Interview

One of the widely used methods of data generation in qualitative research is the interview. It is ‘a versatile approach to doing research’ (Rubin & Rubin, 1995, p. 3) and ‘the most common and most powerful ways we use to try to understand our fellow human beings’ (Fontana & Frey, 1994, p. 361). The conversations that happens between the researcher and the participant during an interview uncover how people feel about the world and make sense of their lives from their perspectives. It is a tool of research used to learn about people’s thoughts and experiences; and ‘individual attitudes and values which cannot necessarily be observed or accommodated’ (Byrne, 2004, p. 182) such as in formal questionnaire.

To collect data relating to research questions one and two, I choose interviews with the individual participants as the most suitable method due to their being helpful in ‘uncovering’ student teachers’ and teacher educators’ perceptions and understandings of the term ‘reflection’. The interviews will reveal the participants’ beliefs and values of reflection as they share and discuss their experiences of writing reflections with me. I decided to interview the participants individually as opposed to other interview methods such as group interviews because it allowed me to talk to one individual at a time and discuss topics in detail. I was able to give my participant my full attention and adjust my interviewing style to the participant’s needs. In addition, I do not have to worry about group dynamics or participants hesitant in sharing their views in the presence of other more dominant members if I were to use group interviews.

In qualitative research, open or unstructured interview is commonly used to provide the possibility of deep insights into the participants’ understanding of the world (Kvale, 1996; Creswell, 2008; Holstein & Gubrium, 2004). However, ‘when we need to explore particular lines of inquiry or find out how different people view the same things, a more structured approach may be called for’ (Richards, 2003, p.64). Thus, in my

106

research the design of the interview questions begins with structured questions and later developed to semi-structured questions. The structured questions were questions I wanted to ask the participants which I pre-planned and constructed before I carried out the interviews. Some of the interview questions were taken from the pilot interview while others derived from the gaps that I found in the literature of recent studies which I reviewed (in 3.6). The questions were constructed and organised according to the themes and areas that I wanted to investigate. Although, these pre-determined questions seem to indicate highly structured interview protocols and undermine a strongly thematic analysis approach (see 4.9.1), structured questions are used to ensure that I could make ‘reasonable and valid comparisons’ between the participants’ responses, particularly when I wanted to develop an understanding and determine the meaning of ‘reflection’ in the context of teacher education in Malaysia as well as what has been discussed in the literature. As Johnson & Weller (2002) in Richards (2003, p. 64) asserted that ‘to make comparisons across people and to summarise the results in a meaningful way, the researcher must ask all informants the same questions’.

Example 1 below shows the pre-planned structured interview questions I constructed for Phase 1 interview with the student teachers:

Example 1: How to Reflect

How do you write your reflections?

How do you choose what to write in your reflections?

If I found the responses given were lacking in depth and I wanted to go deeper into the issue, then I extended my questions as such:

Why?

Can you explain further?

Although each interview was structured around a sequence of pre-planned questions which I asked each participant, the questions were used as a springboard to ask other ‘follow-up’ questions, depending on the answers given. This enabled me to be responsive to the participants’ answers, and to develop ‘an atmosphere conducive to

107

open and undistorted communication between the interviewer and the respondent’ (Holstein & Gubrium, 2004, p. 144). In this respect, the interviews followed a ‘semi- structured’ format or ‘formal interviews’ (Richards, 2003) which means that a set of questions were developed based on the research questions (e.g. RQ1, RQ2 and RQ5). The researcher does not necessarily ask all of the questions or touch on them in any particular order, using them instead to guide the conversation during the interview and making the purpose of the interview clear to the participants. The transition from structured question to semi-structured is illustrated in Example 2 below and the full transcription of the interview can be found in Appendix AC:

Example 2:

Student Participant 9, Interview 1

36 Me Did you find it easy or difficult to write the issues you’re faced with in your reflections? (Pre-planned question)

37 Suguna Because that’s what I’m going through so I just put my situations into words. So it’s quite easy. Maybe sometimes its hard to put the blame 100% on ourselves. Sometimes we tend to put the blame on our pupils. The pupils can’t do, the pupils are not cooperating. Maybe that’s where people face problem. Other than that, it’s quite easy to write.

