Summary of qualitative research methods used in the present study

A summary of the types, the content, and order of communications, for one of the four case studies (Miss Evis) is provided in Table 4.1.

Type of communication Content Five-question email questionnaire

Raw data collected from the five-question interview took the form of a first-person narrative (i.e. the original text written by the participant formed the data set to be analysed).

1. Teacher profile

2. Textbook-related issues

Questionnaire on teachers’ beliefs Raw data collected from the email questionnaire took the form of numerical codes. Bar charts were used to convert the raw data in quantitative form for analysis (see appendix 27).

1. Teacher’s belief on L2 learning and teaching

Four observation sessions

Each observation session lasted for 45 minutes. The first three lessons were observed in September-October 2012, and the fourth lesson was observed in November 2013.

The data took the form of 1) numerical codes. Tables were used to

convert the raw data in quantitative form for analysis (see Table 5.1 in section 5.2.2 for an example);

2) a first-person narrative (i.e. notes and reflections I wrote during the session or after viewing the observation (see Figure 6.1 in section 6.3.2.5 for an example).

1. Teacher’s use of communication-based textbooks

Four semi-formal post-observation interviews.

Each post observation interview lasted an average of 12 minutes. The data took the form of :

1) two-way dialogues (the interviews were recorded and transcribed); 2) a first-person narrative (i.e. notes I wrote after viewing/reading the interviews).

See Appendix 35 for the transcript of one

1. Influence of teacher’s book on planning and delivery 2. Influence of other factors on planning and delivery

3. Feedback-related issues, e.g. what the teacher thought about the observed lesson overall, and about the different parts of the lesson; whether she believed the lesson objectives were met or not (why); how her students responded; whether she would make any change if she were to teach the same lesson again, and so on.

92

of the post-observation interviews

Informal interviews with the teacher. I engaged in 52 informal interviews (i.e. brief corridor exchanges and other types of chats that took place in the classroom/teachers’ room) with the teacher during the six days I spent at the school where she taught.

The data took the form of :

1) participants’ quotes (when I wrote down what the participants said word by word);

2) two-way dialogues (as in the case of the interviews that were recorded and transcribed);

3) a third-person narrative (as in the case of the summary of the informal interviews that were neither recorded nor written word by word);

4) a first-person narrative (i.e. notes I wrote after viewing/reading the interviews).

1. Issues related to the teacher’s learning experiences, such as for how long the teacher had been studying English; how she felt as an EFL student; her favourite teacher (why); her least favourite EFL teacher (why); memories associated with her favourite EFL teacher; teaching behaviours she associated with her favourite/least favourite EFL teacher; if the participant has been influenced by her favourite/least favourite teacher and how, relationship she had with her teachers, relationship she had with her peers, a description of her favourite/least favourite teacher’s practices and interactions, and so on.

2. Issues related to the teacher’s training experience, such as why, where, and for how long she attended the British Council “train the trainer” programme; what she expected to learn, what she learned, and how this event has helped her to become a better teacher; how this event compares to her undergraduate course; how this event changed her ideas about teaching/classroom practices, and so on.

3. Issues related to the teacher’s planning habits, such as what factors she takes in consideration when she writes the lesson plan; whether she uses the teacher’s book or not when she plans the lessons, and what ideas/suggestions she most often follows; whether she sticks to the lesson plan or not; whether she reflects when she finishes a class or not; whether she changes anything in her lesson plan during the delivery stage and why/why not, and so on.

4. School-related issues, such as colleagues’ view on teaching and learning, headmaster’s expectations, working condition, curriculum, relationship she has with her colleagues, headmaster, and so on.

5. Student-related issues, such as students’ view on L2 learning, students’ motivation, needs, parents’ support, relationship she has with her students, and so on.

6. Further discussion on the teacher’s beliefs about L2 teaching and learning.

7. Other observation-related issues that required further clarifications

Interviews with other teachers.

The researcher engaged in 12 informal interviews (i.e. brief exchanges that took place mainly in the teachers’ room) with

1. School-related issues 2. Student-related issues

93

Miss Evis’ colleagues. The data took the form of :

1) participants’ quotes (when I wrote down what the participants said word by word);

2) two-way dialogues (as in the case of the interviews that were recorded and transcribed);

3) a third-person narrative (as in the case of the summary of the informal interviews that were neither recorded nor written word by word);

4) a first-person narrative (i.e. notes I wrote after viewing/reading the interviews).

3. Their descriptions of “a good textbook” 4. Their description of “a good teacher”

Interviews with the headmaster. The researcher engaged in 2 informal interviews (that took place in his office) with the dean of the department where Miss Evis worked.

The data took the form of :

1) participants’ quotes (when I wrote down what the participants said word by word);

2) two-way dialogues (as in the case of the interviews that were recorded and transcribed);

3) a third-person narrative (as in the case of the summary of the informal interviews that were neither recorded nor written word by word);

4) a first-person narrative (i.e. notes I wrote after viewing/reading the interviews).

1. Department-related issues, such as university reputation, performance on national exams, working condition, curriculum, and so on.

2. Student-related issues, such as students’ motivation, needs, community support, discipline, and so on.

3. His descriptions of “a good textbook” 4. His description of “a good teacher”

Follow-up emails

Three follow-up emails were sent to Miss Evis to clarify teaching behaviours, and other issues related to Miss Evis’ practices, knowledge, and beliefs.

Raw data collected from the e-mail interviews took the form of participants’ quotes (i.e. I copied and pasted Miss Evis’ emails)

Follow-up email 1 In one of our conversations you said: “… through the years, I have gained valuable experience that (pause) has taught me how to deal with undisciplined students”. Can you please tell me

94

a bit more about this? How did you deal with undisciplined students before and how are you dealing with them now? Has “experience” also helped you become a better teacher? If yes, how? Can you give me a practical example, please?

Follow-up email 2 Can you please describe one of your favourite students in terms of learning style, personality and motivation? How do your teaching practices relate to his/her learning style, personality and motivation?

Follow-up email 3 Can you compare your observed lesson Nr.1 to any of your unobserved lessons? In what ways are these lessons the same/different? Can you compare your preparation for planning each lesson?

Table 4.1: A summary of the research methods used in one of the four case studies

The types, the content, and order of communications for three case studies were the same. For one case study, three lessons were observed and three semi-formal post-observation interviews were conducted. The four case studies also differ from each other in 1) the number of days spent at the school where the participant taught; 2) the number of the informal discussions the researcher engaged with each participating teacher and their colleagues; 3) the number of email interviews. The differences between the four case studies are included in the final dataset provided in Table 4.2.

95 Case Study One 1 1 3 3 34 11 4 3 3 4 Case Study Two 1 1 4 4 49 8 4 4 4 6 Case Study Three 1 1 4 4 52 12 2 4 4 3 Case Study Four 1 1 4 4 32 5 4 3 4 3

Table 4.2: A final dataset of the research methods used in all the four case studies

The summary of the research methods and the final dataset, along with the other information provided in this section, will help the readers understand the data collection methods employed in the present study and how they were employed.