Focus groups and interviews

The two major techniques used by researchers to collect qualitative data are participant (and non-participant) observation and individual interviews. Focus groups, or group interviews, possess elements of both techniques. Focus groups are considered more appropriate for young student participants, such as those students in this study, who may find one-on-one researcher–student interaction intimidating. By creating a variety of

lines of communication, the focus group offers a safe environment where students can share ideas, beliefs and attitudes (Madriz, 2000). In addition, the researcher was interested in the nature of students’ conversation together, their interaction and response to each others’ ideas. Examples of the flow of conversation may be seen in the sample student focus group transcript presented as Appendix O. It is clear that at the same time, the influence they may exert on each other’s responses may affect validity of the data.

3.4.1.1 Student focus groups

Focus group questions and activities employed to elicit data can be found in Appendices H, I and J. The focus groups offered students a comfortable environment where they shared perceptions of their intercultural learning. The content of these focus groups, listed below, was trialled and timed within the school, prior to the data collection period. Each focus group was between four and seven students. The students were seated close to each other, on chairs, in a circle, in the researcher’s office. The focus groups comprised three sections and involved both group and individual responses. The three sections will be detailed below.

3.4.1.1.1 Section 1 of focus group

Section 1 of the focus group demanded an informal individual response to the DMIS model (Bennett, Bennett & Allen, 1999). The DMIS model proposes a six stage transformative process of how an individual may change personal attitudes and behaviours in getting to know another culture. The DMIS consists of statements illustrating attitudes matching the six stages of the DMIS, differentiating three

ethnocentric stages (1.1 Denial, 1.2 Defense, 1.3 Minimization) and three ethnorelative stages (2.1 Acceptance, 2.2 Adaptation (split into two further sub-stages A and B), and 2.3 Integration).

The statements as amended by the researcher are modelled on students’ statements quoted by Cohen, Paige, Kappler, Meagher, Weaver, Chi, and Lassegard (2005). Cohen et al. (2005) use student statements from research studies to construct identification of intercultural development amongst US high school students who have been on

exchange study programs. The statements used in the current research were modified to enable recognition in an Australian context, and for easy comprehension by the student participants. Statements were as in Table 6 below.

Table 6: Researcher’s Amended Statements, Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (Bennett, Bennett, & Allen, 1999)

Stage 1.1 We would be better off if all different groups and countries kept to themselves, and didn’t mix. English is the main language and everyone should speak it.

Stage 1.2 I do not like to hang around with people from different cultures, they are strange. Stage 1.3 Australia’s way of life and values should be a model for the rest of the world.

Stage 2.1 I mostly enjoy the differences that exist between myself and people from other countries. I accept that people from other cultures don’t necessarily have the same values as Australians, and that’s OK.

Stage 2.2 A I like to imagine how a person from the other culture would think about things. I can shift into communicating in TL without a lot of stress. I think its good to be able to have more than one perspective.

Stage 2.2 B When I’m in my TL class, I find I change my behaviour to adapt to it. If I were in France/Germany/Japan I wouldn’t mind changing my behaviour to fit in there.

Stage 2.3 I can move in and out of English/TL without any problem. I can fit in, in either Australia or France/Germany/Japan equally easily. I sometimes feel I am ‘in between two cultures’ and can see good things and bad things in both of them.

Students were given an individual one-page copy of the set of statements in Table 6 and a pencil, and asked to read the statements carefully. In 5–10 minutes, students had time to read the statements and reflect, and then mark on the chart the stage where they felt they agreed with the statements. The papers were collected, and the researcher moved on to Section 2. Data relating to student response to the DMIS are presented in section 4.2.1.2.

3.4.1.1.2 Section 2 of focus group

Section 2 required a group response. The researcher asked semi-structured questions (Appendix H) and directed those questions first to a number of individual students. In all questions, these initial individual responses then lead to students interjecting and

contributing, which lead to a variety of answers and discussion. The researcher also presented stimulus pictures of target country, and asked students, both individual and group, to comment on their knowledge of the content of the pictures. Section 2 took approximately 30 minutes of the focus group. Focus groups were audio-recorded and

the text transcribed. The data were thematically coded and analysed using processes as described in Section 3.7.1 below. Presentation of raw data, and discussion of data are presented in Chapter 4 (Findings), in section 4.2.

3.4.1.1.3 Section 3 of focus group

As the final section of the focus group, Section 3 required an individual response. Students were asked to respond to an amended form of the Young Learners’ Language

Strategy Use Survey (Cohen & Oxford, 1992) (Appendix I). Cohen and Oxford (1992)

investigated the use of language learning strategies in order to better understand how learners learn foreign languages, in particular how a variety of contextual strategies are developed in reading, writing, listening, and speaking tasks. The survey contains items which deal with metalinguistic and non-verbal strategies for conveying meaning.

Additional items were designed and added by the researcher to indicate strategies in intercultural competence. Permission was sought from and granted by Professor Cohen for the amendment and use of the survey (Cohen, personal communication, 2005).

Each student was issued with a copy of the amended survey, and a pencil. Students were instructed to consider each item and indicate their response in the space provided. Following the procedure of the original Cohen and Oxford Survey, the students were asked to mark a (+) response if the statement ‘really describes you’, a (blank) response if the statement ‘is somewhat like you’ and a (–) response if the statement ‘is not like you’. The items were read at a steady pace, without comment, by the researcher, to assist in a uniform rate of reading and comprehension. The conduct of the survey took approximately 15 minutes at the end of each focus group. The surveys were collected, and the focus group concluded. Data from the Cohen and Oxford Survey are presented in Chapter 4 (Findings), in section 4.2.2.2.3.

3.4.1.2 Teacher interviews

Focused structured interviews were conducted with the four teachers of three Year 6 language classes (French, German, Japanese). The questions were designed to allow teachers to identify processes which they perceive occur in the classroom, and to reflect on both their own intraculturality and their perception of students’ interculturality. The

interview questions may be found in Appendix K.

The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed, the data were thematically coded and analysed. Data are discussed in Chapter 4 (Findings), in section 4.3.

In summary, the teacher interviews included questions about teachers’ own linguistic and cultural background, teachers’ approach to teaching, teachers’ perception of the bilingual immersion program, of the tasks which student enjoy most, and of intercultural development in students. Teachers were invited to participate, and advised that the interview would take 40 minutes. Triangulation occurred by data collected through classroom observation of teachers and students.