38 Me How about in terms of language, aren’t you concerned about writing your reflections in English? (Follow-up question)

39 Suguna Maybe because my major is TESL so I don’t find difficulties in writing in English. For Moral I have to write my reflections in *BM that’s where the problem starts where I have to translate every word into BM and then I will ask my friend what is this in BM and then I will start to write it. If in English I don’t find it difficult.

40 Me Do you feel that it is more effective to write your reflections in English rather than in BM because you’re more confident in English? (Follow-up question) 41 Suguna Ya.. I prefer writing in English than in BM.

*BM = Bahasa Melayu / Malay Language

In addition, during the interviews I used the interview questions rather flexibly depending on the participants’ emotional state. I had to empathise especially with the student teachers since all the interviews had to take place after they had come back from school in the afternoons. I expected that at this time, student teachers would be tired or hungry. Sometimes they might feel distracted, especially when they had observations that day. Thus, I had to be considerate and sensitive with the questions and how I asked the questions in order to get the most out of the participants.

I tried conducting the interviews in a relaxed, less formal manner so to put the participants at ease and in a less pressured state during the interviews. During the

108

interviews, the participants were given time to elaborate on their answers. ‘Interviewing involves a relationship between the interviewer and interviewee that imposes obligations on both sides’ (Rubin & Rubin, 1995, p. 2). So, especially for the teacher educator participants, I allowed them space to express their opinions freely, setting up appointments, and keeping to time. By allowing this, I was able to learn about a situation and use the information in the first interview to formulate questions for subsequent interviews. For the interviews, I had chosen participants who are knowledgeable and have experiences about the subject of ‘reflection’ and I interviewed them until what I heard provided an overall sense of the meaning of the concept and the process of ‘reflection’, which Rubin and Rubin (1995, p. 73) called this process as ‘completeness’. Furthermore, ‘the aim of the qualitative interview, however structured, is not merely to accumulate information but to deepen understanding, and to do this the interviewer must be responsive to nuance and opportunity as the interview progress’ (Richards, 2003, p. 64). So, it was important for me to be patient, at the same time alert and to listen carefully during the interviews to capture the participants’ thoughts about ‘reflection’ and ask extended questions to dig deeper into the issues.

The samples of the interview questions can be found in Appendix U (Interview Questions Phase 1 – Student Teachers), Appendix V (Interview Questions Phase 2 – Student Teachers), Appendix W (Interview Questions Phase 1 – Teacher Educators), Appendix X (Interview Questions Phase 2 – Teacher Educators), and Appendix Y (Interview Questions for Staff). The interviews had enabled active verbal communications between me and my participants. This is essential as the interviews produced rich data while allowing me to expand my understanding, process the information I had gathered, interpret them, and explore further the issues that emerged. In addition, before I begin with the first interview, I visited 3 out of 7 schools where the student teachers attended their teaching practice. The purpose of the visit was to re-familiarise me to the setting in which the student teachers had their practicum. During the visit, I met the school administrators and they shared some information about the general background of the school and their expectations of the practicum trainees during teaching practice. The information I gathered at this stage also helped me to formulate preliminary interview questions for the pilot interview. Table 4.3 contains the general profile for each of the schools I visited. I ‘shadowed’ student teachers as they went about their daily teaching practice routine. The school visit was helpful in preparing

109

myself for the interviews as it enabled me to ‘break the ice’ between myself and the student teachers so to gain trust and confidence from my participants.

