Student Interviews

In order to complement the limited observations, as well as to more deeply understand the pair interaction from the perspective of the learners, student interviews were conducted. As Watanabe (2008) points out, many studies with recorded dialogue of peer interaction analysed only learners’ discourse during the interaction. However, they failed to complement such analysis with data from participant interviews that were intended to discover learners’ perceptions and feelings about the interactions they experienced. As Swain and Miccoli (1994) mention, collaborative learning involves powerful emotions that could affect its outcome, and the studies with the data of peer- interaction dialogues alone may fail to discover the complex nature of peer interaction. That is, how learners think about their own interactions should not be ignored.

Interviews can provide a valuable source of participants’ interpretations of pair work. Interviews enable the researcher to understand others’ experience expressed through their language reflecting their own beliefs and values (Guba and Lincoln, 1981).

compared with the quantitative fixed-interview or questionnaire, citing Bryne’s explanation:

qualitative interviewing is particularly useful as a research method for accessing individuals’ attitudes and values – things that cannot necessarily be observed or accommodated in a formal questionnaire. Open-ended and flexible questions are likely to get a more considered response than closed questions and therefore provide better access to interviewees’ views, interpretation of events,

understandings, experiences and opinions. (Bryne, 2004, p.182, cited in Silverman, 2006)

In order to obtain in-depth and thorough information through interviews, Bryne emphasises the importance of effective interviewer skills. For example, in an open- ended interview, Silverman (2006) suggests that researchers should decide how to present themselves to interviewees, try to gain and maintain trust and, in order to establish rapport with interviewees, attempt to see the world from the interviewees’ viewpoint, not only from their own.

Creswell (2007) highlights the nature of the relationship that exists between the interviewer and interviewee in qualitative interviewing. He states that the interview is actually a hierarchical relationship with power distributed between interviewer and interviewee. This relationship might be reflected in this study because as well as being an interviewer I also taught the interviewees. As interviewees, my students were required to reveal their perceptions and feelings of peer interaction and their learning. In the process, they might feel uncomfortable revealing such thoughts to their teacher. To minimise this effect, I made every endeavour to prevent my biases and values from standing in the way, as well as avoiding being judgemental about my students’ insights. For example, I tried to avoid any negative or even positive comments on learners’ talk; instead I simply replied to say ‘right’ or nodded my head.

The purpose of these interviews was to examine students’ perceptions and feelings about peer interactions and the relationship between the interactions and their learning. In order to explore the issue individually after completing activities in pairs, two types of interviews were used in this study: individual stimulated interviews in order to prompt participants to recall their thinking at the time of pair work (more details about this in the following section) and open semi-structured interviews in order to gain information about their language learning in pair work, feedback on pair work and reflection on their own and partner’s participation in pair work.

The manner of the interviews was explained in detail to the students, including the structure of the interview and how responses would be recorded with their permission: all interviews were audio recorded and later transcribed in full. The interviewees were encouraged to develop ideas and speak more openly, elaborating on any points that were of particular interest or relevance. To clarify and extend their responses, as Gillaham (2000) suggests, I asked supplementary questions using an open-ended format that allows interview questions and the sequence of questions to evolve naturally as the interview proceeded. I used prompts to stimulate discussion of other material as a form of stimulated recall interview; only live interviews, where the use of probes and prompts can be incorporated readily, are able to provide information such as this. For these reasons, the student interview would be a useful method to reveal participants’ thoughts, which observation data cannot show, and which was essential to answer my sub-question of how learners perceive the peer interaction.

3.6.2.1. Stimulated Recall Interviews

In an attempt to prompt participants to recall thoughts that they had while performing the activity that originally took place, stimulated recall interviews (SRI) were selected. As a type of introspective method, Gass and Mackey (2000) explain that stimulated

recall methodology can be used to prompt participants to recall their thoughts at the time of an activity originally took place. In an attempt to explore learners’ thought processes and strategies, stimulus plays a key role in which the collected data, such as video-taped or audio-taped data, or written products rely on participants recalling a previous event. As Gass and Mackey (2000, 17) note, there is an assumption that ‘some tangible (perhaps visual or aural) reminder of an event will stimulate recall of the mental processes in operation during the event itself’, which is theoretically based on an information-processing approach.

One of the main aims of conducting stimulated recall in general is to reveal cognitive processes that might not be evident through simple observation. Gass and Mackey (2000) insist that this introspective method is particularly important in the context of second language research in that the investigation of cognitive processes in L2

research is only one area where stimulated recall can be applied: for example, Ericson and Mohatt (1977, cited in Gass and Mackey, 2000) explore questions about

individuals’ perspectives on learning. Like other L2 research, SRI in this study was chosen to reveal participants’ cognitive processes regarding interaction while completing activities with their partner.

There is one issue about SRI as one of introspective methodologies, which is the accuracy of the data. A crucial assumption behind stimulated recall is based on recall accuracy: there is a potential problem of validity when data are based on delayed or weak stimulus recalls. As pointed out by Ericsson and Simon (1996) and Gass and Mackey (2000), in some cases, recalled memory may not always relate directly to the original event. Learners may recall thoughts in relation to the pre-experienced event in a similar frame, which is not the original event, or create a plausible story in which they do not remember any experiences. Another issue pointed out by Ericsson and Simon (1996) is that some interference occurs during the period between the original event to

be recalled and the recall. Some memory can be contaminated and rapidly decay from the interference. This is one of the most significant threats to claims that stimulated recall data can uncover information about participants’ cognitive processes (Gass and Mackey, 2000).

If there is only a small amount of intervening time between the event itself and the stimulated recall, the scope for interference is limited. Bloom (1995, cited in Gass and Mackey, 2000) found as high as 95 per cent accurate recall within two days of the original event, whereas the accuracy rate decreased to about 65 per cent after an interval of two weeks. Therefore, for maximum accuracy, Polio et al. (2006) insist that a recall must be conducted relatively close to the event. That is, the sooner after the event the stimulated recall takes place, the more likely it is that uncorrupted memory structures will be accessed. Based on the results of previous research, SRI in this study was conducted within at least two days of the original event: it was planned to avoid the possibility that participants might say what they think the researcher expects them to say or might create a plausible explanation for themselves to account for their lost memory.

Even if SRI has the limitations as mentioned above, it has the significant advantage of accessing human cognitive processes that are unavailable by other means. The advantage helped me to explore the answer to this research question: how pair work influences language learning in EFL lessons.