In my literature review I showed how my approach to gathering data aimed to challenge the use of structured interviews and questionnaires, through which earlier researchers on Chinese Learners and Student Approaches to Learning (SAL) had tested previously held, particularly determinist, cultural notions regarding the predispositions of Chinese students. In this section I show how I structured my data gathering in three phases, with the first phase (pre-pilot) designed to identify themes which would then be discussed in subsequent interviews.
In keeping with the exploratory purpose of my research, I decided to gather data in three phases, as illustrated in Figure 2. The large curved arrow in the upper part of this figure signifies the way the pilot and main interviews were built respectively on the themes emerging from the previous phases. This arrow increases in thickness with the volume and specificity of data produced by the interviews. The smaller curved arrows depict how the thematic structures of the pilot and main interviews were both influenced by the pre-pilot phase. Examples of this influence will be seen in the following section of this chapter, where I explain why certain themes were dropped whilst others were consolidated as the interviewing progressed.
Pre-pilot Pilot Main interviews Two unstructured group
interviews held in English
Two individual, semi- structured interviews held in English.
Thirteen individual and one paired, semi-structured interviews, of which nine were held in English and five in Mandarin.
Figure 2: The three phases of interviewing
In the pre-pilot phase, I interviewed two groups of students using a relatively open-ended, unstructured approach, the purpose of which was to identify specific themes related to their experiences of Active Learning pedagogies, which I then pursued in the pilot and main interviewing phases. Bogdan and Biklen (1992) support this approach, stating that “group interviews might be useful for gaining an insight into what might be pursued in subsequent individual interviews” (Bogdan and Biklen, 1992: 100). As mentioned in the section on methodology, in this phase of interviewing I used Van Manen‟s “fundamental existential themes” of spatiality, corporeality, temporality and relationality in order to keep these conversations as open-ended as possible.
Various research methods scholars point out a number of features of group interviews which I needed to consider in my research design. For example, Arksey and Knight (1999: 76), mention a number of drawbacks such as the possible dominance of the interview by one respondent, the reticence of certain
Pre-pilot
Pilot
Main
individuals to speak of sensitive matters in front of their colleagues, and the possibility that participants will offer a “public line” in their responses. However, in Kvale‟s (2007) opinion the potential of group interviews is sometimes underestimated since they often produce more spontaneous results than individual interviews:
“The aim of the focus group is not to reach consensus about, or solutions to, the issues discussed, but to bring forth different viewpoints on an issue. Focus group interviews are well suited for exploratory studies in a new domain since the lively, collective interaction may bring forth more spontaneous, expressive and emotional views than in individual, more cognitive interviews.” (Kvale: 2007: 72)
The recordings and transcripts of these interviews display a considerable degree of interaction among the interviewees and this allowed me to elicit their collective views on certain aspects of my research design, especially the use of group versus individual interviews and the timing of interviews in terms of the stage of the students‟ sojourn in the UK. Most responded that individual interviews were a more effective way of gathering comprehensive data since students had different experiences which might not be evidenced by comments made in group interviews. They also thought that in individual interviews, each interviewee would be more likely to respond to the interviewer and to talk about personal experiences, but might find the presence of other students embarrassing in a group interview. In this way, the participants in the pre-pilot group interviews validated my choice of individual interviews for the main data gathering phase of my research.
The timing of interviews during the students‟ sojourn in the UK was another important aspect of my research design since it would determine whether my approach would be longitudinal or cross-sectional. Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007: 212) cite Ruspini‟s (2002) view that longitudinal designs can “highlight similarities, differences and changes over time in respect of one or more variables or participants (within and between participants)”. They argue that longitudinal designs are also more likely to catch the complexity of human behaviour than cross-sectional designs since they enable researchers to construct more complicated behavioural models. For my research topic a
longitudinal design seemed to offer the advantage of tracking the development of students‟ opinions as they progressed on their course.
On the other hand, any cross-sectional sample of students across a range of Business Management courses would include a mixture of newly arrived and more experienced students and this would allow me to obtain the views of different students at various stages during their sojourn. In the end I decided to interview a cross-sectional convenience sample of students (see Table 3) mainly for pragmatic reasons since I relied on volunteers and these happened to be at different levels within their programmes and at various stages of their sojourn. I also felt unable to prolong data gathering over an extended period as I had to complete my research and writing-up within a given time frame.
An additional reason for my choice of a cross-sectional design for this research was that, since I was aiming to explore students' perceptions of Active Learning pedagogies, it was entirely appropriate to select a sample of students at various stages of their sojourn. Some of the students I interviewed had come to the UK specifically to complete parts of a course which they had begun in China (e.g. 2+2 or 2+1 courses), whilst others had chosen to do the whole of their course in the UK (e.g. three year courses leading to BA Hons, or year-long courses leading to MBA awards etc.). As noted above in my response to the critique of interviews based on epistemological scepticism, this heterogeneous sample enabled me to compare individuals‟ accounts and build up a picture of what a number of students felt were significant thematic components of their experiences. Since this range of experiences was a likely feature of any random sample of Chinese students studying at my university I did not see this as something which threatened the consistency of my approach (internal validity). On the contrary, it provided variety, which a too narrowly focussed sample might not have delivered.
