Interviews

The heart of the research was a series of extended semi-structured interviews with Cecilia, Simone and Lorraine. Based on Charmaz’s (2002) claim that ‘multiple sequential

interviews form a stronger basis for creating a nuanced understanding of social process” (p. 682), the study included four strategically timed interviews with each teacher. The interviews took place in the participant’s office, and lasted between 45 and 75 minutes. All interviews were audio-recorded using an Olympus DS-40 digital voice recorder and transcribed using Express Scribe transcription software (NCH Software, 2011).

Interview data, unlike survey data or other self-report data, move beyond an ideal vision of one’s own teaching. As Borg (2006) explains:

One explanation for the mismatch between teachers’ reported cognitions and their actual practices which has been identified…is that when presented with theoretical statements or hypothetical situations to comment on, teachers’ responses may reflect their views of what should be done rather than what they actually do. Self-report instruments may, then, reflect teachers’ ideals. For this reason they are inadequate, on their own, in situations where there is an interest in real classroom practices, and need to be supplemented with additional forms of data such as observations and interviews. (p. 184, emphasis in original).

Because the goal of the current study is to address issues of the teachers’ actual classes, not just hypothetical ones, the use of interview data along with classroom observation provides more opportunity to move from the ideal to the actual.

The first interview (see Appendix A.1 for Interview 1 protocol) focused on each teacher’s background and general beliefs and knowledge. The interview protocol included guiding

questions, the flexibility of which allowed each teacher the opportunity to direct the interview towards those issues that she identified as relevant to her needs as a teacher. The focus during the first interview was on the teacher’s i) general views on needs of writing teachers; ii) specific needs in her class; iii) her experience with corpus tools to date; and iv) general views on the role of corpus tools for EAP writing teachers.

The second interview, which occurred after the first audio-recorded class observation, focused more on the specific needs of each teacher’s writing class and the ways that corpus tools might help meet needs identified by the teacher for her specific class (see Appendix A.2 for Interview 2 protocol). In the study, the interview process addressed, as much as possible, each teacher’s current practical needs rather than more abstract principles of teaching.

The third interview session took place shortly after the third observation (see Appendix A.3 for Interview 3 protocol). One key aspect of the third interview was the use of stimulated

recall, which is a technique that allows the teacher to review recorded parts of the target lesson after the lesson has occurred and provide their insights into the processes that they remember as having occurred (Gass & Mackey, 2000). Stimulated recall can provide a valuable avenue from a new perspective for participants to provide rationales, explanations, amplifications, and

observations of their own practices. In this interview, I used segments from the recordings of the third observation as a guide for the teachers to recall the observed lesson that included the corpus tool.

In stimulated recall, some stimulus (e.g., a video or audio recording, written work) related to the target event (e.g., a lesson or part of a lesson, classroom assignment) is provided to the participant so that they can “recall and report thoughts that they had while performing a task or participating in an event” (Gass & Mackey, 2007, p. 53). Gass and Mackey recommend that the stimulated recall be done as soon as possible so that the actual event is still in the participant’s recent memory. The stimulated recall sessions were held as soon as possible, taking into account the need to select the segments and meet the scheduling needs of the teachers. Stimulated recall sessions were held for Cecilia and Lorraine within four days, while Simone’s stimulated recall session occurred ten days after the observation, due to conference travel.

In addition, the degree of structure in the process should be linked to the research

questions of the study (Gass & Mackey, 2000). To that end, I selected six two- to seven-minute segments for each participant that highlighted parts of the class where the corpus tool was being introduced, students appeared to have questions or comments on the use of the tool, issues arose regarding the use of the tool, or the teacher was interacting directly with all, some, or individual students regarding the corpus tool. The participants were encouraged to talk during the recording or pause the recording to elaborate on some element of the class, as they saw fit. As suggested by

Gass and Mackey (2000), the instructions for the stimulated recall should be “detailed, clear and unambiguous” (p. 57). The following instructions were read aloud verbatim to each participant at the start of the stimulated recall session:

“Now, we are going to watch some excerpts of the video of your class. As we play each section, you can talk as it plays or you can pause the video to explain what is happening or what you were thinking at that time. I will try to stay neutral as you speak, so don’t worry if I don’t talk with you too much while we watch the video. This is an opportunity for you to talk through what was hap- pening.” (See Appendix A.3 for the full protocol)

Based on Gass and Mackey’s (2000) suggested methodology, I selected questions from a prescribed list to ask when the teacher stopped commenting on the recording during the

stimulated recall. The choice of question depended on the content in the specific segment, and the possible questions were:

• What is happening here?

• What was the purpose of this section of the class?

• Can you identify a reason for saying what you did?

• Do you think your students understood what you wanted them to understand here?

• If you could do this part of the lesson again, would you do/say anything differently? I also avoided providing either positive or negative responses to the teacher’s comments, and added only neutral non-responses such as “uh-huh,” “I see,” “OK,” or “Ah.” Prior to

beginning the stimulated recall session, I explained to the teachers that I would be reacting in this way, as it might have seemed unusual and disconcerting for another teacher to fail to react more emotively to their commentary.

In addition to the stimulated recall session, Interview 3 included the teacher’s reflection on the topics of classroom objectives for that period, the teacher’s sense of interaction and engagement by students, her own thought processes and feelings during the period, her analysis of the efficacy of the corpus-tool component of the lesson, thoughts on lesson flow and

integration with the larger course objectives, and any technological or logistical issues that occurred to her during the interview or while doing the stimulated recall. These questions are listed in Appendix A.3. Each teacher was also encouraged to move into other areas of discussion if she felt it was important, so the interview was driven largely by the teacher’s sense of how the corpus tools interacted, positively or negatively, with her larger objectives and needs.

The final interview was held after the end of the semester, more than a month after the final observation (see Appendix A.4 for Interview 4 protocol). The delay in holding this fourth interview was purposeful. Tierney and Dilley (2002) recommend allowing teachers time and distance to reflect on the overall sense they had of the class, the students, and their teaching. While much of their commentary was consistent with that of the third interview, additional time for reflection proved valuable in allowing some initial excitement as well as initial frustration to cool over time, providing another more reflective element for analysis.