Methodological Decisions:

This section aims at describing the stages and methodological decisions involved in the implementation of the study in addition to interviews after the end of the course. Diaries were

also used right after every unit in order to get the participants‘ fresh reflections. It had been decided that there would be some interviews before the course, but my preliminary talks with the participants made me think that such a thing would be inappropriate and embarrassing because some of them knew almost nothing about intonation. However, this is not to say that I did not get hold of their previous knowledge as the sessions sometimes helped trigger the participants‘ previous knowledge of intonation.

4.4.2.1. Sampling and Participants‟ Profiles:

It was initially decided that criterion sampling (Dornyei 2007, pp. 127-9) would be followed in which the participants would be chosen, from among available teachers, on the basis of their level of English Language proficiency (a high level being a need), their motivation to improve their understanding of spoken English, and their experience of English language teaching - see appendix 4.4.2.1 for the questionnaire designed for that purpose.

In reality, however, only four participants among teaching staff and Masters students agreed to join the course. Therefore, the sampling process turned out to be a convenience sampling because the participants who took part in the study were the only participants who agreed to take part in the study. The redeeming thing about this type of sampling is that the participants‘ motivation to join the course would in itself denote a high level of dedication to the research, although these participants were not of equal contribution to the research because the course witnessed some cases of absence and some diary reports were not written.

When the participants showed interest in joining the course, they were told, right at the start, of the purpose of the course and its contribution to the research. They were also told that they were going be treated more like normal learners during the course. They were also encouraged, in attending the course, to say whatever goes on in their minds about the relationship between the content of the course and both their own learning reality and the learning reality at the Language Institute; with these points being the focus of the research. They were also informed about the

data they would be asked to submit, namely session recordings, diary reports, and interviews. When the participants expressed satisfaction with that, we proceeded with the course.

In terms of the participants‘ profiles, they are two groups: the teachers group (participants A and C) and the masters students group (participants B and D). Participants A and C are in-service teachers, and they share the same educational background in the following points:

- Both participants have BA from Al-Baath University, Department of Linguistics and Literature.

- Both participants have degrees from the same British university in English Language Teaching Methods.

- They also share roughly the same years of teaching experience, around 3 years.

- In terms of age, there is one year difference, with participant A being 30 years old while participant C being 31 years old.

- Their L1 is Arabic.

The other pair of participants, the MA students, are less homogenous because although they both got BA in English Language and Literature, participant B got it from Damascus University while participant D got it from Al-Baath Univeristy. In terms of age, they are all under the age of 30. The mother tongue, similarly, is Arabic.

4.4.2.2. Triangulation:

The present study uses the following research tools: diary reports, interviews and field notes. Another, secondary, instrument is stimulated recall. The following subsections will try to describe each research tool, the purpose of using it, and the steps followed in actually implementing it, as well as the benefit of using triangulation.

Triangulation is ―the use of two or more methods of data collection in the study of some aspect of human behaviour‖ (Cohen et al. 2000. P. 112). It is a powerful way of demonstrating validity because the use of only one tool may provide only ‗a limited view of the complexity of human

behaviour‟ (ibid). That said, Gray (2004, p. 257), claims that although triangulation reduces the chances of error, it cannot eliminate such chances.

In the present study, a range of research tools have been used to try to answer the research questions. Therefore, the diary reports are used to elicit the participants‘ reflective views while the field notes will confirm, contradict or enrich such views; and the interviews will mainly try to seek a fuller picture by addressing issues of teaching. Therefore, the best type of triangulation to describe the multiple methods used in this research is what Denzin (1970) calls ‗methodological triangulation‘, or, more specifically, ‗between-method triangulation‟.

The triangulation has helped in that while I managed to observe the participants‘ behaviour in doing the tasks, with the aid of the worksheets, more depth was obtained by asking the participants to reflect on their experience with doing DI in the form of diary reports. Although it may be argued that data need to be collected orally in order for the participants to deliver spontaneous – as opposed to planned – responses, I argue that the former was already obtained in the class and that it is that latter that is of interest too because it represents the macro-level, the reflection resulting from giving the participants the chance to develop their own positions and attitudes towards DI from all aspects (see Borg 2006, p. 251 for a similar argument with reference to teacher cognition in general). A more detailed account of the way these tools were used is, therefore, provided in the following subsection.