Interview Analysis:

4.5.4.1. Coding:

The coding was performed by reading the interview of participant A and giving a code to any piece which was deemed to contain a unit of information, from one clause/sentence to a paragraph. The resulting set of codes was shown to another PhD student, who saw them and

agreed with most of them. A few codes were disputed. Examples of disputed codes are the following:

―In natural speech and authentic materials, you may not have pauses, and in listening the student will not be able to hear the boundaries of a tone unit.‖

The original code I had used was ‗Necessity of avoiding authentic material in teaching DI‘, but my colleague thought that there was a lot of inferring in such a code. I agreed with her and then decided that I should try to create a new set of codes which summarize the direct meaning intended in a piece of data rather than infer a new meaning. She agreed with the new set of codes which I had come up with upon my second attempt. The new code, for example, which I assigned to this piece of data, was: ―Difficulty of speech segmentation in authentic speech”. (See appendix 4.5.2.4.1 for the list of codes I had eventually come up with and used in coding the interviews after my colleague agreed with it, put in the order in which they appeared in the text. See also

appendix 5.2 for the coding of part of participant A‘s interview)

4.5.4.2. Categorisation:

Just like with the diary reports where the categories were made by searching through the codes for whatever references related to a number of predefined issues, the process of forming categories in the interviews also started by searching the codes for categories, having in mind the interview questions. The list of the categories which I managed to extract out of reading participant A‘s codes many times is provided in appendix (4.5.2.4.2.). The process of categorization also led into finding codes that could not fit in or form any category, so these were left out – a few examples of such codes are 1, 5, 6, 42 and 45.

It has to be noted that in making these initial categories, the interview questions helped me bring the various codes in a single category. For example, in order to make sense of the codes, I

thought of the interview questions, and I found, for example, that the codes describing how Syrian learners will negatively react to studying DI, such as by saying that they will not appreciate its communicative value, were to be grouped as challenges to the study of DI because this is one type of answer to a question of the sort given in Question 3, Probe A.

4.5.4.3. Explanation of Categories and Sub-Categories:

Having gone through the codes of each category, it was found that they can be deductively divided into subcategories because it was possible to detect, in some categories, some differences in emphasis and some oppositions, which led me to decide that it would be useful to introduce subcategories under each of these categories, being hyponyms of that category. For example, in the case of the Challenges Category, some codes would describe challenges to do with listening while other codes would describe challenges to do with assimilation. Each of these subcategories obviously needs to be explored separately, hence the sub-categorisation described in the following subsection, which will also attempt to explain the meaning of each category and subcategory. The order followed here tries to mirror, to some extent, the order in which the relevant quotes appear in participant A‘s interview.

1)- Challenges:

This category includes the references made in connection with the difficulties associated with learning intonation. In examining the codes of this category, I discovered that they describe more than one type of challenge. Each type will be made a separate subcategory. This category includes the following subcategories:

1.1. Assimilation Challenges:

This subcategory includes references to what the participant describes as the difficulty of achieving an immediate assimilation of DI.

This subcategory includes views that describe Syrian learners‘ resistance to appreciate the value of studying DI.

1.3. Receptive Challenges:

This subcategory explores the listening challenges that the Syrian learners are expected to face in studying DI.

1.4. Productive Challenges:

This subcategory describes the challenges that the Syrian learners are expected to face in relation to the productive practice of DI features.

1.5. Outcome Challenges:

This subcategory includes the statements made by the participants, describing what they think will be a problem for learners whose expectations in studying DI might be let down.

1.5. Challenges at the level of popularity of DI:

This subcategory includes references which describe the problem of not finding many teaching sources on DI.

2. Perceptions of Outcomes and Goals:

This category includes the statements that are made to suggest and identify the aims in teaching DI and what benefit this teaching can bring about. Examining the codes of this category, it is possible to conclude that the relevant codes describe two things:

2.1. Awareness:

This includes references which describe awareness as an important aim in teaching DI.

2.2. Improved Pronunciation:

These are references which describe an improved pronunciation as a goal that teachers should aim at in teaching DI.

3. Recommendations:

This category includes the views that are suggested on how best to introduce DI in the Syrian context of the Higher Institute of Languages. In examining the codes of this category, a number

of subcategories emerge which all describe what is thought to be a beneficial way of presenting DI. Examples of such subcategories are:

3.1. Presentation of Content:

This subcategory includes the discrete suggestions made for presenting the intonation functions introduced in DI, e.g. Use of contrasts, Teaching the intonation of fixed expressions...etc.

3.2. Feedback:

This subcategory describes the participants‘ recommendations that teachers need to bear in mind in giving feedback, e.g. Scaffolding, Tolerant Feedback...etc.

3.3. Recommended Teaching Methods:

In examining the codes of this category, it is possible to see that there are two types of recommendations that the participants suggest. This category explores the choice of teaching methods of sensitisation and task types that are seen as suitable for DI in conjunction with certain considerations, e.g. Use of sensitization, Recommendations on task types.

4. Prioritisation of DI features:

In examining the codes of this category, it is possible to see that the prioritisation of DI features happens in relation to a number of criteria.

- There are codes which state that a given feature needs to be taught because it is a need for Syrian learners.

- There are codes which state that a given feature needs to be taught because it is learnable/teachable.

Obviously, the more points a feature scores in relation to these criteria, the higher level of prioritisation that feature is thought to deserve. The analysis against these two criteria will be applied to the DI features: prominence, basic tones, dominance, key, termination, and tone unit.

This category describes what the participant says about the use of DI in a teacher training program. This is seen as a distinction to be made from teaching DI to learners of the English Language.

- Concluding Words:

Now that the steps I used in approaching the data collection and analysis have been described, the following three chapters will attempt to present the findings. Chapter 5 will explore the participants‘ experiences in approaching the theory and tasks of DI features. Then, Chapter 6 will explore the participants‘ evaluation of the use of an inductive method and their evaluation of gains. Chapter7 will explore the participants‘ views on the possibility of teaching DI at the Language Institute.

5. Findings and Analysis Chapter: Learnability of DI Features