Table 4.3: School Profile

School Information

A Enrolment: Approximately more than 1000 pupils

Gender: Male and Female Session: Morning and Afternoon

School type: Malay-medium National Primary School

B Enrolment: Approximately more than 1000 pupils

Gender: Male and Female Session: Morning

School type: Malay-medium National Primary School

C Enrolment: 1145 pupils (2015)

Gender: Male and Female Session: Morning and Afternoon

School type: Malay-medium National Primary School

In my research, I conducted 34 interviews with 11 participants which took place in two phases (see Table 4.4 and Table 4.5). The interview questions were designed to elicit from the participants their perceptions and experiences of ‘reflection’. Most of the interview questions I asked were similar between the student teacher participants and teacher educator participants (see Appendix U, V, W, X and Y). For the student teacher participants, the focus of first interview was on their understanding of the term ‘reflection’ and how they develop the skills of writing reflection. This relates to the first research question of my research. The second interview focused on the effect or the benefits of ‘reflection’ during teaching practice, in relation to the second research question. I also asked follow-up questions to clarify some of the issues that were not clear in the first interview. I interviewed all student teacher participants twice. During the second interview, I realised that most of the responses student teachers gave were repeated from the first interview. So, this indicated that it was not necessary for me to have a third interview since it had reached ‘saturation’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1999; Rubin & Rubin, 1995).

For the teacher educator participants, the first phase interview also focused on their understanding of ‘reflection’ (relates to the first research question). However, I also asked questions relating to assessing student teachers’ written reflections, teaching student teachers how to write reflections, and the value of ‘reflection’ in teaching practice. By focusing on these areas, they will help to answer the second research

110

question in this research. In addition, for the Head of Practicum Unit, the interview also focused on the unit’s roles in preparing student teachers to write reflections during the practicum. The second phase interview for the teacher educator participants, I only interviewed three teacher educators from eleven of them since I realised that the participants added little to what I have already learned from the first interview, so I stopped interviewing other teacher educators. This confirmed that the interview with the teacher educators also had reached ‘saturation’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1999; Rubin & Rubin, 1995), thus the interview need not be carried out further.

All interviews were approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour in length. Table 4.4 also shows the chronology of the interviews. I developed the interview schedule based on the time that was available for me to conduct the interviews, namely while student teachers were attending teaching practice, during which they write their reflections. Rubin & Rubin (1995, p. 2) stated that ‘the process of understanding in qualitative interviewing is achieved by encouraging people to describe their worlds in their own terms’. In doing so, I gave the freedom and allowed my participants to speak in Bahasa Melayu if they feel more comfortable using this language instead of English. Despite this, all interviews were conducted in English except for one where the participant requested for the interview to be conducted in Malay. For this interview (the one conducted in the Malay language), only relevant data extracts used in this thesis were translated into English. All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed accordingly.

Table 4.4: Interview Schedule

Month Week Date Activity Participants

Student Lecturer February 2015 1 (2/2-6/2) Briefing & Setting Up Appointments 4/2/15 Interview Phase 1 2 5/2/15 Observation School 1 6/2/15 Interview Phase 1 1 2 (9/2-13/2) 9/2/15 Interview Phase 1 4 10/2/15 Observation School 2 11/2/15 Observation School 3 11/2/15 Interview Phase 1 1 12/2/15 Interview Phase 1 2 3 (16/2-20/2)

Chinese New Year 4

(23/2-27/2)

25/2/15 Interview Phase 1 1 26/2/15 Interview Phase 1 1

111 March 2015 5 (2/3-6/3) 3/3/15 Interview Phase 1 2 4/3/15 Interview Phase 1 1 5/3/15 Interview Phase 1 1 6/3/15 Interview Phase 1 1 6 (9/3-13/3) 9/3/15 Interview Phase 1 2 10/3/15 Interview Phase 1 1 11/3/15 Interview Phase 1 1 Mid-Semester Break 7 (23/3-27/3) Interval 1 8 (30/3-3/4) 30/3/15 Interview Phase 2 1 31/3/15 Interview Phase 2 2 2/4/15 Interview Phase 2 1 April 2015 9 (6/4-10/4) 7/4/15 Interview Phase 2 2 8/4/15 Interview Phase 2 2 9/4/15 Interview Phase 2 2 10 (13/4-17/4) Interval 2 11 (20/4-24/4) 20/4/15 Interview Phase 2 1 21/4/15 Interview Phase 2 2 12 (27/4-1/5) End

Table 4.5: Total Number of Interviews

Participant Interview Phase 1 Interview Phase 2

Student Teachers 10 10

Teacher Educators / Staff 11 3

Total number of Interviews 21 13