Sources of Data

3.2.1.1 Semi-structured interviews

As one of the more common data collection methods used in qualitative research, and more specifically in case studies, the semi-structured interview provides a gathering of thoughts and ideas for a particular purpose framed in a specific time and space (Duff, 2008). Interviews allow researchers to learn about what they cannot observe on their own, and to find other explanations for what they do observe (Glesne, 1999).

Semi-structured interviews […] use a standardized interview schedule. The interview schedule consists of a number of pre-set questions in a mostly determined order. However, this type of interview is not completely reliant on the rigorous application of the schedule. If the interviewee wonders off the question then the interviewer would generally go with it rather than try to immediately return to the next question in the schedule […] And to further focus attention on the interviewee and their views the interviewer generally says very little. (Landridge, 2004, p. 50)

In semi-structured interviews, the researcher is allowed to introduce more questions based on the participant’s answers, and the participant is allowed to provide more “background, additional anecdotes or other information about a given topic or issue as they see fit (Baker, 2011). Thus, the researcher’s opportunities to gain access to the participant’s cognition increase with the flexibility of the semi-structured interview. Some studies that have employed semi- structured interviews to explore teacher cognition are: Borg (1998), Mangubhai et al. (2004), Tsui (2003). Chou (2003) used semi-structured interviews in her study of the PPK of EFL teachers, and Golombek (1998) did the same in her exploration of the PPK of ESL GTAs.

Semi-structured interviews were carried out in order to elicit data regarding the

participants’ teaching situations and context, their teaching experiences, and their knowledge and understanding of their acts of teaching. In total, seven interviews were conducted individually with each participant. All interviews were carried out in reserved study rooms at the university

library in order to provide privacy and ease of access to all participants. As I was able to reserve the study rooms (only allowed to do so two weeks in advance), the room number was provided to the participant via email. The first interview focused on the participants’ personal learning and teaching background. In order to gain deeper understanding of the participants’ PPK, questions for subsequent interviews were guided by related classroom observations and answers or situations observed during previous interviews (See the questions for the first interview in Appendix A.1 and a sample question set for a second interview in Appendix A.2). Participants were given the choice to have the interviews in English or Spanish in order to provide a more comfortable environment where they could express themselves freely (as a researcher-

interviewer I am equally comfortable in both languages). However, all participants chose to carry out the interviews in English. Six of the eight participants were native English speakers, and the two native Spanish speakers had lived most of their life in the US, so they were very comfortable carrying out the interviews in English. All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed in regular English orthographic form to facilitate data analysis.

3.2.1.2 Observations

Preference for direct observations in case studies in applied linguistics follows a naturalistic view of classroom research and reflects an interest in documenting the physical, socio-cultural, and linguistic contexts of language learners and teachers (Duff, 2008). As a research tool, observation allows researchers to gather large amounts of data related to the behaviors they wish to better understand (Gass & Mackey, 2007). Thus, a research goes from the hypothetical to the actual (Borg, 2006). For case study researchers, classroom observations are:

a useful means for gathering in-depth information about such phenomena as the types of language, activities, interactions, instruction, and events that occur in second language and foreign language classrooms. Additionally, observations can allow the study of a

behavior at close range with many important contextual variables present. (Mackey & Gass, 2005, pp. 186-7)

Some of the researchers that made use of direct observation in their explorations of teacher cognition are: Farrell (2003), and Johnson and Goettsch (2000). Tsang (2004) carried out direct observations in his exploration of the PPK of three preservice ESL teachers. For the present study, each participant was observed a total of six times. Field notes were taken during the in-class observations and were primarily used to corroborate the participants’ reports on their teaching practices, as well as to generate interview questions (Glesne, 1999). A relatively open and flexible observation sheet (Appendix C as adapted from Chou, 2003) was used to facilitate data collection. The field notes were focused on describing the events taking place in the classroom, and the time of such events.

