Encuentros de turismo rural comunitario 2007 al

generated – these data essentially taking the form of evaluative feedback elicited directly from the program participants. The second of the four program aspects for particular evaluative focus identified above concerns the perceived efficacy of the dedicated context-specific, contrastive L1/L2 teaching and learning materials which

formed the textual basis of the program and which accounted for the lion’s share of

program content. Accordingly, I developed the following nine-point schedule via

100 which to elicit written evaluative feedback from the program participants with regard to the perceived efficacy of the WENS materials:

How much do you think you have learned from these materials?

How do you feel about the materials’ L1/L2 focus, which draws attention to

differing English and Japanese word and sentence patterns, meanings, pronunciation, intonation and use?

Did you find examples of your own ‘mistakes’ in the textbook?

In your view, how typical are the ‘common errors’ covered in the textbook of

the English of most Japanese learners?

Do you think that the textbook is relevant and helpful to you in terms of your own English language learning needs?

Do you think that the textbook is relevant and helpful to you in terms of your future needs as an English teacher in Japan?

Have these materials been useful for you in terms of giving you ideas about what to teach your students, and how you might be able to teach effectively in the Japanese EFL context?

How do you think other Japanese learners of English and other Japanese teachers and trainee teachers of English would feel about these materials? Have you seen any other similar textbooks to this in Japan?

I distributed the schedule to the participants towards the end of phase three of the program and collected the completed schedules during week fifteen, the final week of the program. By way of triangulation, these data were supplemented by and cross- referenced with additional references to the program materials across other modes of feedback elicitation for consistency.

All four of the program aspects for particular evaluative focus were explicitly addressed in a reflective written evaluative program feedback task undertaken by the program participants on the afternoon of Friday, July 30th_{, 2010 (week fourteen, day} five). The timing of this session was significant, as it gave me the option of making the results of the follow-up test available prior to the participants undertaking the written evaluative feedback assignment. It was decided that the written evaluative feedback assignment should be structured as a relatively formal in-class activity, undertaken on an individual basis – this to minimize the possibility of ‘groupthink’

101 responses - under supervision. I was not present during this task, which was supervised by Cheryl, the Course Director. This was by design, lest my presence

should exert any perceived influence in respect of participants’ responses.

Dictionaries and other learning aids were allowed, and participants were free to consult Cheryl on any points related to the production of the written assignment. The session lasted approximately two hours, and participants were invited to produce around 750 words.

With regard to assignment format, I had to consider whether to opt for an open, freer task yielding an extended piece of writing, the focus of which would to a considerable extent have been autonomously determined by the participants, or to opt for a more structured format providing greater direction. The latter option would ensure that key program aspects would be addressed by the participants and that these same program aspects would be addressed by all participants, thereby facilitating comparative analysis of the evaluative responses.

Both approaches appeared to have merit in terms of the nature of the data they might potentially generate. In the event, I opted for a semi-structured approach, the instructional guidance rubric indicating the aspects of the program on which

participants’ evaluative comment was required. Listed below are the questions

requiring evaluative comment:

Has the Language Awareness Program been relevant and helpful to you in terms of meeting your needs as a Japanese learner of English?

Has the Language Awareness Program been relevant and helpful to you in terms of meeting your needs as a trainee teacher in the Japanese EFL context?

What do you think of the ‘Wasei Eigo ni Sayonara’ (WENS) textbook? Is it

relevant and helpful in terms of your learning and professional teaching needs?

Do you think that this kind of Language Awareness Program would be relevant and helpful for other Japanese learners of English and other teachers or trainee teachers in the Japanese EFL context?

Has the Language Awareness Program contributed to your knowledge and thinking about learning and teaching in the Japanese EFL context?

102 It was made clear to the participants in advance of the task that their feedback would not be evaluated in terms of either linguistic accuracy or preferred responses, but rather would constitute a valuable contribution to the research project in which they were participating.

The participants’ written evaluative feedback on the language awareness program had

an oral counterpart in the form of audio-taped one-to-one ‘exit’ interviews. These exit

interviews were held in the final week of the program - week fifteen - and were conducted in L1 Japanese for essentially the same reasons that L1 was earlier judged the superior interactional medium in respect of the focus group; that is, its potential to

provide a richer data set on account of the clear disparity between participants’ L1 and

L2 proficiency levels, with particular regard to semantic clarity in online oral production.

Scheduling constraints meant that the nine exit interviews were conducted on two separate days; five – Tomoya, Shunta, Shoko, Ayako and Yuya – on the afternoon of Monday, August 2nd_{, and the remaining four – Koji, Yuriko, Shinsuke and Takashi –} on the afternoon of Wednesday, August 4th_{. The exit interviews each lasted between} thirty and forty-five minutes. The interviewer worked from a basic ten-point interview guide sheet, the questions on which (reproduced in full below) were derived from and strongly reflective of the inquiry’s evaluative research agenda (Richards, 2003):

How was the Language Awareness program for you? Because…?

Do you think your English has improved as a result of the Language Awareness program? If so, in what respect(s)?

On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the highest, how useful have you found the

Language Awareness classes? Because…?

What do you understand by the two terms, ‘Teacher Language Awareness’ and ‘Cross-linguistic Teacher Language Awareness’?

Are you planning to apply or incorporate this (cross-linguistic) language awareness knowledge and approach in your future teaching within the Japanese EFL context?

Please describe a typical class from the Language Awareness program. Did you enjoy/value this style of class?

103 Has the Language Awareness program been relevant and helpful to you in

terms of meeting your needs as a Japanese learner of English? Because…?

Has the Language Awareness program been relevant and helpful to you in terms of meeting your needs as a trainee teacher in the Japanese EFL context?

Because…?

What do you think of the ‘Wasei Eigo ni Sayonara’ textbook? Is it relevant

and helpful in terms of your learning and professional teaching needs?

Because…?

Do you think that this kind of Language Awareness program would be relevant and helpful for other Japanese learners of English and other teachers

or trainee teachers in the Japanese EFL context? Because…?

In recommending the one-to-one interview as a complementary source of data and a potentially valuable component of case study design, Gillham (2005:70) provides the

following taxonomy of defining features in respect of the ‘semi-structured’ interview

format:

The same questions are asked of all those involved.

The kind and form of questions go through a process of development to ensure their topic focus.

To ensure equivalent coverage (with an eye to the subsequent comparative analysis) interviewees are prompted by supplementary questions if they

haven’t dealt spontaneously with one of the sub-areas of interest. Approximately equivalent interview time is allowed in each case.

Questions are open – that is the direction or character of the answer is open. Probes are used according to whether the interviewer judges there is more to be disclosed at a particular point in the interview.

A semi-structured interview, allowing participants a degree of response latitude within an essentially uniform programmatic inventory of inquiry (above) therefore appeared to offer the most appropriate format via which to address the central research question given the analytical requirements for inter-participant (unit of analysis) comparison and the meaningful summary of the aggregated responses

(Johnson and Weller, 2002:499). As Gillham (2005:75) notes in this connection, ‘A

104 semi-structured interview anticipates analysis, and facilitates the organization of that

final stage.’

I was assisted in the subsequent transcription and Japanese-to-English translation of

the nine exit interviews by my L1 Japanese colleagues at Warwick’s Centre for

Applied Linguistics, Yuri and Asako – to whom I owe a considerable debt of gratitude.

2.8.6 Key Stakeholder Perspectives on the 2010 Language Awareness Module