THE INTERVIEWS

The study plan was to interview each of the case studies about their reading. This was to be done approximately once a fortnight during their first term, and

subsequently once a month when they were at college. Comparison of the interviews conducted over twenty months ZDVLQWHQGHGWRJLYHDSLFWXUHRIHDFKFDVHVWXG\·V attitudes and habits, and how these changed over the period. However, initially, the language level of the respondents presented a problem. I considered conducting them through the medium of a translator, but quickly realised this would attract its own problems, namely, that I would never be quite sure whether either my

TXHVWLRQVRUWKHUHVSRQGHQWV·DQVZHUVKDGEHHQWUDQVODWHGDFFXUDWHO\or how well the interviews had been conducted. But what would constitute a well conducted, or for that matter, a badly conducted interview in these circumstances? Stake advises a ¶VWURQJDGYDQFHSODQ·(1995, pp. 64-­65)UHFRPPHQGLQJWKDWD¶UHVHDUFK-­question based set of questions should be worked out in advance, with departures from the SURWRFROOLPLWHGE\GHVLJQ·7KLVUXQVFRXQWHUWRWKHQRWLRQVXSSRUWHGE\VRPH researchers, of eliciting through interviews those unexpected, spontaneously-­ given attitudes and opinions which could never appear as the result of a questionnaire sheet or structured interview. Fontana and Frey (2000, pp. 645-­672), for instance, note that even the setting for an unstructured interview does not have to be fixed in DGYDQFHDQGWKH\XQGHUOLQHWKHLPSRUWDQFHRID¶KXPDQWRKXPDQ·UHODWLRQVKLS between the researcher and the respondent with a goal of understanding rather than explaining. In line with the participatory paradigm in the questioning, I generally took the semi-­structured approach, concentrating on the unique character of each respondent. Thus each meeting was not confined within the straitjacket of the highly

69

structured interview, EXWLWZDVVWLOOSRVVLEOHWRZRUNXVLQJ6WDNH·V¶VHWRITXHVWLRQV· DVDORRVHIUDPHZRUN,QIDFWJLYHQWKHORZOHYHORIWKHOHDUQHUV·(QJOLVKHVSHFLDOO\ at the beginning of their college life, the most productive line of interviewing turned out to be asking them to tell me something about the book they were currently reading. Although this usually meant that they went to great pains to re-­tell the narrative, in doing so they often also gave some hints about how they were enjoying it (or not) and why.

,Q,GHVFULEHGKRZP\SRVLWLRQDVDWHDFKHUPLJKWKDYHLQIOXHQFHGWKHVXEMHFWV· responses to me, and my belief that this was mitigated by time. Fontana and Frey (2000, pp. 645-­672) FRQWHQGWKDWJDLQLQJWUXVWDQGHVWDEOLVKLQJUDSSRUWDUH¶HVVHQWLDO WRWKHVXFFHVVRILQWHUYLHZV·ZKLFK,KDYHIRXQGWREHWUXHZLWKWKHFDYHDWWKDWWLme is required to do this. Fontana and Frey believe that it is achieved through an

understanding of the cultures of the interviewees. Having taught the nationalities involved in my case studies since 1990 I have a reasonable knowledge of their cultures, and I did eventually form a comfortable rapport with them all. However, with rapport may come problems of objectivity, and clearly there is a fine line to be walked when trying to maintain a professional attitude together with a productive relationship. As Oppenheim (1992, p. 89) SRLQWVRXW¶7KHUHFDQEHWRRPXFKRUWRR OLWWOHUDSSRUWDQGHLWKHUZRXOGEHXQGHVLUDEOH·0DULDQQH(2008, p. 64), in her study of high-­school participants in an ER programme, describes how her interviews were FRQGXFWHGRQILUVWQDPHWHUPVLQRUGHUWRFUHDWHD¶UHOD[HGDQGLQIRUPDO·

atmosphere. My interviews were similarly conducted on first name terms, but this was the norm for teacher student relations in the college. However, I worked to create a relaxed and informal atmosphere by beginning the interviews with FRQYHUVDWLRQDERXWHDFKFDVHVWXG\·VSHUVRnal circumstances, sports they were involved in, trips they were going on, and sometimes they used the time to talk about personal feelings such as homesickness.

