This section discusses issues relevant to the subjects of the study, namely the kind of sample used in the study, the profile of the participants, and the selection process and recruitment of participants.
4.1.1 Purposive sampling
This study employed purposive samples. Participants were selected on the basis of their profile in order to match the purpose of the study as well as the theoretical framework underpinning the study (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999; Nunan, 1992; Boije, 2010). A number of methodologists including LeCompte & Schensul (1999), Marshall & Rossman (2010), and Bryman (2008) argued purposive samples with heterogeneous backgrounds are useful to generate richer responses and provide insightful data. This type of sampling also allows the corroboration of information elicited from key informants and others- preferably those who occupy different positions or who have different perspectives (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999).
113 4.1.2 Participants of the study2
The use of purposive sampling in this study is reflected in the selection of five groups of participants as follows.
Primary school English teachers (PSETs)
Thirteen local teachers were involved in this study. Four of the thirteen teachers did not have a background in pre-service English education (PSET2, PSET3, PSET7, and PSET8), while the rest had all completed a bachelor degree in a major related to English (See Section 5.1.1). The inclusion of this group of participants is of paramount importance because the study aims to investigate the needs of teachers in terms of their knowledge and skills, their views and perceptions on the practice of teacher education at both pre- service and in-service levels, their views on the design of learning teaching options for teacher education, and their views on the feasibility of a policy on teacher education for primary school English teachers. The involvement of teachers in this study is also significant as they are often underrepresented in language policymaking (Cooper, 1989).
Language teacher educators (LTEs)
Three teacher educators participating in this study had been teaching at universities for more than 15 years. One teacher educator held an MA in TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) and was working on her PhD at the time of data collection (LTE4), and two were PhD holder university professors (LTE2 and LTE3). In addition, there was one teacher educator who worked with a private training institution (LTE1). The decision to include this group of participants was based on their area of expertise because they
2While stakeholders such as parents, students, and coursebook writers took part in previous studies on
primary school English teaching in Indonesia (e.g. Rachmajanti, 2008; Zein, 2009), those stakeholders were not included in this study. The use of purposive sampling in this study requires the involvement of stakeholders who have the potential to unravel data pertinent to the profile of teachers, pedagogical practices of teachers, the delivery of pre-service and in-service teacher education, the design of learning-teaching options, and issues related to the development of policy on teacher education for primary school English teachers.
114
greatly knew issues related to teacher education in Indonesia. Having taught English teachers, these teacher educators were aware of the needs of the teachers in Indonesia and the kinds of learning-teaching options that could be useful to prepare teachers with the necessary skills to successfully teach English in primary schools. Furthermore, they were also a valuable resource in relation to policies on developing language teacher education programs for PSETs in Indonesia.
Members of educational board (MEBs)
Two members of an educational board were teacher educators working at a government- based training institution: LPMP (Lembaga Peningkatan Mutu Pendidikan or the Institution for Educational Quality Assurance). This group of participants was included in the study because of their expertise on teacher training for English teachers in Indonesia. They were aware of the needs of PSETs in Indonesia, having trained PSETs on a number of occasions. Their expertise was considered to be useful to provide invaluable information on the design of learning-teaching options to prepare teachers to teach English at primary level as well as the information on policy recommendations on teacher education for teachers of English at primary level. Although they were working as teacher educators, in this study they were referred to as members of educational board because they were working in a government-based training institution (LPMP). This is to distinguish them from language teacher educators who were working in either a university (LTE2, LTE3, and LTE4) or a private training institution (LTE1).
Primary school principals (PSPs)
Three school principals were involved in the study. While two of them (PSP1 and PSP2) were principals in a public school, the other (PSP3) was a principal in a private school. Their expertise and experiences with issues related to educational policies in Indonesia were considered useful to answer questions related to the policy recommendations on teacher education for PSETs in Indonesia.
115
Educational consultants (ECs)
Two educational consultants participated in the study. Both were university professors who served in the advisory board at the Directorate General of Higher Education at the Ministry of National Education. Their expertise and experiences in dealing with the formulation of various educational policies in Indonesia are indispensable in providing invaluable information on the policy recommendations for developing teacher education for teachers of English at primary level.
4.1.3 Selection and recruitment of participants
In order to ensure reasonable representation of teachers involved in this study, teachers were selected based on the type of schools and region. Five teachers were from private schools (PSET2, PSET3, PSET4, PSET5, and PSET), five were from public schools (PSET1, PSET7, PSET8, PSET10, and PSET13), and three were from national-standard public schools (PSET11, PSET12, and PSET9). Previous research relevant to primary school English teachers was conducted involving teachers in areas such as Bandung (Nizar, 2004; Sary 2010), Medan (Ernidawati, 2002), Blitar (Agustina, et al., 1997), Sidoarjo (Susanto, 1998), and Salatiga (Astika, 1996).
It was decided to conduct research involving teachers in other areas such as Tomohon, North Sulawesi (PSET2, PSET3, PSET7, and PSET8); Denpasar, Bali (PSET4, PSET5, PSET6); Lombok, West Nusa Tenggara (PSET9); Rempoa, Banten (PSET10); and Tegal, Central Java (PSET13) primarily to cover areas which had not been included in previous research. Furthermore, previous research in two areas: Malang (Rohmah, 1996; Senga, 1998) and DKI Jakarta (Suyanto & Chodidjah, 2002) were conducted more than a decade ago, so it was decided to also involve teachers in these two areas to follow up: Jagakarsa, DKI Jakarta (PSET1) and Malang, East Java (PSET11, PSET12). Other groups of participants were selected on the basis of their availability when the data collection process took place.
The recruitment of participants in this study used two methods of selection as suggested by Boije (2010) including networking and writing a formal letter to institutions. As far as
116
networking is concerned, prospective participants were contacted using three modes of communications: mobile phones, Facebook, and e-mail. The nature of the study was described and participants were then asked whether they would be willing to participate in the study. A letter was written to primary school principals requesting for permission to interview and observe their English teacher(s). Upon receiving the approval letter from the principals, the teachers were then contacted again to schedule interviews and observation sessions.