An Overview of the Pilot Studies

Two pilot studies were carried out to make sure the research design was suitable to elicit adequate data from the participants. Specifically, they attempted to test the feasibility of the training plan for the genre approach, the instructional plans designed on the pedagogy, and the initial interview questions in order to modify them when applying to the main study if necessary.

The first pilot study was conducted in Australia and aimed to test the feasibility of the workshop design and the training of the genre pedagogy in particular. The choice of this pilot study resulted from several concerns. The first was related to the recruitment of participants. Concerning the workshop time and the requirements for selecting participants, there were few possibilities to find suitable participants to pilot the workshops in China. Second, the researcher hoped to get feedback from supervisors and other researchers in this area who were in Australia. Third, a university lecturer in Australia agreed to offer an opportunity to run the workshop pilot study in her class.

Overall, the context was convenient, accessible, and geographically proximate (Yin, 2003) for the researcher to pilot the workshop design.

Identified participants were a class of ESL/EFL teacher students who were studying L2 literacy as a course for a Master’s degree of TESOL in Australia. Many of them were experienced ESL/EFL teachers worldwide including several from China, and therefore they shared many similarities with the teacher participants in the main research setting. Finally, the workshop was conducted in one three-hour-long lecture with the lecturer’s support. Prior to the workshop, the participants were informed of the purpose of the pilot study, the use of audio recording, and the function of the data. They were also encouraged to ask questions at the end of the workshop.

The findings of the first pilot study indicated that the initial workshop design was generally effective in helping teachers understand the genre theories and the design of the teaching program. Nevertheless, some parts in the original workshop design were deleted or added, to ensure the workshop design was appropriate in the main study. For example, the initial video clips contained information about the process approach because it was closely related to the genre approach. It was replaced with warm-up discussions about the genre approach to avoid possible confusion by the teacher participants. Meanwhile, the order of some activities was adjusted, so that the teachers could develop their understanding about the genre theories in a step-by-step sequence. Furthermore, the necessity of offering students scaffolding was stressed in the stage of Joint Construction of Text, with more detailed instructions on interactional scaffolding strategies to improve teachers’ understanding and confidence in providing students with immediate assistance in teaching practice.

However, the first pilot study only demonstrated the feasibility of the workshop training on the genre approach, but not the feasibility of the instructional plans, mainly due to the difficulties in finding suitable students. While some of the teacher participants in the first pilot study had similarities with the participants in the main study, it seemed challenging to gain access to suitable student participants to pilot the instructional plans. In contrast, participants with similar

backgrounds (a teacher and her students) could be recruited in a similar context to the main study in China. As a result, the second pilot study was conducted to test the instructional plans and the interview questions as discussed in the following section.

The pilot study in China aimed to achieve three purposes: To test whether further modification was needed for the workshop design to suit Chinese EFL teachers; to test the feasibility of the teaching program in a normal CE class; and to investigate the teacher’s understanding of, and associated response to, the initial interview questions. To start with, a teacher participant was trained in the genre approach with the revised design after the first pilot study and the instructional plans. On this basis, two observations were conducted to gather general information about the teacher’s cognition about writing instruction both before, and after, the reception of the workshop training, and the understanding about the genre pedagogy in particular. These observations were audio-recorded using a digital recorder. Lastly, as it was designed for the main study, two interviews were conducted to test the teacher’s understanding of the pre-designed interview questions.

This second pilot study was carried out at the same university of the main research setting, but on different campus for three main reasons. Firstly, a CE teacher Lucy (pseudonym), the researcher’s friend, was willing to pilot the study. The close relationship with her meant the researcher had no concern about the need for trust development, which was essential for data collection (Glesne, 2006). It was believed that more honest comments and reliable data could be gathered. For the same reason, Lucy could be trusted not to discuss the pilot study with her colleagues on the other campus, which might otherwise have had an influence on the main data collection. Secondly, the CE students’ situation in this context was similar to the situation of those in the main study, which made the result of this pilot study more valuable to the main study. Last but not least, since students were on different campuses from those in the main study, it would reduce the possibility of information leakage and any influence on the validity of the data.

The second pilot study in China demonstrated that the revised workshop training plan and the original design of interview questions were feasible for the main study, and had not resulted in any change, but a significant change was applied to the instructional teaching plans. It was evident in this pilot study that the instructional program was overall effective in reflecting teacher participants’ understanding and perceptions of the genre pedagogy. However, one model text for deconstruction purpose was deleted from the initial design. Time constraints meant that only one was achievable, although the researcher appreciated Humphrey’s and Macnaught’s (2011) recommendation to include both ‘teacher-led’ and ‘student-centred’ analysis of deconstruction. As a result, the teacher-led deconstruction stage was chosen, because the students initially had no similar experience of deconstructing texts. Students could better develop their understanding about how language functions in the model text when deconstructing under their teachers’ guidance.