Focus Groups

Research assistants and peer tutors involved in this research are part of the local Deaf communities as well as the key developers and users of the SLEND platform. Their evaluation of the concepts of the SLEND proposed by UK researchers and their own point of view of the design concepts of the SLEND were elicited through the method of focus groups. Focus groups are usually a small group of discussion with guided questions or checklists. They are suitable to understand the unaddressed and unforeseen responses from the Deaf learners; besides, focus groups breed group interaction, peer

50

support and cultivate a relaxing atmosphere for communication (Balch & Mertens, 1999).

To track the development of their perception and viewpoints, two rounds of focus groups were carried out. Each round had two focus groups: one for research assistants and one for peer tutors (four focus groups in total). The rationale for more than one round of focus groups discussion was due to the development of their viewpoints and perception alongside the actual implementation of the SLEND. The first round of focus groups was conducted at the stage of initial design and ahead of the implementation in June 2015. The second round of focus groups for research assistants took place in January 2016 and the second round for peer tutors in April 2016. Both rounds of focus groups were prompted by discussion guide. The discussion guide for the first round (see Appendix 1) was based on the initial analysis of the documents and centres on the critical characteristics of the SLEND. The prompts for each focus group were derived from UK researchers’ proposal of the key characteristics. As for the prompts of the second-round focus group discussion (see Appendix 2), it was enriched with more findings regarding the characteristics such as “Deaf-Led implementation”, “Emergent syllabus mapped to the CEFR Benchmarking”; with more evaluative prompts such as advantages and disadvantages of the SLEND; and with under-discussed points such as multimedia materials. Participants tend to comprehend the concepts and ask for clarification at the first-round focus groups, while during the second-round focus groups, they produce more thoughts and feedback.

The environments of the focus groups are crucial in order to elicit robust data. According to World Health Organization (2011, p. 169), the “enabling environments”, physical, social and attitudinal, can foster participation and inclusion. When it comes to the operation of focus groups for the Deaf learners, an enabling environment refers to physically Deaf-friendly environment, socially accepted moderators and Deaf-valued discussion. To maximize visual contact for reading sign language, the focus groups took place in an open area with sufficient light. All the participants including the moderator sat in a circle to ensure that everyone could see each other. The seats were adjusted in consideration of the contrast between the colour of participants’ clothes and of the background.

The prerequisite for being a qualified moderator for the focus groups is that he or she is socially accepted by the Deaf communities and is a member of the particular community. Only in being so, the moderator can play an essential role of clarifying, facilitating, and monitoring discussion in focus groups (Balch & Mertens, 1999). Two moderators (members of the P2P Deaf Literacy project) presented during the first round. They are all experts in Deaf Education and Sign Languages with more than 20 years of experience in Deaf research, fluent in Indian Sign Language and considered as members of the Deaf communities. One is hearing from the UK and the other one is Deaf from India. The second round with research assistants was moderated by the hearing moderator from the first round, while the second round with peer tutors was moderated by one of the research assistants.

The Deaf research assistants and peer tutors are considered as experts on the topic of the development of the learning platform, as Balch and Mertens (1999, p. 267) suggest, “The topic is what they think, feel or do”. Therefore, they were encouraged to express their own ideas freely in ISL after the discussion cues introduced. The moderators acted

51

carefully to avoid leading or driving the discussion; instead igniting the topic and watching carefully.

Both rounds of focus groups were filmed. The data were translated from Indian Sign Language to English by research assistants and peer tutors. Each of them was assigned some clips of videos and they completed the translation independently. Their translation was firstly cross-checked by themselves and then collated by me and another experienced proof reader from the UK side. The proof reader is a native speaker of English and has many years of experience in assisting Deaf students in the UK. She is especially experienced in understanding and correcting Deaf English which is referred as L2 interlanguage of the Deaf learners by Svartholm (2010). It is the developmental language with typical patterns produced by Deaf learners while they learn a second language. The Deaf research assistants and peer tutors translated the data from ISL to English. Unclear points were clarified with the research assistants to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretation. Their English is considered as Deaf English with mistakes that Deaf people are inclined to make. It is worth noting that the quotes from the data in the coming chapters are original English used by the Deaf. It needs flagging up that there are errors in their English translation.

In short, to address sub research question 1, documentation and focus group were used for identifying/evaluatingthe key characteristics of the SLEND from the point view of UK researchers. UK researchers’ reflection of their previous experience and knowledge together with their analysis of Indian Deaf young adults’ needs, comprise the design concepts of the SLEND. Through focus groups, a relaxing discussion environment is created to elicit the perception and thinking of Deaf research assistants and peer tutors. In this way, the conceptualization of the SLEND is critically reviewed and ready for the next phase of the design. This procedure also addresses the preference for “drawing upon multiple (at least two) sources of evidence” in qualitative research (Glenn, 2009).