Population and sample

The main participants in this study are the EL teachers teaching primary Year 1. As this study seeks to understand a phenomenon from the perspective of the participants, it is important to select participants who “can provide rich and varied insights into the phenomenon under investigation so as to maximize what we can learn” (Dörnyei, 2007,

p. 126). As implementers and those responsible for carrying out the curriculum in the classroom, these teachers could provide in-depth information on the curriculum, such as its strengths and weaknesses and areas that need improvement. Year 1 teachers were chosen because the current curriculum had only been introduced at this level of primary schooling in the year that this study was conducted, i.e. 2011. To recruit them, a non- random sampling technique to elicit information was adopted, that Patton (2002) refers to as ‘purposive sampling’. Although it is true that purposive sampling can be biased, as the samples are handpicked and non-representative, the technique is nevertheless able to provide “information-rich cases for study in depth which are likely to illuminate the questions under study” (ibid; p. 230).

A total of eight teachers (four different teachers from four different schools in urban and sub-urban areas) were chosen, based on two criteria: 1) they had a minimum of 3 years of English Language Teaching (ELT) experience to Year 1 students, and 2) they were currently teaching the subject to the same level of students using the most recent curriculum (SCPS). Teachers meeting these criteria were chosen for the study because they could be expected to have sound knowledge of both the previous curriculum, the Integrated Primary School Curriculum (IPSC), and the current curriculum, the Standard Curriculum for Primary Schools (SCPS) for English Language, and thus be able to distinguish any suggested or required changes of classroom practice. As mentioned earlier, such a selection did not necessarily mean that these eight Year 1 English Language teachers were representative of the teacher population under investigation. Rather, they were chosen and studied as detailed cases to illustrate what was happening in English as a second language (ESL) or English as a foreign language (EFL) primary classrooms.

The table below (Table 5.1) presents the demographic information of the teacher participants. It details their gender, years of teaching experience and educational qualifications. A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H are pseudonyms to preserve the anonymity of the teachers concerned.

Table 5.1. Profiles of teacher participants

Teacher Gender Teaching experience (years) English teaching experience (years) Experience of teaching Year 1 Qualification A F 14 14 7 a) Bachelor in Education TESL B M 5 3 3 a) Bachelor in Information Technology b) Diploma in Education (Mathematics) C F 7 7 7 a) Diploma in TESL D F 8 4 4 a) Bachelor in Accountancy b) Diploma in TESL E F 5 5 4 a) Bachelor in Town Planning & Development b) Diploma in Education (English and Mathematics) F F 21 21 15 a) Diploma in Education (English Studies) G F 3 3 3 a) Bachelor in Information Technology b) Diploma in Education (English Studies) H F 5 5 5 a) Bachelor in Linguistic Studies b) Diploma in Education (English Studies)

Notes: F refers to Female, M refers to Male, TESL refers to Teaching English as a Second Language

Based on the information above, the teaching experience of the teacher participants in this study ranged from 3 years to 21 years; the sample thus covered a range from novice teachers to senior teachers. Among the eight EL teachers there was only one male teacher; the other seven were female. The number of male and female teachers represents the gender-ratio of primary school teachers in Malaysia in general. Statistics

shows that the percentage of primary school teachers by gender from 2011-2013 is 70:30 (Ministry of Education, 2013). However, as this study did not aim to differentiate between responses from male or female teachers, gender was not used as a sampling criterion. Looking at the teachers’ qualifications, all but one teacher (Teacher B) were qualified English teachers holding either a first degree or a teaching certificate in English Language Teaching i.e. TESL or English Language Studies. Teachers’ teaching qualification represents the qualification of teachers at primary level in Malaysia generally as data presented in Quick Facts (2013) shows that the ratio of trained and untrained teachers at primary level is 0:7. Teacher B had a first degree in Information Technology (IT) and gained his teaching certificate majoring in Mathematics. However, since the day he started his teaching career he had been directed by the head teacher to teach English, due to there being a lack of English teachers in the school and to his ability to speak the language.

Based on the belief that there is a need to involve samples from which one can learn the most about the central issues with respect to the purpose of the inquiry (Patton, 2002) and participants who were knowledgeable and informed about the intended curriculum, it was deemed important to supplement the perspectives of the teachers with those of: policy-makers (in this case the Curriculum Development Division (CDD) officer) who were involved in reforming the curriculum from the initial stages, curriculum trainers charged with preparing the teachers to deliver the curriculum, and District English Language officers who were responsible for monitoring the implementation of the current curriculum in the actual classroom. The purpose of conducting interviews with the national policymaker (i.e. the CDD officer) was to explore the intended curriculum, and particularly the rationale behind the proposed curriculum reform, as well as the ministry’s anticipation of the extent to which the curriculum would be implemented in primary English Language classroom. The policymaker who was involved in this study had been engaged in developing and designing the Standard Curriculum for Primary Schools (SCPS) for English Language since its proposal stage.