Questionnaires and interviews in the present study

A series of email exchanges, face-to-face interviews, and informal discussions were conducted across the present study. To start with, a five-question interview (see Appendix 13) was sent to the participants via email to gather relevant information about their education, teaching background, textbooks they had used, as well as their own perception of “good textbooks”. Raw data collected from the five-question interview took the form of a first-person narrative (i.e. the original text written by the participants formed the data set to be analysed). Secondly, before observation sessions took place, an email questionnaire (see Appendix 14) was sent to the participants to shed light on their beliefs on L2 teaching and learning. Raw data collected from the email questionnaire took the form of numerical codes and bar charts were used to convert the raw data in quantitative form for analysis (see Appendix 27).

Thirdly, in each case study, between 42 and 68 in-site interviews and informal discussions/corridor chats took place before and after the observation sessions (see the final dataset of the research methods in section 4.3.2.5 for the actual number of formal and informal interviews for each case study). As I spent an average of five school days with each teacher, the informal discussions were daily and numerous. These interactions accounted for a better understanding of the participant as

87

they were asked to talk in length about their teaching and learning beliefs, their teaching practices, relation with their headmaster and colleagues, their awareness of CLT practices, and other issues related to English language teaching. Some interviews and formal discussions were video recorded and some others (the majority) were recorded by taking written notes after the event. Depending on the length of the exchanges, I either tried to recall word by word what the teacher(s) said, or used my own words to paraphrase and/or summarise the conversations. Raw data collected from the formal/informal interviews took the form of 1) participants’ quotes (when I wrote down what the participants said word by word); 2) two-way dialogues - as in the case of the interviews that were recorded and transcribed. I transcribed each recorded interview in its entirety, leaving participants’ speech untouched, and retaining the original structure of the interview with questions and answers (see Appendix 24 for an example); 3) a third-person narrative - as in the case of the summary of the informal interviews that were neither recorded nor written word by word; 4) a first-person narrative – as in the case of the notes I wrote after viewing/reading the observation sessions and the interviews. My notes were written in the form of an interpretive narrative and contained several quotes from the interviews and the observations to illustrate the interpretation (see Figure 6.1 in section 6.3.2.5 for an example). I used a researcher’s journal form to record, and analyse my thoughts, impressions, and tentative interpretations (see Appendix 19). Similar forms were used to summarise, and analyse the information on the research questions obtained by each formal/informal conversation, and classroom observation (see Appendix 15).

A set of three open-ended questions (see Appendix 16) was originally planned to be used during the post-observation sessions. However, the post-observation interview questions were refined after the pilot study. In January 2012, to determine whether the three open-ended questions were effective in generating enough data, I implemented a full post-observation interview with a former colleague of mine whose class I observed while the other rater (Dr. Kamberaj – his real name used with permission) observed and took notes. It was realised during this pilot interview that teachers might sometimes not provide adequate data by giving general answers like I asked students to do this

because it is good for them. Attempts to take the interview to a deeper level by asking for more details

did not always provide elaborate answers as the teacher, on several occasions, gave broad answers like It helps students improve their English. To overcome this limitation, it was decided to ask a more direct question regarding the potential influence of the teacher’s book on teachers’ practices (question 2), as well as to add three more questions that gave more prompts to participants to speak and eventually led them in additional directions that might be worth investigating. The revised set of six interview questions is included in Appendix 17.

88

Likewise, the video recording of lessons for a “modified stimulated recall” 13) _{was originally planned to}

walk the teachers through the lesson, stop the video sequencing at the event, and verbally ask the participant why they behaved in that way. However, it was realised at an early stage of the field data collection process that Albanian teachers led a busy professional and personal life, and were unable to dedicate unlimited time to the present project. The first teacher observed for this project – who teaches at a state school every week day from 8.00. – 2.00., tutors in her home every afternoon for two hours, and has a family to take care of - never had enough time to watch herself teaching the observed classes and politely refused to write post-lesson self-evaluation reports because she was “short of time”. To deal with these field work-related constraints, I used observation notes and conducted post-observation interviews immediately after the classes observed (either during the twenty-five minute lunch or the twenty-minute recess following lunch) so that the participant had a fresh memory.

In addition, emails and informal discussions with the teacher were also used to clarify teaching behaviours, and other issues related to the teachers’ practices, knowledge, and beliefs. Each evening, after the observation session, I reviewed the video-recorded lesson at home, and discussed with the teacher the following day the events that needed further clarification. Likewise, while reviewing and analysing the data in Canada, after having finished the process of data collection, I contacted the participating teachers by email and asked them to discuss the points that deserved further elaboration. The participants were allowed to write as much as they wanted to answer each email question.

Lesson plans and teachers’ reflections on the classes observed, elicited during post-observation interviews, were also employed to explore the factors that informed the teaching behaviours of the participants. Raw data collected from the lesson plans and teachers’ reflection took the form of 1) a third-person narrative (i.e. I wrote a summary of teachers’ reflection); 2) a first-person narrative (i.e. I recorded my thoughts, impressions, and tentative interpretations. My noteswere written in the form of an interpretive narrative and contained several quotes from the lesson plans and teachers’ reflection to illustrate the interpretation. I used a lesson plan/post-lesson evaluation form to analyse the information on the research questions obtained by each lesson plan and post-lesson evaluation discussions (see Appendices 15 and 18).

---

13) _{Stimulated recall is defined as “audio or video recording of an event followed by replay with the}

participants to recollect information or evoke emotions for purposes of future understanding” (Matthews and Kostelis, 2011:119).

89