Data collection

Teacher interviews and classroom observations were utilised to address RQ1: How do teachers enact the new language curriculum inside their classrooms? – and RQ2: How do the three sensemaking elements influence teachers’ curriculum enactment? Semi-structured interviews served to direct the discussion with the participating teachers towards their cognitions, experiences of belonging within their schools, and experiences with the official discourses of curriculum change (i.e. the three sensemaking elements), and to encourage the participating teachers to reflect upon their curriculum enactment during post-observation interviews. Classroom observations were employed to provide first-hand accounts of how the participating teachers enacted the new language curriculum (Flick, 2002). Classroom observations also provided context for delving deeper into the participants’ curriculum enactment during subsequent interviews. Employing multiple sources of data collection enabled this study to gather the data necessary for a rigorous and in-depth analysis, and allowed to develop a comprehensive understanding about the participants’ meaning making and agency. The use of multiple data sources was also of service during validation strategies (Creswell, 2007). Validation strategies are discussed in section 6.5.6.

a. One-to-One Interviews

Teacher interviews helped to address RQ1 and RQ2. Research interviews are defined as the instrument to facilitate the investigation of social reality (Klave, 1996). The interview is considered a flexible, or as Hobson and Townsend (2010, p. 227) maintain, a “versatile method”, as it “can help researchers to address a wide range of goals and purposes”. Within

the context of this study, interviews served to capture the participating teachers’ meaning making and agency as unfolded during this six-month study. Semi-structured interviews in the form of “guided conversation” (Yin, 2014, p. 110) were elected to be the most appropriate format for this study, due to the intention to discuss specific issues with the participating teachers (i.e. cognitions, experiences of belonging within their schools, and experiences with official discourses of curriculum change), yet without restricting their responses. One-to-one interviews with the ten participating teachers were conducted from January to June 2015; that is three years after the implementation of the new language curriculum (see Chapter 2). Each of the ten participating teachers was interviewed three times during the course of this six- month study. Each interview lasted 20-25 minutes and was audio-recorded using a digital audio-recording device. Permission to use an audio-recording device was sought from all the participating teachers. The audio recordings were translated from Greek to English and transcribed by the researcher. Table 5 below shows the timeline of data collection.

2015 Month

Activity

Jan. Feb. March April

Easter Holidays May June Baseline Interview 1st Round of classroom observations 1st post- observation interview 2nd Round of classroom observations 2nd post- observation interview

Table 5 Timeline of Data Collection

The baseline interview occurred before the first round of classroom observations and served to address RQ2. It made use of a common teacher interview guide (see Appendix C) which was directed towards investigating the three sensemaking elements: teachers’ cognitions, experiences of belonging within their schools, and experiences with official discourses of curriculum change. For each of the aforementioned sensemaking elements, several indicators were extrapolated from the literature to help with the construction of interview questions. The

indicators were also used during the interview data analysis process to help to categorise the data (see section 6.5.5.c). These indicators were as follows:

- Teacher cognitions about language teaching and learning: Teachers’ cognitions about the identity of their subject matter (e.g. what they regarded to be the purpose of their subject matter), and teachers’ goals and concerns (e.g. teachers’ goals and role inside the classroom, believes about student learning);

- School context: Availability of resources (e.g. classroom materials), school collegiality, school leadership, school goals);

- Professional development: Experiences with professional development, experiences with learning about the new language curriculum through professional development;

- The new language curriculum: Teachers’ reflections about their experiences with curriculum enactment, teachers’ dispositions towards the new language curriculum.

-

Table 6 presents some of the indicators that were used and their corresponding interview question. Several general questions about the participating teachers’ years of teaching experience, previous working experience, and academic qualifications, were also asked during the baseline interview.

Sensemaking elements Indicators Sample Question

Professional development

Experiences with professional development

What is your experience with participating to professional

development? The new language

curriculum

Dispositions towards the new language curriculum

What is your opinion about the new language curriculum?

School context School collegiality How would you describe your

relationship with your colleagues? Beliefs about the identity of

language teaching

What do you believe to be the purpose of language teaching? Teacher cognitions

about language teaching and learning

Beliefs about teaching role How would you describe your role

inside the classroom?

Beliefs about students How do you think your students learn

best?

Table 6 Sample questions from the first baseline interview linked to indicators and sensemaking elements

The first and second post-observation interviews were held after the first and second round of classroom observations with each participant, and their purpose was to address both RQ1 and

RQ2. To address RQ1, interview guides were designed specifically for each of the participating teachers (see Appendix D), and were informed by classroom observations (see section 6.5.4.b below). Continually considering the interaction between data collection with data analysis helped to clarify and strengthen participants’ reflections through searching for confirmation or disconfirmation (Charmaz, 1995). Given that classroom observations focused on investigating teaching and learning practices, the participating teachers were asked to reflect upon their various teaching decisions during interviews, including adopted instructional strategies, selection of activities and tasks, and use of classroom materials. To address RQ2, the two post-observation interviews contained guiding prompts that helped to elicit the participants’ sensemaking process as it relates to their cognitions, experiences with the official discourses of curriculum change and experiences of belonging within their schools. The twofold role of the first and second post-observation interviews enabled this study to identify changes in the participants’ sensemaking process in relation to the new language curriculum.

b. Classroom Observations

Classroom observations helped to address the RQ1 which, in combination with post- observation interviews, enabled this study to conceptualise curriculum enactment. Non- participant classroom observations were arranged with each participant in order to observe “the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others” (Shulman, 1986, p. 9). Non-participant classroom observation is a research technique whereby the researcher observes the phenomenon of interest without engaging in it (Sarantakos, 2012). The purpose of classroom observations was not to judge the participants’ classroom practice as being ‘good’ or ‘bad’ but rather to collect information relevant to the participants’ instructional decisions (see Table 7). This information was later used to develop the interview guides for the first and second post-observation interviews. This tactic enabled this study to delve deeper into the participants’ instructional decisions and the factors that informed and influenced those decisions.

Classroom observations were carried out in two rounds (see Table 5). The first round of classroom observations was carried out after the baseline interviews and included observing one language teaching with each participant. The second round was carried out after the first post-observation interviews and included observing another language teaching with each participant. Classroom observations were arranged for a full class period (45 minutes). Table

7 summarises the areas that were observed into four observational aspects. These observational aspects were later explained and justified by the participants during subsequent interviews with them (see section 6.5.4.a). Language teaching was captured using notes and audio-recordings. Audio-recordings helped to capture teaching and learning practices, as well as dialogues between the teachers and their students8. Permission to use an audio-recording device was sought from all the research participants. The audio recordings were translated from Greek to English and transcribed by the researcher. Notes were written down on a classroom observation sheet (see Appendix E) to help capture incidents of language teaching and learning that could not be captured with audio-recordings (see Table 7).

Focus of classroom observations Observational aspects Instrument

“the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to

others” (Shulman, 1986, p. 9)

Instructional strategies Audio-recordings

Classroom activities and tasks that students engage with

Field notes / audio-recordings

Teacher-student interaction to facilitate

learning of the content to be taught Audio-recordings

Use of classroom materials Field notes

Table 7 Focus of attention during classroom observations