Three of the six classes observed were video-recorded using a digital camera. The first videotaped class for all participants was done as an opportunity to test the technology and logistics of videotaping a live teaching session. It was also intended as a way to help the

participants get used to the camera in their classrooms (Borg, 2006; Gass & Mackey, 2000). The first video recording of each participant was discarded, as it was done as a pilot. The second and third video recordings were used to carry out stimulated recall interviews with each participant. To avoid conflict between the video-recording and note-taking procedures during classroom observation, the video camera was mounted on a tripod and set at a height and angle that allowed for capturing the teachers’ actions, thus freeing the researcher to take in-class notes. In addition, the camera angle was always set above the students’ heads to keep the focus of the video

3.2.1.3 Stimulated recall

In stimulated recall (as defined for the purpose of the study), the researcher either audio or video records a lesson –or series of lessons-, which constitute the stimulus. Later on, the recording of classroom events is played for the participant, with the researcher and/or the participant periodically stopping the recording to discuss thoughts or impressions of particular moments in the lesson (Gass & Mackey, 2007). Stimulated recall is considered to be an effective complement to classroom observations since it provides researchers increased access to the participant’s point of view (i.e., tacit reasoning) regarding the observed events (Mackey & Gass, 2005). For example, Olshtain and Kubferber (1998) found through this method that the FL teacher they observed made use of past-tense stories to illustrate generalizations of his present beliefs. The researchers would not have been able to infer this example of internal teacher reasoning through the examination of observation data only. According to Borg (2006, p. 225), “overall, the semi-structured and stimulated-recall interviews appear to be the strategies most commonly adopted for eliciting verbal commentaries in the study of language cognition”. Some of the studies that have employed stimulated recall to investigate teacher cognition are: Andrews and McNeil (2005), Breen et al. (2001), and Gatbonton (1999). Golombek (1998) made use of stimulated recall to explore the PPK of ESL GTAs.

Two stimulated recall interviews were conducted with each participant based on video recordings generated during observed classes. The stimulated recalls were considered two of the seven interviews carried out with each GSTA, more specifically, interview 4 and interview 6 in the project calendar. As recommended by Gass and Mackey (2007), the interviews were held soon after the recordings took place, with two days being the longest interval between the

original class and the stimulated recall, to keep the recorded events fresh in the participant’s memory.

Instructions adapted from Gass and Mackey (2000) were given to the participants at the start of the interview (See Appendix E). Both the researcher and the participant being

interviewed had access to the pause button on the computer that was used to play the video recording. In this way, each was able to pause the recording at any time during the stimulated recall interview. The participants were free to make any desired comments or observations of their own whenever they decided to pause the recording or as it played. The questions I asked during the interview were selected from a list, as suggested by Gass and Mackey (2000). The stopping of the recording by the researcher and the questions chosen during the stimulated recall interviews were guided by observations made during the taping and by the participants’ reactions as they viewed the recorded lesson together. Some of the questions were:

• Can you describe what is happening now?

• What was your goal here? – Do you think you achieved it?

• Can you identify the reason(s) behind what you said/did here?

• Would you change anything of what happened?

The primary focus of the researcher’s questions was to bring to the fore some of the reasoning behind the GSTAs’ decisions during the videotaped class. I intentionally remained as neutral as possible during the interviews (Gass & Mackey, 2000), providing non-judgmental responses like “OK”, or “I see”. The stimulated recall interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed into regular English orthographic form in their entirety for later analysis.

3.2.1.4 Reflective journals

A reflective journal is “a first person account of language learning or teaching experience, documented through regular candid entries in a personal journal [that is] then analyzed for recurrent patterns and salient events” (Bailey, 1990, p. 215). Data that can be collected through this source include “instructors’ insights into their own learning and teaching processes, their self- and other-comparisons, decision-making processes, the process of

development (or not) over time, attitudes toward classroom learning and teaching, the use of strategies, and the recognition and use of feedback” (Mackey & Gass, 2005, p. 103-4). Bigelow and Ranney (2005), Johnson (1994), and Mok (1994) are some of the researchers who have explored teacher cognition through reflective journals.

For the project, the participants were asked to submit via email, or in their own handwriting if they preferred, a reflective journal entry every two weeks (see Appendix D). Since I anticipated some reluctance among the participants to complete this task on a regular basis, I asked the GSTAs to write and submit the reflective journal entries only during the weeks in which no observations or interviews were scheduled. This timing of the journal writing was deliberate and intended to make it easier for the participants to complete the planned reflective writing tasks. Informal follow-up conversations and emails were also timed as additional strategies for keeping the participants motivated to complete the journal writing. The simple format of the journal itself, along with the guiding questions adapted from Richards and

Lockhart (1996), were intended to make the task less onerous for the participating GSTAs. The data collected from the journals were also used as a basis for guiding some of the subsequent interview questions. All hand-written journal entries were typed and digitally stored for data analysis.