Data collection during main study

I have briefly described the actual implementation of TBLT and mediation above. Regarding the data collection for examining the effectiveness of both approaches, seven types of data were gathered during the main study as follows.

Data collected Instrument No. of respondents/ results

1. Learners’ attitudes and

preferences for learning activities and teaching methods incl. ways to give feedback

2. Learners’ attitudes, perceptions and opinions on the designed tasks, TBLT and feedback(mediation) Pre-int. Questionnaire Post-int. questionnaire Pre-Q Accountancy: 29copies Humanities: 22 Post-Q Accountancy: 20 Humanities: 16

3. Learners’ perceptions, opinions and suggestions for improvement of designed tasks, TBLT and feedback (mediation)

In-depth interview 8 learners

4. Four teacher-observers’ comments and feedback on

designed tasks, TBLT and feedback (mediation)

Observation notes 28 copies(notes)

5. Four teacher-observers’ feedback and suggestions for improvement of designed tasks, TBLT, and feedback (mediation) Post-observation interviews 4 recorded interviews (2 hours each) 6. The researcher/teacher ’s reflections

Research journal 24 copies

7. Classroom interactions VDO and MP3

recordings

Recorded all lessons

Table 11 Summary of data collection

As shown in Table 11, sources of data on mediation came from pre- and post- questionnaire results, learner and observer interviews, and class interactions as the

main source. Before the intervention, I surveyed learners’ preferences for receiving feedback – whether they preferred individual, group or whole-class feedback, and how they would like it to be provided. Implicit questions relating to feedback (implying mediation) were designed in the pre-intervention and post-intervention questionnaires. Since mediation was embedded in task-based lessons, the data on mediation was gathered by recording interactions between students (mostly in small groups) and myself. In addition, I also asked observers to comment about ways of feedback but as the observers could not hear interactions, they were not able to provide the details.

The administration of questionnaires was quite simple. After introducing my project, I gave the questionnaires to the students who decided to take part. As can be seen from Table 11, the number of students decreased, as some students withdrew during the course. However, this did not affect the analysis because all questionnaires were coded, so only respondents who participated in all tasks were considered. The pre- intervention questionnaire concerning learners’ preferences for learning activities and teaching methods helped me consider their needs, whereas a lot of issues were identified with their suggestions in the post-intervention questionnaire. I used the issues they mentioned in the questionnaires for an in-depth investigation of underlying circumstances and reasons in a follow-up interview of eight learners. I approached learners who actively engaged in lessons and interactions, in which some of them provided critical comments in the post-questionnaire. While interviewing, in order to ensure my understanding, I also asked about the behaviour I observed in class and in the VDO, for example, whether they were quiet because the lesson was boring, and whether they did not participate in discussion because they were not

interested in the topic. Thus, it could be said that some interview questions were related to issues mentioned in the questionnaires, and some about their behaviours and interactions with me. With reference to mediation, their feeling and perceptions of the mediation procedures were examined during interview. Before the interviews, I therefore had to watch the VDO and listen to the MP3 recordings of interactions. The data collected from the observers included comments and feedback in their observation notes, informal chats after some lessons and the post-intervention interviews. All four observers gave me constructive written feedback about tasks and teaching methods. They did not mind me asking for clarification if some points were unclear. I sometimes had informal chats with them to discuss problems and seek their advice. We sometimes looked at situations and circumstances from different angles, and I found both similar and conflicting views, comparing their notes with my research journals. The piloting interview guide was revised for the main study, taking into account the issues mentioned in the observers' notes and their informal chats with me.

The interviews of observers aimed to examine particular issues in depth based on perceptions of all observers. Their responses to questions mostly confirmed their thoughts and the underlying reasons for their thoughts and suggestions. Since there were some conflicting perspectives between their notes and my journals, those areas were also discussed. I first offered my thoughts and explanation and then asked for their opinions. For example, I thought that providing a lot of language support would not particularly help to improve communication, whereas, in their notes, they wanted me to provide help with language throughout the lesson. Our interview discussion also included their perceptions and opinions as to the implementation of mediation.

They expressed their concerns, particularly about the limited class time and learners’ insufficient English knowledge for interacting with the teacher. In short, I used the information from their notes, informal chats and my journals to develop the interview guide, which enabled the investigation of the observers’ views and perceptions of TBLT and mediation. The next section describes methods of data analysis.