Data collection methods

As indicated in section 3.2.3 the study utilised a mixed-method approach. Section 3.4 foreshadowed the use of reflective journals, reflective teacher discussions, and pre- and post-semester surveys to collect data in order to answer the two research questions. This section will provide further detail regarding these research methods.

3.6.1 Reflective journals and discussions

The reflective journals of students and collaborating teachers served both as a stimulus and support for learning and reflection, as well as a source of data for the study.

While on occasion the teaching colleagues did choose to share extracts from their journals directly, these were primarily used as the basis for verbal reflections and rich

discussions conducted during fortnightly meetings. The principal researcher took written notes during these meetings, thus capturing teachers’ reflections as they choose to share them.

Reflective data from teachers might be considered as drawn from one of three stages of the research: Before the semester started, during the teaching learning period and after the semester ended.

Before the semester started, teachers reflected on their understanding of metacognition in relation to English language teaching and learning and these reflections were recorded during the initial half-day workshop and in the pre-semester meetings.

The initial pre-semester workshop with the twelve teaching staff from the EESP and the PSTESP aimed to: explain the research project to the potential teacher collaborators; introduce the potential collaborators to the ideas of metacognition; discuss metacognitive ideas as revealed in the students’ self-assessment survey,

particularly how these ideas might relate to their past teaching experiences; build collegiality; and invite their involvement in the action research. Those who were interested in participating in the research were then invited to stay on longer to begin making plans for the semester.

This initial workshop involved three key activities:

• Individual teacher reflection and small group discussions prompted teachers to reflect on reading instruction in their class and on their knowledge about metacognition and whether metacognition was part of their past and current teaching (see prompt questions in appendices 2a and 2b).

• A presentation on the potential of a metacognitive approach to be explored through action research. The metacognitive concepts were explained in simple language, building on teachers’ initial reflections and discussion to deepen understanding of the concepts.

• Written reflections by the teaching staff and myself upon the workshop, providing evaluative feedback on the process and whether and how it could have been strengthened.

Subsequently, during the teaching and learning period, teachers’ reflections on the teaching learning process were shared in the teacher fortnightly meetings. Here, discussions generally related to the metacognitive themes and strategies that had been the focus of classroom learning during the preceding weeks and there was opportunity to debrief on issues raised by students both during class time and as reflected in the students’ journals.

After the semester ended, a half-day workshop was held, in which teachers reflected on their teaching and learning experiences, and again this data was gathered by the principal researcher by taking written notes. Teacher reflective data was thus particularly important in addressing the first research question, namely ‘what does it entail to teach EFL reading in an Indonesian teacher education context utilising a metacognitive approach?’

Student reflective journals, which were collected five times throughout the semester, provided an opportunity for learners to plan, monitor and evaluate their progress in learning English, independent of the teachers’ close supervision. These reflections provided valuable data focused on addressing the second research question, namely ‘to what degree a metacognitive approach can facilitate students to become self- regulated ESL readers’.

Students were asked to make five submissions of their reflective journals, with each submission encompassing reflections on a two-week period. Each submission was to represent a process of planning, acting, observing and reflecting on learning, informed by aspects of metacognition discussed during tutorials. Students gained both written and oral feedback on these learning journals. Each of the five student journal submissions thus broadly constituted an action research cycle (see table 1 above). To facilitate teacher and student reflections, a series of written scaffolds were produced as follows:

• Written scaffold one (see appendix 2a) aimed to assist teachers in reflecting on and sharing with their colleagues about reading strategy instruction in their class, and was given to the teachers in the half-day workshop.

• Written scaffold two (see appendix 2b) aimed to facilitate teacher discussions and sharing on the metacognitive knowledge and processes, and was given to the teachers at the half-day workshop.

• Written scaffold three (see appendix 5) aimed to assist students in planning, monitoring and evaluating their reading progress in this class throughout the semester, and was given to the students in the second week of the semester. • Written scaffold four (see appendix 6) aimed to facilitate teachers in giving

feedback on a student portfolio in relation to the particular ‘strategy use’ which became the focus of the weekly tutorial.

These scaffolds were not intended for collecting data nor were they used by the principal researcher in the data analysis. They aimed to stimulate reflections which were integrated in the reflective journals and teacher discussions. All scaffolds, with the exception of that in appendix 2b, were based on Chamot, et al.’s (1999) work. Scaffold two was created by the principal researcher.

3.6.2 Pre- and post-semester student survey

All questions in this survey, except those on volition, self-efficacy, and strategies, were modelled after, and adapted from, Phelps’ (2002) research on teaching for computer capability. The questions on strategy knowledge in language learning were based on Chamot, et al. (1999) and those on self-efficacy were adapted from Phelps (2002) and Chamot, et al. (1999). Since Phelps’ (2002) survey did not contain questions on volition, and being aware of a lack of available questionnaires on volition (see Dewitte, 1999), the researcher constructed these questions. The survey, which was completed by students at both the beginning and end of the semester, is provided in appendix 4. Questions were focused on two aspects of metacognition in English language learning; affective knowledge and strategy knowledge. The survey was administered at the beginning and at the end of the semester and aimed to see if students’ self-regulation had changed, thus functioning as a “pre-test and post-test”.

Because the survey was intended not only to collect data, but also to engage students in reflecting on aspects of metacognition in relation to their own learning, questions were explicitly structured into twelve subsections, each highlighting different components of the metacognitive approach (as outlined below). With the exception of

questions related to the first two subcategories, all other questions used a seven-point Likert scale of measurement.

1) Demographic information considered three areas: students’ age, gender and

cultural background.

2) Frequency and duration of English language learning outside formal classes were

measured by two items asking learners how frequently they were engaged in learning English independent of class activities.

3) Encouragement by others was measured using four statements seeking to

understand whether students had been encouraged by people closest to them, such as parents, to learn English.

4) Frequency of use by others was measured by six statements asking students

whether significant other people around them such as parents use and/or learn English. Since English was only used to a limited extent outside of the classroom context in Indonesia, witnessing other people using English might impact on students’ own English learning.

5) Support was measured by six statements aiming at raising students’ awareness of

the importance of support and help-seeking behaviour in learning English. Through the statements, students reflected on whether significant people around them such as their teachers, parents, and friends were the source of support and whether they could easily find support when they needed it.

6) Attitudes were explored through eight statements focusing on the extent to which

students were engaging in a range of English activities such as listening, speaking, reading and writing, and whether they liked these activities.

7) Perceived usefulness included ten statements focusing on whether the students perceived English to be important for them and whether they were motivated by the benefits of learning English, such as for their teaching career and to enhance their standing among their friends.

8) Self-Efficacy was measured through ten statements, which asked students about

their confidence to perform various tasks. Seven of these statements focused on reading and the rest on speaking English and learning the language in general.

9) Attribution was surveyed through six questions which sought students’ beliefs

about their success or failure in the context of six hypothetical English language learning scenarios. The questions prompted students to reflect on whether they tended toward internal or external attribution for learning successes and difficulties.

10) Feelings toward English language learning were measured using ten statements.

These focused on whether the students felt confident regarding their ability to learn English in general, and in relation to the four English language skills in particular.

11) Volition was surveyed through eight statements which aimed to see if the students

were persistent in achieving set goals despite negative pressures such as from their peers or surroundings.

12) Strategy knowledge was ascertained through eighteen statements which asked

students about reading strategies, in the context of planning, monitoring, problem- solving and evaluation.