In fact, I spent a good deal of interview time building up a friendly relationship,

70

interviews explored what the case studies had done in the break or at the weekend. Sometimes respondents would spontaneously talk about something they had read, but more often they would relate the plot of a book, or tell me some fascinating fact they had found in a non-­ILFWLRQWH[W$WILUVW,IHOWWKDWWKHLQWHUYLHZVZHUHQRW¶RQ WUDFN·DQGWULHGRYHU-­zealously to put them back. But as time went on I came to realise that this was all context, which was providing a large amount of data on the background to which reading was, or was not happening.

3.5 7($&+(56·3(563(&7,9ES

4XHVWLRQ:KDWPDNHVDJRRGJUDGHGUHDGHUIURPWKHWHDFKHUV·SHUVSHFWLYHs? 3.5.1 Context

To investigate perceptions of ESOL teachers, it seemed an obvious choice to look at teachers from the same institution as the learners in my study, thereby eliminating the variable of context from the comparison. At the college where the study took place, Foundation English is taught to the L2 students on their arrival in New Zealand, in order to bring them up to speed with the demands of degree courses which they will normally start in their second year, when they have attained the required TOEIC score of 730. At any one time there are approximately 25 teachers at the college, teaching either Foundation English or degree support English. To

investigate their perceptions of ER and GRs, I had to decide how to elicit information from them. It was possible that the ways in which they approached reading in the classroom might indicate their perceptions, and this information might be accessible via observations. However, Borg (2006, p. 133) UHPDUNVWKDW¶WHDFKHUV·EHOLHIVDQG KRZWKH\DFWXDOO\RSHUDWHLQWKHFODVVURRPDUHRIWHQQRWFRQJUXHQW·IRUWKHUHDVRQ that they feel they are powerless to challenge the environment in which they work, so classroom observations would have been unlikely to tell the whole story.

According to Borg (2006, p. 165), a gap exists between our understanding of methodologies and theoretical principles of reading and what we actually know DERXWWHDFKHUV·SUDFWLFHVDQGFRJQLWLRQV0DFDOLVWHU·V(2010) study suggests that teachers themselves are not highly aware of recent research in second language acquisition. %RUJFRQWHQGVWKDWWHDFKHUV·FRJQLWLRQVDUHIRUPHGDVDUHVXOWRID

71

number of factors, including their own schooling, teacher training, beliefs and experience in the classroom, and that these individual cognitions have a great effect upon their own teaching. This is one reason for not attempting a longitudinal study RIWHDFKHUV·SHUFHSWLRQVDORQJVLGHWKDWRIWKHOHDUQHUVWXG\7KHWHDFKHUVZHUHDOODW different developmental stages in the profession, and not all of them were at the FROOHJHWKURXJKRXWWKHGXUDWLRQRIP\VWXG\VR,FRQVLGHUHGWKDWD¶VQDSVKRW·RI their perceptions, to represent what a limited number of teachers in the college felt about ER and GRs, would be most useful in providing a context to the perceptions of the learners.

