Research Diary

her belief (see Figure 5.2). For more about that, see section (6.2.2: Later Stage in Chapter Six).

Figure 5.2: Example of improved vision of trainee’s reflective journal

Most of trainees sent their RJs in by the weekend following the practice day. They emailed their RJs in Word format. The length, level of detail and depth of reflection varied from person to person and week to week.

5.2.1.3. Research Diary

I chose to keep a research journal beginning at the orientation stages of this study. I used the diary to keep a log of my thoughts, ideas, evaluation, planning and general notes. Thus, it was a tool for documenting my own reflections and observations, forming a continuing record of the day-to-day research activities (Flick, 2002). I wrote down my reflections about my feelings at the end of every FG, interview and any hanging out activities related to my research topic. I usually wrote my diary in the car on my way home after finishing the school day. This benefitted me throughout the data collection process, as it helped me to ask for more clarification with later activities such as later FGs and interviews.

I recognised that my writing style in these diaries was similar to a ‘thinking aloud’ approach, which enabled me to listen to my own thoughts (DaSilva, 2000). Reicks et al. (2003, p.154) defined thinking aloud as a process of ‘document information that is in focal attention and therefore is actually being used to make the decision’. Thus, it is useful to track the process of collecting data ‘through verbalizations concurrent with task performance as it is involved in decision making’ (Reicks et al., 2003, p.154). This benefitted me later in dealing with insider research issues (see section 5.3.2.1).

I wrote my diary manually in my diary book, which I kept with me most of the time. It included critical thinking about what I was experiencing at the time. As I did with the FGs, I kept my diary in the original language and only translated the text that I used in the data

89

analysis stage. The length of the diary entries varied, depended on the actions of the day and the capacity of my thinking.

As the trainees’ RJs improved through time, so did my own diary. The early version of my diary recorded my own reflection on what we did and the feelings that resulted from my interactions with the participants (Arnold, 1999). As Figure 5.3 shows, the diary documented my reflections on what happened and why, as well as suggestions to improve our performance.

Figure 5.3: The early vision of the researcher diary

Over time, when I was able to gather some data about the situation of our practice, my diaries were improved by making links between ideas as an essential attempt of creating codes (See Figure 5.4).

90

Figure 5.4: The improved version of researcher diary

5.2.1.4. Interview

As I mentioned in chapter four, I planned to use interviews in the last quarter of my study field period to give the participants enough time to develop their understanding of using reflection as a supervision model. The interviewing process took place relatively informally.

Fourteen individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with five trainees, two teachers, six supervisors and the head of the practical education office. Two forms of questions were prepared to be asked, one for the participants in RPC (trainees and teachers) and one for the supervisees and the head of the practical education office (see appendix B). Each audio-recorded interview lasted about 30–40 minutes.

The interviews were conversational and flexible, giving participants sufficient time to formulate their opinions by providing the gist of the questions in advance. The key questions should contribute toward the ‘richness, depth of response, comprehensiveness and honesty that were some of the hallmarks of successful interviewing’ (Cohen et al., 2011, p.278).

Although I had a question guide prepared ahead of time, I did not wish to conduct the interview with a set of uniform questions, as I believed this would be incompatible with my understanding of the nature of individuals’ stories. Instead, I conducted the interviews a

91

little more like a ‘professional conversation’ (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009, p. 2). In other words, even though I prepared questions, the interviews were open and flexibly designed in order to explore with participants their experiences, views and beliefs. Most of the time, the interviews did not completely follow the sequence of questions as I prepared them. The participants, especially the supervisors, voluntarily covered some areas that I had intended to explore with them later.

Nevertheless, in some parts, participants were more conservative in deciding on how much of themselves they should reveal (Fontana & Frey, 2005, p.712). They answered ‘Yes’ or

‘No’ with little explanation. That was critical for me, particularly in the initial interview, as I deliberately did not want to enforce my own ideas about things, such as my view of the current supervision model. I found myself being vague in response to these comments.

However, as Kvale and Brinkman suggest, I must be ‘curious and sensitive’ to what was – and was not – said in the interview and, at the same time, be cognisant of my assumptions (2009, p.31). Therefore, I tried to prompt the participants to continue sharing their existing practices and views as to what, how and why they believed (see Figure 5.5).

Figure 5.5: Clarifying questions

92

I also used probing questions and phrases as well as the subtle use of body language that encouraged an individual to continue talking or perhaps clarify the point they were making (for example, ‘How is it going?’ and ‘It is really interesting’). Moreover, through my experience in the interviewing process, I noticed that I had to change the form of the questions or add questions in later interviews with other participants (see Figure 5.6). I made this change with the same person as I recognised, from her non-verbal cues and debating, that this change was necessary; the question ‘Are you satisfied?’ may put the focus of evaluation on herself, whereas transferring the focus to the current supervision makes discussion easier. Later, I asked the same question again after it was reformulated, and I obtained a different answer.

Figure 5.6: Reformulated questions

Furthermore, sometimes participants’ answers (those of teachers and supervisors) digressed from the questions’ purposes, especially when I asked them about the challenges of their jobs: teaching and supervision. They spent more time talking about things outside of my research focus. However, as DeLyser (2001) noted, this divergence is very common in the interviewing process when the researcher is an insider in research journey. Over time, I learned to manage these tensions by giving more prompts and probing to direct my participants’ conversation towards my research focus. Also, on the side of trainees, I needed to bear in mind the possibility that they were over-eager to please me, especially on these questions that required their views about the reflection. This made a position of objectivity difficult. For this reason, Scheurich (1997, cited in Fontana & Frey 2005, p.62) described interviews as ‘persistently slippery, unstable, and ambiguous from person to person, from situation to situation, from time to time’ and it is for that reason they are so rich. I learned to manage these tensions by asking trainees for more justifications, explanations and examples to avoid misleading answers.

93

5.3. Participants

The participants in this study comprised three categories: trainees, teachers and supervisors. The trainees were in the final year of their Bachelor’s programme for teaching Arabic literature in KSM University’s educational college. My own background as an Arabic literature teacher should benefit my supervision because I used to work with trainees’

Arabic literature.

These trainees had finished Part One of their practicum period in secondary schools, and would conduct Part Two in high schools. Thus, they had some knowledge of traditional supervision, which would enable them to make comparisons between that and my different method of supervision. The participant group that conducted the RP programme included six trainees, two teachers and one supervisor.

Some supervisors from KSM University with at least three years’ experience in the supervision of trainees were interviewed. Both of these samples had been chosen through a non-probability sampling technique where the selection had relied on the ready availability of willing participants (Frey et al., 2000), (see section 5.1.1.1.-5.1.1.3).

In contrast, teachers had been selected purposively; one of them, identified as an effective teacher by the head teacher, had shown her readiness to cooperate with the university where I used to be a supervisor. Using the snowball method¹⁵, other like-minded teachers who wish to improve trainees teaching will be selected. However, the actual process did not fit with this plan, because my trainees voiced disagreement with my suggested school where teachers had been selected purposefully and instead suggested a school where I had never been (see section 5.1.1.4).

My trainees seemed to know each other; some of them were friends. They were similar in age, between 21 and 24 years old. Most of them had reached a good level of academic achievement, which might affect their reflection (see Chapter Six).