Data Sources:

4.4. Data Sources:

Case studies are usually based on two or more methods of data collection (Gill and Johnson, 2010). A triangulation of multiple methods contributed to increased validity of results, while limiting the context to one school and the participants to just Arabic Literature teacher trainees made a case study approach more appropriate. In order to develop a holistic view of the potential of using RP, I focused on the participants’ experiences and beliefs. I also concerned myself with the context in which they operate. It was very important for me to ensure that my study was comprehensive and detailed in the sense of looking at it not in the size of sample, but in term of perspective of the supervisors, trainees and teachers.

Thus, the case study was formed from multiple sources, thus delivering rich descriptions of the phenomenon. Findings were derived from individual interviews, focus group interviews, the researcher’s diary and the participants’ reflective journals. Multiple methods and sources of data were an important issue to decrease the subjectivity in the research and necessary to ensure that sufficient, extensive and detailed data were created (see section 5.3.2.1 in Chapter Five). Also, they helped to build ‘a comprehensive picture, addressing the complexity and ensuring the depth of study required’ for this case study research (Williamson, 2010, p.67).

My methodology research design followed four phases of data collection (see Figure 4.5).

In each phase, the data led to growing the participants’ understanding about using reflection to improve their teaching. The process of each phase was explained in the following sections.

77

Figure 4.5: Methodology research process

4.5.1. Focus group (FG):

Morgan (1996, p. 130) defines focus groups as ‘a research technique that collects data through group interaction on a topic determined by the researcher’. It requires a person, usually called a moderator, to interview, facilitate and guide the participants to achieve a purpose (Berg, 1998; Braun and Clarke, 2013). A moderator’s main duties are time management, ensuring that relevant questions are addressed, encouraging all participants to respond and paying attention to participants’ responses and associated body language (Litoselleti, 2003; Braun and Clarke, 2013) while refraining from sharing his/her own views about any issue under discussion.

78

This study relied on the reflective dialogue, conducted in the school after lessons, on each training day during the practicum, as a source of collecting data. This dialogue encouraged participants to reflect on their teaching by discussing what happens in the classroom, why and how to improve it. Throughout the discussion, it was important to pay attention to how participants responded in this reflective process in terms of their answers, questions, observations, body language, attitudes, beliefs and motivations. A focus group seemed to be an appropriate forum for this process. In addition, though FG rules stress that the moderator should refrain from expressing his/her views, the moderator in this study – was the supervisor expected to support trainees – was an active participant.

4.5.1.1. Interactive process in focus group:

After the lessons (usually three) had finished, the trainees discussed, in a quiet place and as a focus group, the way the lesson had been handled. The one who has just taught begins with a self-evaluation, presenting her own strengths and weaknesses, and providing the group with the reasons behind them. The others then shared their thoughts about the teaching experience (Collier, 1999), after which the teachers and supervisor divided their feedback into ‘strengths’ and ‘suggestions’.

This feedback focused not only on teaching issues, but also on the level of reflection in terms of the challenges posed, and the alternative perspectives revealed through the questions and comments (Bain et al., 2002, p. 29). Moreover, the feedback was presented by indirect guidance, which was considered a cornerstone in reflective conferences; the supervisor and the teachers avoided direct suggestions and instead, present their indirect suggestions through questions and constructed their recommendations from empirical research (Strong and Baron, 2004). Ross (1990) places great importance on questions in reflective dialogue, emphasising that questions should not be used to assess trainees, but to encourage dialogue and awareness of multiple perspectives. However, direct feedback is sometimes unavoidable, such as when school rules are broken.

The discussion tone should be friendly, encouraging the communication of shared experiences and trust among participants, which are crucial elements for developing effective reflective conversations (Labrie et al., 2000, p. 28). Through critical questioning during reflective dialogue, practitioners have a greater opportunity for self-awareness of the beliefs and assumptions, and for questioning their ground (Erginel, 2006). This study conducted at least eight audio-recorded Reflective Dialogues, later transcribed verbatim for data analysis.

79

4.5.2. Weekly reflective journals

Trainees were asked to write their reflections for each day in the school in the form of reflective journals. According to Nunan (1992, p. 118) ‘diaries, logs and journals are important introspective tools in language research’, which can make reflection more explicit and readily available to inform action.

