Semi-Structured Interviews

Another common data collection method that is used in the research on beliefs and that we will use in our research is the interview21_{. Fontana and Frey (1994) characterize interviews as} “one of the most common and most powerful ways we use to try to understand our fellow human beings” (p. 361). According to Vieira-Abrahão (2006), interviews can be used as a primary tool for data collection or as a source of secondary data, to be triangulated with other data obtained through different tools.

20 _{We changed the structure of the statements (subject and verb) from a personal point of view (“I teach” or “I use”)} to a more neutral point of view (“Teachers should”).

Nunan (1992) states that interviews can be classified into three types, depending on their level of formality: unstructured, semi-structured and structured. Among these three types, researchers seem to agree that the most effective is the semi-structured interview because of its many advantages. The first one is that semi-structured interviews give the interviewee a certain degree of power and control over the interview, which might give the researcher access to deeper information. Secondly, it is flexible because, when performing a semi-structured interview:

The interviewer has a general idea of where he or she wants the interview to go, and what should come out of it, but does not enter the interview with a list of predetermined questions. Topics and issues rather than questions determine the course of the interview. (Nunan, 1992, p. 149)

In other words, as Bogdan and Biklen (2007) state, semi-structured interviews help researchers to allow the interviewees to express their thoughts freely.

DeCapua and Wintergerst (2005) also mention other advantages that semi-structured interviews could provide. Semi-structured interviews permit the researcher to focus on a particular topic or topics while allowing flexibility in providing opportunities for two-way communication (DeCapua & Wintergerst, 2005). Furthermore, this type of interview allows the researcher to ask more complex questions, it allows the interviewee to develop their answers, and it allows the researcher and the interviewee to ask for clarifications or explanations when unsure or in need of detail about a certain question or answer (DeCapua & Wintergerst, 2005). Due to this specific advantage, this type of interview is the one usually chosen in studies of beliefs (Barcelos & Kalaja, 2011).

Concerning the potential limitations of semi-structured interviews, Nunan (1992) mentions the asymmetrical relationship between the participants. Since the participants do not have the same rights and power as the interviewer, they could feel inhibited and uncomfortable when it comes to sharing their opinions (Nunan, 1992). Another element that should be considered is the physical positioning of the interviewer and interviewee during the interview. Nunan (1992)

suggests that sitting side-by-side would “convey the message that the interaction is meant to be cooperative rather than confrontational” (p. 152).

To illustrate the use of semi-structured interviews in studies of beliefs, we can mention the work of Abdel Latif (2012) who conducted a study using semi-structured interviews in order to investigate how a standards-based communicative curricular reform in Egypt would change the classroom beliefs and practices of ESL teachers and what factors led to these changes. Through the analysis of the participants’ interviews and the use of classroom observations, Abdel Latif (2012) was able to determine five main factors and problems influencing the participants’ beliefs and practices (washback, culture of teaching, inadequate time, students’ low English levels, and required material). In terms of the efficacy of semi-structured interviews, Abdel Latif (2012) concludes that they can be efficient if used not as a main tool but rather as an additional one to deepen knowledge on a certain topic such as teachers’ practices and beliefs.

In terms of our own study, since semi-structured interviews seem to present more benefits, are more commonly used than other types of interviews, and are found to be efficient in studies of beliefs, we decided to choose them as one of our data collection methods. Thus, based on a set of questions inspired by Altet’s (2008) and Vanhulle’s (2009) professional development models and on Brown’s (2004) conceptions of assessments, we conducted semi-structured interviews (Appendix B) with pre-service ESL teachers on two occasions. Firstly, we conducted the semi- structured interviews with our six participants between the months of October and December in order to identify and understand what beliefs and practices related to formative assessment the pre- service ESL teachers bring to their fourth year and their possible origins. Then, at the end of their academic year (between April and May), we completed another session of semi-structured interviews with the goal of studying how pre-service ESL teachers’ beliefs and practices related to formative assessment evolved throughout their fourth year and the resulting impacts on the evaluation process.

Each one of these interviews last approximately 25 minutes and were conducted either by the author or by a colleague and were taped and then transcribed. They took place either at the university (lectures’ office) or over the phone. To avoid any conflict of interest, the data collection

with the participants whose supervisor was the author was carried out with one of his Ph.D. colleagues. Moreover, since the author was also teaching a fourth-year course in which all his participants were his students, the data analysis phase only began once the course was finished and the grades had been submitted.

Thus, having presented and discussed the benefits and advantages of interviews, we will present in the next sub-section another data collection method that will also have an important role in our study, namely narratives.