Because this area is clearly very complex, and it seems that each teacher will have a unique perspective on the topic of ER and GRs, a form of inquiry that allowed individuals to express their personal views appeared to be most suitable. This eliminated the survey, as the necessarily structured nature of such an instrument would have precluded any ideas that were not implicit in the questions. In order to gather richer and less predictable data, a less structured method, such as the

interview, seemed potentially more appropriate. However, given that the topic of *5VDQG(5VPLJKWQRWEHSHUSHWXDOO\DWWKHIRUHIURQWRIHYHU\WHDFKHU·VPLQGWKH IRUPXODRIWKHIRFXVJURXSZKHUHLGHDVFRXOGEH¶ERXQFHGRII·RWKHUSHRSOHVHHPHG an even more appropriate option, as it was likely to evoke more opinions than a one-­ to-­one interview with the researcher. There would be less chance in a focus group WKDWWKHUHVHDUFKHU·VSUHVHQFHDQGKHUTXHVWLRQVPLJKWVNHZWKHGLVFXVVLRQDV questions would probably emerge from the participants. At this stage, a survey might have represented a wasted opportunity to gather really rich data on teachers, a group of professionals who, by the nature of their work, should be articulate in their opinions, and highly focused on the topic of inquiry. However I recognise that hypotheses generated through the focus groups might well form the basis for a future survey of a larger population of teachers.

7KHGHFLVLRQWRDGRSWWKHIRFXVJURXSDVWKHPHWKRGRORJ\WRLQYHVWLJDWHWHDFKHUV· perceptions has been endorsed in the literature. McDonough and McDonough (1997,

72

p. 71) LQWKHLUERRNRQUHVHDUFKPHWKRGVVD\¶DUHVHDUFKHUPLJKWFRQGXFW«DIRFXV group discussion, in order to test the depths of feeling on particular points and UHVLVWDQFHWRFKDQJH·0DGUL](2000, pp. 835-­850) also points to a number of general advantages that group interviews have, for example, that the participants enjoy the GLVFXVVLRQJURXSVRIIHUD¶VDIH·HQYLURQPHQWLQZKLFKWRVKDUHLGHDs, precedence is JLYHQWRWKHSDUWLFLSDQWV·KLHUDUFK\RILPSRUWDQFHUDWKHUWKDQH[FOXVLYHO\WRWKH researcher, and there is a certain group synergy. Fontana and Frey (2000, pp. 645-­ 672) add that to collect data via focus groups is relatively inexpensive. However, they also list some disadvantages, such as the impossibility of generalisation from such small sample sizes, and the danger that a dominant individual in the group might have a disproportionate influence on the discussion. In answer to the first point I would suggest that the sample size limitation is probably an unavoidable feature of qualitative research, where the value is perceived to be in the rich data gained from a few individual cases, not in generalisations made from apparent trends in large populations. The second disadvantage should be capable of being dealt with by the sensitive intervention of the researcher or group facilitator. 3.5.2 Composition of the focus groups

The method of data collection having been settled, the composition of the groups had to be decided. For focus groups, Kreuger and Casey (1994, p. 4) recommend groups of between 6 to 8 people selected on the basis of the fact that they have something in common. This validates the idea of using teachers from one college, although the groups of teachers I was able to muster at any one time, due to

timetable constraints, turned out to consist of fewer than 6 participants. Within this limitation I organised three focus groups. The interviews were conducted under the umbrella of professional practice, which is a requirement at the college. Apart from the common factor of being ESOL teachers, the participants formed quite a

heterogeneous cross-­section of the population in terms of ethnicity, age, foreign language proficiency and teaching experience, and I judged that this diversity might compensate in some measure for the small size of the groups. Table 4.1 shows the details of the participating teachers.

73 3.5.3 The focus group discussions

As can be seen in Table 4.1, the total pool of participants added up to 13, only one of whom was male. Each participating teacher signed a consent form (see appendix 3c). I facilitated the discussions, which were held during the mid-­term break in February 2007, and which lasted approximately one hour each. Two of the sessions were recorded and transcribed. In the third, the batteries failed, so I used my notes which were subsequently checked and agreed by the participants. Then, according to 0HUULDP·V(1988, p. 146) ¶H[SRQHQWVRIGDWDDQDO\VLV·¶patterns and regularities [in the notes and transcriptions] were then transformed into categories into which subsequent LWHPVZHUHVRUWHG·