Self-evaluation Questionnaire

Rationale

A self-evaluation questionnaire was completed by the students in the infusion class in which they reported on their individual and group performance in the group discussions, as well as on their attitudes (see appendix E). The self-evaluation questionnaire was adapted from Dawes at al.’s (2000) Thinking Together Diary. It is a type of ‘structured diary’ (Bryman 2001), which can be used when ‘the researcher is specifically interested in precise estimates of different kinds of behaviour’ (Bryman 2001: 136). Group

discussion is a crucial part of infusion lessons, since it creates opportunities for students to present their own ideas and exchange them with each other. The aim in this study was to investigate how their relevant attitudes and performances changed over time. Consequently, the students in the infusion class completed this questionnaire in weeks one, four, seven and ten immediately after the infusion lessons.

The Thinking Together Diary was modified into a questionnaire with six-point Likert scales by the researcher of the present study. On the one hand, this enabled the students to answer it more easily and saved time (Cohen et al. 2011). In Hurd and Xian’s (2010)

study, they added open-ended questions at the end of a Likert-scale questionnaire, but realised that less than 10% of students in a pilot study responded to these questions. The participants explained that it took too much time. On the other hand, Likert scales with five options include the neutral option: ‘not sure’, which gives the respondent the

opportunity to answer the questionnaire randomly, or to choose the neutral item in order to avoid having to think too hard about their actual attitude (Dörnyei, 2003). This then makes it difficult to ascertain the inclination of the respondent. Therefore, for the

85

design of the questionnaire in this research, a six-point Likert scale was considered to be more suitable and helpful.

Although a Likert-scale questionnaire provides straightforward and time-efficient data about students’ attitudes and behaviour, there is some risk of obtaining unreliable and

unenthusiastic responses (Dörnyei and Taguchi 2009). To minimise this impact, sixteen volunteer students were involved.

Design

The self-evaluation questionnaire was designed to include 18 questions using six-point Likert scales, and four additional items were added to address aspects relevant to the study.

It consisted of two sections. The questions in the first section investigated how satisfied the students were with the group discussions in class in terms of individual involvement (questions 1-3), the use of critical thinking (questions 4-5), personal contribution (questions 6-7) and group performance (questions 8-12). The second part aimed to address their attitudes towards and perceptions of the group discussions, including the impact on their own thinking (questions 13-15), and feelings during group discussions (questions 16-18).

These items were added to the modified diary. Question 4 (I proposed my opinion/opinions) was added to investigate the students’ evaluation of their use of

86

critical thinking to propose personal ideas in group discussions. Question 7, ‘I listened to others and provided feedback’ was intended to elicit information reflecting the students’ personal contribution in group discussion. Question 13 (Group discussion

provoked my thinking) attempted to find out whether or not the students thought group discussion provoked their thinking.

The self-evaluation questionnaire was translated into Chinese by the researcher, and checked by teacher A. It was presented to the students in both English and Chinese, in order to facilitate their understanding.

Process

The students were grouped according to their seating arrangement in class (see Figure 3.1). Students A, B, C and D formed group one and students E, F, G and H formed group two. This was done for two reasons. First, it was convenient for the teachers and enabled the students to interact with other students they were relatively familiar with. The students could also continue their discussions after class if needed. Secondly, although studies have revealed that in collaborative learning, students who offer help are not necessarily more capable (see chapter 2, section 2.3), according to the teacher (teacher A) who took part in this research, the school always arranged classes so that students of different cognitive levels (based on their overall scores in examinations) were deskmates, to encourage peer support

Figure3.1. Grouping method

A C E G 2 H F D B Platfo rm

87

Since this questionnaire was to be administered four times during the intervention, the teachers thought it important to allow the students themselves to decide whether or not they were willing to take part in all the procedures; thus, these questionnaires were completed only by students who volunteered to do so – a total of 16 students. It was also decided that they would use the break time between two lessons to complete the questionnaires.

Before the thinking lessons in weeks one, four, seven and ten, the teacher gave the questionnaire to the students, and asked them to complete it individually immediately after the lesson. They had ten minutes to do so (break time between two lessons is ten minutes), and the completed forms were then collected by the teacher.

3.8.4 Semi-structured Group Interview

Rationale

This study used semi-structured group interviews to investigate students’ attitudes and perceptions. The interview is a direct and effective way to collect information and reveal what actually happened during an intervention (Silverman 2006; Kumar 2005; DeMarrais and Lapan 2004). A semi-structured interview includes some specific questions, but the interviewer and interviewees are free to depart from the questions whenever they feel it is necessary (Hartas 2010). It allowed the researcher of this study to interact with the interviewees by asking questions which were not included in the question list prepared beforehand when needed.

88

There is, however, a potential drawback to interviews, which is that the quality and quantity of information produced are influenced by the interaction between interviewee and interviewers (Kumar 2004). A good interaction can elicit more information appropriate to the research topic, while poor interaction may fail to produce rich and relevant information.

In this study, therefore, ten students were interviewed in two groups, in order to allow the dynamic production of data through the interaction between interviewees (Hartas 2010). At the same time, as suggested by the teachers (see section 3.6.3), any anxiety among interviewees was reduced by the presence of their peers.

Design

There were three sets of questions included in the interview. The first set of questions was concerned with previous writing lessons: for example, what had they learned in previous writing lessons and what had they expected to learn in writing lessons. The second set was about writing: Did they like writing, did they have any problems in writing, and if so, what were the problems. The third set of questions were about students’ attitudes towards and perceptions of the infusion lessons; for example,

whether or not they liked them and thought they were helpful, what was their favourite thinking task and why, and if they had any concerns about them or suggestions regarding the teaching of English in the future.

89

Process

10 students volunteered to be interviewed after the final infusion lesson (on the same day), of whom 6 participated in the self-evaluation questionnaire data collection during the intervention. The interviews were conducted in Chinese, which enabled the students to give more information and express themselves clearly. The students were divided into two interview groups according to the order in which they expressed their interest in being interviewed. The interviews were held in a classroom with an audio-recorder on the desk. The researcher explained the purpose and process of the interview, and emphasised the fact that the audio-taped data would be analysed anonymously by the researcher only.

Surprisingly, the students provided only short answers in the interviews, and sometimes they answered questions simply by nodding their heads. Several students reported their feelings later. One said that he became nervous when the audio-recorder was turned on. He had not experienced this before. It was also interesting that one student mentioned that he needed more time to think about the questions, but when other students provided an answer quickly, he would then provide a short answer so as to avoid wasting other people’s time. The researcher discussed this with teacher A and

proposed that an additional questionnaire was needed in order to collect more data on the students’ attitudes and perceptions. A self-completion questionnaire was thus

90