Interviews

The interview is perhaps the most widely used method of data collection in educational research. According to Cohen et al. (2007), this method enables the researcher and participants to “discuss their interpretations of the world in which they live in, and to express how they regard situations from their own point of view” (p. 349). When carefully administered, interviews provide rich sources of data for the researchers (Anderson, 1990). I used semi-structured interview questions as the major data gathering tool for my study (See Appendix 10 and 11). I conducted individual semi-structured interviews with the English teachers and focus group interviews for students.

5.5.1.1 Semi-Structured Interview

Semi-structured interviews provided the opportunity to explore secondary school students’ and English teachers’ conceptions and attitudes related to academic English and their language use. Semi-structured interviews seemed appropriate for this research in that rich data could be gathered from discussions about language use in secondary schools and how teachers could best scaffold students’ learning in a multilingual context like the Solomon Islands. Knowledge was developed from conversations with the different participants through guided interview questions. It was an interchange of views between two or more people on a topic that was of interest to both parties. The semi-structured interview is specific, focused and flexible where questions are carefully planned, controlled and in line with the research question (Wellington, 2000). Furthermore, interviews provide opportunities for the interviewer to follow up on respondents’ answers to get more information, and clarification of vague statements. The topic is introduced by the interviewer who guides the discussion by asking specific questions or by probing (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2007; McMillan, 2012; Rubin & Rubin, 1995; Wisker, 2001). Probing and prompting the

elaborate, clarify or qualify their points in the discussion added richness to the data (Bell, 2005; Cohen et al., 2011). Cohen et al. (2007) mention that these are “some of the hallmarks of successful interviewing” (p. 361).

Mears (2009) further suggests that “an effective interview also requires that the researcher enjoy interacting with people and the researcher must effectively relate to people during interview and while attending to the process” (p. 21). This allows greater understanding of issues and trends relevant to the subject and of the natural contexts of the respondents (August, 2010; Cohen et al., 2007; Patton, 2002). Interviews also enable the interviewer to pick up non-verbal cues such as facial expressions and tones of voice which add depth to the research method.

Wisker (2001) further suggests that, “researchers can elicit almost endless responses that would give a good idea of the variety of ideas and feelings that interviewees have as they would enable them to think and talk longer and show their feelings more fully” (p. 141). Employing the tactic of elicitation was useful in this present study, as it creates a positive atmosphere, where I could elicit important information and ideas from my participants. The skilled interviewer builds trust and rapport with the respondent in that information is possible to obtain, which the individual would not reveal using any other data collection method (Gall et al., 2007). It is an “exciting way of doing strong valuable research” (Kvale & Brinkman, 2009, p. 15).

Participants’ natural language expresses their perspectives on the matter being discussed and thus “limits the effect of the researcher’s preconceptions and bias and beliefs in directing the line of interviewing” (Burns, 2000, p. 441). The face-to-face interview allows for clarification of discussion points (Cohen et al., 2007). Thus, semi-structured interview is a potential tool to yielding richer information and contents compared to other research methods (Bell, 2005).

5.5.1.2 Focus Group Interviews

I considered the focus group interview as appropriate for my context as it is “economical on time” and less threatening especially for the students (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 376). It is also a good tool to gather information from English teachers who are professionals and have had similar experiences in their teaching careers (Bell, 2005; Cohen et al., 2007). The focus group interview is also a valuable tool in gathering and sharing information related to particular themes or issues. This is made possible from the rich interaction of the group that is guided by the interview questions (Cohen et al., 2007). Creswell (2002) suggests that four to six participants in a focus group interview is the ideal number so that they would feel comfortable to share their ideas rather than having a large group. In this study eight students participated in each focus group interview.

A focus group interview is a positive tool for gathering data whereby questions that are difficult for one person to answer can be expanded and clarified by ideas from others in the group. Ideas will flow from more than one person which will help the researcher gain rich information from the interview. Cohen, et al. (2007) suggest that “participants interact with each other rather than with the interviewer, such that the views of the participants can emerge – the participants’ rather than the researcher’s agenda can predominate” (p. 376). These are the strengths of the focus group interview, and made it especially appropriate for this study, which used focus group interviews in two secondary schools. The aim was to develop a comprehensive view of students’ beliefs about and conceptions of academic English and language use in secondary schools. This was valuable for this study as data from the interviews could be compared to students’ actual practice in the classroom which was collected from the classroom observation.

While the semi-structured interview is a powerful implement for researchers (Cohen et al., 2000, 2007), and highly recommended because

there are also limitations. It can be an expensive exercise which consumes time of both the researcher and participants (Mears, 2009). It is also open to interviewer bias because of its highly subjective technique (Basit, 2010; Bell, 2005). A form of bias would be the participants answering questions with the answer they think the interviewer would like to hear, thus providing the “official view point rather than the personal view” (Memua, 2011, p. 42).

The quality of data derived from interviews may be affected by the kind of questions they asked (Morse & Field, 1996), or interview fatigue. If an interviewer’s questioning is too deep, participants may adopt avoidance. Questioning should be made easy, short and simple, and avoid using academic language which would require further clarification to the respondent (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009).

Tape recorders are used in an interview to capture the voice of the participants. Using such a device could be problematic when its use is not well prepared for. It could hinder good questioning and listening skills when the researcher depend on it and think that he/she will be able to hear the interview again when transcribing (Davidson & Tolich, 1999)