In this study, the format for the reflective journals was open-ended. However, the participants answered the questions ‘What did I do?’, ‘Why did I do it?’ and ‘How can I do it better? They were provided with a guideline of what reflective journals are and how they should be completed (see p.4 in Notebook. Appendix D).The trainees were asked to write their reflections on the three lessons every week in a Microsoft Word document, which they emailed to the researcher at the weekend. Each reflective writing piece was ordered by date, with each month’s writings clipped together.

4.5.3. Research Diary:

In academic research, diaries had great potential to capture rich data on participants’

practice and interactions, their thoughts, feelings and reflections (Wang, 1999), providing the researcher with the ‘view from within’ (Zimmerman and Wieder, 1977, p. 484). Elliott (1997) supports using diaries when the phenomena are internal, situational or ordinary, which might be neglected by single-recording methods such as interviews. Moreover, although the diary is considered a sufficient method in itself, following it with an interview is a good method of obtaining rich data (Conti, 1993).

Nevertheless, the diary method has various constraints, being time-consuming (Rieman, 1993) and tedious, especially if following a structured form. Therefore, some researchers suggest limiting the diary period (Rieman, 1993). Moreover, strict protocols about content may inhibit the recording of some responses (Sheble and Wildemuth, 2009).

In this study, the researcher kept a daily diary, written at the end of every school day in

‘free form’, but readable, descriptive and reflective, containing a summary of the key events called ‘critical incidents’, which were narrative descriptions of important events with a significant impact on personal and professional learning (Hughes et al., 2007). John Flanagan, who pioneered the ‘critical incident technique’ (CIT), describes it as ‘a set of procedures for collecting direct observations of human behaviour in such a way as to facilitate their potential usefulness in solving practical problems and developing broad

80

psychological principles’ which ‘outline procedures for collecting observed incidents having special significance and meeting systematically defined criteria’ (Flanagan, 1954, p. 327).

4.5.4. Interviews:

Interviewing is commonly used in case studies to explore how people’s experiences shape their view of the world, and it allows researchers to seek clarification when necessary (Bryman 2001; Neuman 2003; Cohen et al., 2011; Stevenson, 2008). An interview can be a conversation ‘initiated by the interviewer for the specific purpose of obtaining research-relevant information, focusing on content specified by research objectives of systematic description, prediction or explanation’ (Cohen and Manion, 1994, p. 307).

Interviews are a useful tool for gaining rich, in-depth insights into individuals’ lived experiences. They are particularly useful for gathering information about unobservable things, such as interviewees’ attitudes, beliefs and understandings of their own context (May, 2001; McMillan & Schumacher 2006). Additionally, interviewing can reveal what interviewers and participants bring to the interview, such as the way things are expressed and body language that may convey ‘correct responses’ (Kvale and Brinkman,2009, p.31;Charmaz, 2006).

Of the three types of interview formats – structured, unstructured and semi-structured – the latter was the most appropriate for this study, especially because of its facility for asking additional ‘funnelling questions’ (Oppenheim, 1992, p. 111) around the same theme. The researcher identified a number of key questions that might not only provoke direct answers, but also acted as prompts (Patton, 1987). Semi-structured interviews can clarify questions or issues to ensure that interviewees understand them. In addition, they ‘ask respondents to extend, elaborate, add to, provide detail for, clarify or qualify their response’ (Cohen et al, 2011, p. 278).

Interviews do have disadvantages. They are time-consuming in terms of formulating the research instrument, conducting the interviews, transcribing them, and analysing and interpreting the results. Additionally, avoiding subjectivity and bias during data collection, and when analysing and interpreting the data, can be difficult. Moreover, limited anonymity (as in this case) may make some participants uncomfortable (Cohen, et al., 2011).

Therefore, it is my ethical responsibility to be reflective about the process of conducting the interview (see Chapter Five).

81

Through individually conducted semi-structured interviews with trainees, teachers obtained in-depth information about their perceptions of using the suggested model, as well as mitigating the challenges posed by this model’s relatively nascent status and the cultural factors which might influence participants’ views. Moreover, other supervisors experienced in trainees supervision at KSM University also were interviewed for obtaining clear insights into their awareness of reflection, their beliefs and practices, and their views about the current supervision(interview questions are provided in appendix B).