Reflective journal / logs / field notes

The reflective journals (used by the trainees), logs (used by the mentors) and field notes (used by me) broadly followed the concept of a research diary (see Appendix V). Keeping a reflective journal was a requirement of the PGCE course, and the entries written by the trainees were also used for the purpose of data collection. In the case of mentors, they were requested to keep a record of the lessons they taught in the form of a reflective journal and questions were used to prompt their writing. Further details about the content, structure and analysis of information are discussed in chapters four, five and six.

Bryman (2004), cited in Menter et al (2011), indicates that diary has a multiplicity of meanings in the field of social research and identifies three main types: ‘those written or completed at

92

the behest of the researcher, personal diaries and diaries used as a log of research activities and reflections’ (p.185) and to record thick descriptions. Carspecken (1996, p.47), cited in Cohen

et al (2007), explains that thick descriptions…

…involve recording, for example, speech acts, non-verbal communication, descriptions in low-inference vocabulary, careful and frequent recording of the time and timing of events, the observer’s comments that are placed into categories; detailed contextual data’ (p.405).

Elliott (1997), cited in Menter et al (2011), regards diaries as ‘researcher-driven… due to the fact that the diary is devised for the purpose of gathering research data in the same fashion that a questionnaire, an interview schedule or an observation schedule are specifically created for research purposes’ (p.186).

Burns (2007), cited in Paltridge & Phakiti (2010, p.89), indicates that ‘field notes include reflective commentary, questions for further consideration, evaluations or self-observations, all relevant to the dynamic and evolving nature of action research’. According to Burns (ibid) a reflective journal or diary is a self-reflective tool written for various purposes and she explains that ‘other kinds of journals are memoirs, [which are] more objective and factual reflections on events or people, or even logs, [which are] running records of what contacts and transactions occur during the day’ (p.189).

Bailey & Ochsner (1983) and Rubin (2003) state that research on language strategies has relied on diaries of various kinds. The information collected by using this tool is an extension of the think-aloud protocols, and serves a two-fold purpose: first, it helps to track students’ progress and secondly, it provides an indication of whether language-learning strategies are useful in developing participants’ basic linguistic skills. The verbal reports written in the form of a reflective journal would constitute retrospective self-observation or self-report, as generally learners write their entries after a learning event has taken place. I anticipated that, by recording their progress in such a format, participants would be able to create a reflective portfolio through which they could see and track their progress. Ekbatani (2000), cited in Little (2005, p. 323), indicates that a portfolio ‘enables instruction to be linked to assessment, promotes reflection, helps learners to take responsibility for their own learning, enables learners to see the gaps in their learning and enables learners to take risks’. Cohen (2011) argues that, by getting the participants to write about their L2 strategies, benefits could be garnered because regular writing can help them to become more aware of their strategies.

93 3.8.7 Focus groups

Punch (2009) explains that focus groups were a technique originally used in marketing and political research and that the terms focus group interviews and group interviews are now used interchangeably (p.146). Gibbs (1988), cited in Arthur et al (2012), argues that ‘focus groups and group interviews are methods often used synonymously to mean an organised discussion with a selected group of individuals to gain collective views about a research topic’ (p.186). Gibbs (ibid) indicates that the main feature of focus groups is the interactive nature where ‘the group opinion is at least as important as the individual opinion and the group itself may take a life of its own not anticipated or initiated by the researcher’. Punch (2009) argues that ‘well facilitated group interaction can assist in bringing to the surface aspects of a situation that might not otherwise be exposed’ (p.147). Other benefits of focus groups are the involvement of diverse groups of people and access to potentially a large number of participants (Arthur et al, 2012).

Two focus groups were set up for each case study. One collected initial views on learning L2 and the other final views at the end of the study. Participants consisted of trainees in CS1 and trainees, mentors and pupils in CS2. The questions used for discussion are explained in chapter four and five. When used with children, these were constructed around the discussion of metaphors (for example, ‘Learning languages is like …’). Schön (1993) explains that metaphors help us make a transition between the source domain (the familiar) to the target domain (the less familiar), and this contributes to the assimilation of new concepts into existing conceptual structures, and accordingly creates new structures through which new concepts are accommodated. Lakoff & Johnson (1980), cited in Price & McGee (2009), argue that metaphor is fundamental to thought, indicating that people interpret images and sensations from the physical world through metaphors. They explain that metaphorical concepts inform, not only our perceptions of the world and the people in it, but also the ways in which we interact with others. In particular, when used with pupils, metaphors are more suitable to explore children’s experiences of learning languages as the feedback they provide can be much richer than the one resulting from discussion (Price & McGee, ibid).