in a series of judgements about objectivity of quantifiable stimuli, when the large stimuli are underestimated and the small ones overestimated.

An error of leniency or generosity could arise in making favourable verbal judgements using personality scales. Fassnacht (1982:40) clarifies that in the personality scales a number of questions relating to one particular personality trait are drawn together and the answers to these questions are given in the form of ‘yes’, ‘no’, ‘sometimes’, ‘often’ which might not reflect objective reality.

A third error occurs as a result of the order in which perceptual events happen. The problem is that in behaviour testing the first impression could have a distorting effect on later data collection and thus lead to errors. Bailey (1990:218) admits that in diary keeping, events that are embarrassing or painful when they occur ‘often lose their sting after weeks of reflection’.

A fourth error, halo effect, is described by Mandl (1971) when the evaluator ‘has the tendency when judging a personality trait to be influenced by a general impression or a salient characteristic’.

Logical errors or error of theory reveals due to the theoretical assumptions of the observer. It is now widely accepted that observation is always ‘theory-laden’ (Phillips 1993:62). He continues that observations can not be ‘pure’, free from the influence of background theories or hypotheses or personal hopes and desires. Ratcliffe (1983:148) supports this assumption in that ‘most research methodologists are now aware that all data are theory-, method-, and measurement-dependent’. As Bailey (1990:226) suggests in conducting 'pure research' it is better to avoid reading the research literature in the field, to keep from biasing the results.

2.2.2. The problem of ‘observable’ items

The item ‘observable’ in the definition given by Seliger and Shohamy (1989:118) mentioned above emphasizes the problem of what items to be treated as observable in classroom setting. Thus, Smith and Geoffrey (1968) make valid assertions criticising systematic observation systems:

The way the teacher poses his problems, the kind of goals and sub-goals he is trying to reach, the alternatives he weighs … are aspects of teaching which are frequently lost to the behavioural oriented empirical who focuses on what the teacher does to the exclusion of how he thinks about teaching. Smith and Geoffrey (1968:96)

McIntyre and Macleod (1986:14) generalize the problem of observable items and limitation of data obtained through systematic observation claiming that there is ‘no direct evidence on the actions of participants which are not overt’. The detailed criticism of systematic observation is given in Chapter 2.6.2.

Data recording problems

The problem of accurate recording

Data collection, description procedures face problems of the accuracy and explicitness of records. ‘The crucial problem is to be able to render interpretable the process of events and behaviour as it occurs naturally’ (McKernan 1996:60).

Hutt and Hutt (1970:34) emphasise the difficulty of accurate description of the behaviour. They emphasize the problem with the vocabulary choice in that there are many thousands of words which describe motor and language behaviour but ‘unfortunately, the words are injunctive concepts, learned by usage rather than by definition’ (Hutt and Hutt 1970:34). Other than that, it is frequently found that some definitions are over encompassing in that they cover patterns of behaviour for which ordinary language has two or more terms. Lofland and Lofland (1995:93) recommend employing behaviouristic and concrete vocabulary rather than abstract adjectives and adverbs, which are based on paraphrase and general recall.

The problem of objective recording

Another problem with the written commentary to be discussed is the problem of objectivity. All researchers agree that the data are often subjective, reflect personal impressions, inferential and interpretative. Events may not be viewed the same way by different observers. ‘It is common to find that witnesses to an accident give differing accounts of what happened’ (Lofland 1995:127).

Eisner (1993:49) defines objectivity as being ‘fair, open to all sides of the argument’. He considers that to reduce subjectivity the observer must achieve correspondence not only in what s/he perceives or understands but how she or he represents it. Schaffer (1982:75) continuous the problem of vocabulary choice saying that there are some aspects of reality which can be described fairly objectively and those which can only be described subjectively, and ‘it is difficult to know where the borderline between objectivity and subjectivity lies’. Scheurich (1997:161) doubts in ‘the very existence of gross material reality’. He claims that research mainly addresses interpretation of meaning or constructions of ‘reality’.

To sum the problems with data recording I can suggest that an observer may describe and interpret an event in subjective way due to personal bias, theoretical assumptions, s/he can experience difficulty in the choice of an object/behaviour to observe and words to record an event in accurate and explicit way.