Data collection procedures

Now that the main instruments of data collection have been presented and described individually, the steps taken for the elicitation of the data will be explained. The procedures for the data collection were as follows:

 Individual interview

 Classroom observation 1

 Classroom observation 2

 Classroom observation 3

 Classroom observation 4

 Individual video-stimulated reflective dialogue session

Table 5.2 summarizes the data collection procedures in the study, as well as giving a detailed breakdown of each method’s purpose, data collection procedures and duration.

Table 5.2. Summary of data collection methods and schedule

Method Purpose Data collection

procedures Duration Getting the research approved Gaining access to schools Economic Planning Unit Nov-Dec 2010

Meeting the head teacher, head subject teacher, the teachers; getting the time table, the school calendar; acquiring the facilities needed (a quiet room for interview, text book, teacher guide book)

Initial visits to the schools

Two schools per day

Jan 2011

Interview Identification of

perceptions and beliefs about the curriculum reform

Teacher interviews Jan-Feb 2011

Classroom observation and interview with representatives from the ministry, To observe classrooms in the schools Observation Cycle 1 Classroom observations Audio-video

Mid Feb – Apr 25 2011

curriculum trainer and the EDO.

recordings

Interview with the representatives To observe classrooms in the schools Observation Cycle 2 Classroom observations Audio-video recordings

Interview with the representatives To observe classrooms in the schools Observation Cycle 3 Classroom observations Audio-video recordings

Interview with the representatives To observe classrooms in the schools Observation Cycle 4 Classroom observations Audio-video recordings

Interview with the representatives Stimulated-recall Promotion of teacher’s critical reflections on professional practice Stimulated-recall dialogue

Mid Feb – Apr 25 2011

The data collection was conducted for a period of three months. Interviews with teachers started first and interviews with an officer from the Curriculum Development Division, curriculum trainers and District English Language Officers were accomplished in between February to April, whenever classroom observations were not carried out, depending on the availability of the officers. All the interviews with the teachers were done in the school during a free period in a quiet venue of their choice (to avoid disruptions) such as in the meeting room or in the computer lab, and the interviews with the other participants were conducted in their offices.

The interviews with the teachers were then followed by classroom observations to ascertain how far the teachers’ knowledge was consistent with their practice. Prior to the observations, a copy of their teaching timetable and a school planner was obtained, in order to work out an observation schedule with the teachers. Since there were eight teacher participants, creating a viable observation schedule was important, since some

lessons overlapped within a particular day. Besides, having the school planner allowed me to avoid dates in which observations might not be possible, due to activities held in the schools, such as monthly tests or other academic or non-academic activities where there was no teaching. Once the observation schedule was ready, a copy of the schedule was emailed to each of the teachers, so that they would know the dates I was coming for the observation. Finally, arrangements about the location of each class period and the content of their instruction were confirmed.

Classroom observations with the eight English Language teachers lasted from Feb. 12 until April 25, 2011, and each teacher was observed on 4 occasions and each occasion lasted for 50 minutes. So altogether 32 lessons were observed and video recorded. The 32 video recorded lessons were used to examine teacher behaviour more closely from a qualitative viewpoint.

As mentioned in Chapter Two, the Standard Curriculum for Primary Schools (SCPS) for English Language is modular in structure; one skill is taught (or focused on) per day: for example, Day 1 is for listening and speaking, Day 2 for reading, Day 3 for writing and Day 4 for language arts (refer to Figure 2.5 in Chapter Two). The observations involved the teaching of all modules. The classroom observations on reading, writing, speaking and listening are meant to obtain data on the types of activities carried out in EL lessons. However, for the purpose of eliciting data on teacher-student interaction patterns, the classroom observations focused only on the listening and speaking lessons. This was because to examine how the curriculum was implemented in the classroom was only a small fraction of the whole study (Research Question 3), and where the focus involved looking at just one module of the overall curriculum I selected listening and speaking because it linked closely with the intention of the curriculum to develop students’ communicative competence. During the observations, the focus was on the classroom discourse, to see how the English Language teachers interpreted the intended curriculum and how English as a subject was implemented in the actual classrooms. Thus, for each classroom observation, the teacher-student(s) interactions were the focal point of interest to be observed.

To facilitate observations, field notes were taken to record what was heard, observed, or felt as each lesson progressed. I also wrote down any thoughts that occurred to me during the observations. Moreover, I recorded my reflections following every

observation session, so as to reduce any disruptive influence that I might have on the classroom environment.

Then teachers were asked to attend a VSRD session. A few questions based on the reflective questions for discussion were posed to the teacher. The Video-Stimulated Recall Dialogue (VSRD) session gave an opportunity to the teachers to articulate their theories of teaching interactively and to rationalize their actions and practices in the classroom. The information collected from the stimulated recall dialogue was later analysed and triangulated with the data collected during interviews, teachers’ classroom practices and the results of the document analyses.