For the pre-pilot and pilot phases, a convenience sample of students was selected who were known to me, but who were not being taught or assessed by me at the time of interviewing. For the main interviews, participants were selected (from Student Records, to which I had access) for a purposive sample based on the following criteria: nationality (Chinese); course of study (a range of
business management courses was sought). This resulted in a pool of approximately one hundred and twenty potential participants, seventy-eight of whom were eliminated because I was teaching them on a Level 6 module at that time. After checking for time spent in the UK at the time of interview (a range was sought) and gender (a gender-balanced sample was preferred), and excluding any students I had interviewed in the first two phases (most had left), I invited approximately thirty students via email to participate, and interviewed those who volunteered (about half of the total). In all three phases, a total of twenty-four students were interviewed, which would have constituted about 20% of a typical cohort of Chinese students studying business management subjects at that time.
Table 3: Interview metadata
Participant Date of interview FHEQ Level Student’s major subject
Time living in UK at time of interview Pre-pilot Phase: April and May 2011
CS1 (F) 5/4/11 (first group interview) UG 6 BA Management 20 months
CS2 (F) UG 6 BA Management 20 months
CS3 (M) UG 6 BA Management 20 months
CS4 (M) UG 6 BA Int‟l Business 32 months
CS5 (F) 20/5/11 (second group interview)
PG 7 MBA 32 months
CS6 (F) UG 6 BA Int‟l Business 20 months
CS7 (M) UG 6 BA Strategy 8 months
Pilot Phase: June 2011
CS8 (M) 9/6/11 UG 6 BA Management 20 months
CS9 (F) 27/6/11 PG 7 MBA 20 months
Main Interviews: October to November 2011
CS10 (M) 18/10/11 UG 6 BA Int‟l Business 14 months
CS11 (M) 24/10/11 (paired interview) UG 6 BA Finance 14 months
CS12 (M) UG 6 BA Finance 14 months CS13 (F) 25/10/11 PG 7 MBA 14 months CS14 (M) 25/10/11 PG 7 MBA 26 months CS15 (F) 26/10/11 UG 6 BA Business 26 months CS16 (M) 26/10/11 UG 6 BA Management 26 months CS17 (F) 3/11/11 PG 7 MBA 26 months CS18 (M) 11/11/11 PG 7 MBA 15 months
CS19 (F) 1/12/11 UG 6 BA Int‟l Business 15 months
CS20 (F) 18/10/11 (in Mandarin) UG 5 BA Management 15 months
CS21 (F) 28/11/11 (in Mandarin) UG 6 BA Int‟l Business 4 months
CS22 (M) 2/12/11 (in Mandarin) PG 7 MBA 28 months
CS23 (M) 5/12/11 (in Mandarin) UG 6 BA Int‟l Business 4 months
CS24 (M) 8/12/11 (in Mandarin) UG 5 BA Finance 5 months
Summary Males: 13 Females: 11
Pre-pilot: 2 group interviews Pilot: 2 individual interviews Main: 13 individual and 1 paired interviews (of which 5 in Mandarin) Undergraduate: L5=2, L6=15, Postgraduate: L7=7 Various Business Management programmes < 1 year: 4 1 – 2 years:13 >2years: 7
The range of students‟ previous experience can be seen in Table 3, which reports the length of time participants had already spent in the UK at the time of
being interviewed. The participants were almost equally divided by gender with seven of the total at postgraduate stage at the time of their interview. Four had been in the UK for less than one year and seven for more than two years. The interviewees were on a range of management courses, with some specialising in Marketing or Financial Management and others on generic Business Management degrees. However, in all cases they had completed modules which used simulations and group projects, which I took as indicating the use of Active Learning pedagogies.
The second phase (pilot) of data gathering consisted of two individual interviews which were designed to try out and fine-tune the interview themes identified in the previous phase. These were held several weeks after the pre-pilot group interviews and about four months before the main interviews. Consequently, I had time to transcribe these pilot interviews and reflect on precisely which themes I would pursue in the main interviews. Although these two pilot interviews had this special testing purpose, I also analysed the data they provided in the same way as data from the main interviews.
The third phase (main interviews) consisted of fourteen semi-structured interviews, one of which was a paired interview, and five of which were conducted in Chinese by my colleague, who later transcribed and translated these interviews for me. This combination of interview languages (and interviewers) provided a range of data which I could not have achieved by conducting all of the interviews myself in English, although it also provided a layer of complexity to the processes of data gathering and analysis.