Rationale for study design

As we have noted above, the research design was intended to follow in the tradition of classroom research, which will be discussed in more depth in chapter four. There was also a deliberate decision to pursue a mixed methods approach to data collection (Dornyei 2007:163), that is, to mix quantitative and qualitative data collection. Whilst we will discuss this in more detail in chapter four, the rationale for this choice is worth discussing in brief at this stage.

The rationale for the use of a mixed methods approach to data collection was to ‗achieve a fuller understanding of a target phenomenon‘ (Dornyei 2007:164), than either a purely quantitative or qualitative study might allow. This firstly necessitated a pre- and post-test, which allowed for quantitative data to be collected. This followed in the tradition of studies we have discussed above, such as VanPatten and Cadierno (1993), which compared input and output-based teaching approaches by means of quantitative pre- and post-tests. The chosen test, trialled and in commercial would act as a valid, objective measure of students‘ speech,

particularly in the areas of their interactive ability, discourse management and global scores, where it was considered that the usage of the target DMs could have a positive impact. It was also felt that the paired test format would allow the type of interaction which would give opportunities for learners to use the target DMs, although, as mentioned, they were not given any instruction to use them in either test. Naturally, this meant that students could avoid any use of DMs but it was felt that this was a risk worth taking, as the DMs were for use in spoken contexts. A more targeted, written test (for example, Van Patten and Cadierno 1993, DeKeyser and Sokalski 1996, 2001) would not be a valid means of measuring spoken language because it would not measure students‘ ability to use the target DMs freely in their own spoken output. It was also felt, in line with the arguments made in the literature review, that learners‘ subjective impressions of different learning approaches have tended to be neglected in

classroom-based research with a similar design to this (for example, VanPatten and Cadierno 1993, Ellis and Nobuyoshi 1993, DeKeyser and Sokalski 1996, 2001). Although perhaps a simplistic notion, is seems reasonable to suggest that if learners perceive a classroom approach to be useful, then we must accept this as a valid perception, even if it runs contrary to our own beliefs about learning and teaching. It was also felt that although an objective measurement could demonstrate which DMs were used and how interactive ability, discourse management and global marks changed from pre- to post-test; this alone would only act as one measure of the two frameworks. This necessitated combining quantitative data with two qualitative measures: a diary study and follow up guided interviews.

The data collected from the diaries was intended to provide a snapshot of learners‘ perceptions of both the lesson content and the different methodological approaches of each class. They were, in short, intended to provide introspective evaluative data. Noting the difficulties mentioned of writing in the second language, learners were encouraged to write diaries in English but could write in their first language if needed, although none chose to do so. In order to help them with this, they were provided with a sample diary entry at the beginning of the course and instructions to consider both what was studied and how it was studied. This is provided in appendix four. It was felt that learners at this level might struggle to produce much language without some kind of guiding model, although it must be acknowledged that such an approach may have resulted in the learners‘ writing what they perceived as being expected of them. As a result, the diaries may not have provided a complete picture of the learners‘ thoughts at the time of the study. This is something which Nunan (1992:123) suggests is a potential weakness in diary studies. Despite this potential weakness in the data, it was felt that the alternative procedure, not providing the learners with a model, would be unlikely to produce enough data to analyse, taking into account their level of proficiency.

Given the small scale of this study, it was decided to conduct interviews with one member of each group. All course members were given the opportunity to volunteer to be interviewed and the first two volunteers were chosen, student S 01 and S 05. The interviews took a semi- structured format with questions prompts and follow ups used as a basis for the interview but the learners had the freedom to produce other answers which arose from the questions. Following Richards (2003:70), the interviews started with a ‗grand tour‘ question, allowing for

a very open and generalised response. The purpose of this was to relax the interviewee and give them an opportunity to say anything they wished to say about the study which may have been forgotten after a series of questions. The interviews then moved on to more specific prompts, which followed the pattern closed question /open question/ follow ups. The intention was to make it easy for the interviewee to respond initially (Richards 2003:71), before asking a mixture of more open follow ups. The reason for this choice was to try to elicit as much as possible from learners.