Following the tradition of naturalistic qualitative research, I employed interviews as a main tool to get access to informants’ personal history, perspectives, attitudes and practices with regard to the learning and/or teaching L2 writing (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). I was aware that interviews do not elicit objective facts from participants, but they are social interactions in which identities, power relations and interactional contexts are enmeshed (Mann, 2001). Talmy’s (2011) critique of practices of reporting interviews as neutral within applied linguistics clearly shows how a researcher’s subject position (how the researcher positions himself in relation to informants impacts the whole interview process and interaction. He claims that researchers within the field often limit their role to a conversation facilitator among participants so that the participants they express their feelings, opinions and evaluations. However, his analysis of interviews in his own study clearly demonstrates that the participants’ perceived researcher identity could affect the response of the participants (Talmy, 2011). Even though the researcher tries to remain as just a simple questioner during the interaction, the participants could possibly see the researcher sometimes as authority or, in other cases, a stranger to whom they might find it hard to confess their opinion. The participants are also likely to neutralize their response to save their face as well (Garrett, 2010).
There is no one correct way to conduct interviews because frequency, length, types of interviews (structured interview, guided interview, and in-depth interview) and interview formats (individual interview, focus group interview, online interview) will depend on the purpose of interviews and research questions. For the present study, semi-structured interviews were conducted (Lichtman, 2012) because I believed they allow me room for varying questions depending on demands arising from the situation. I had topics to cover for the interviews and prepared a set of interview questions for each group of the participants – director, instructors and students. I had the topics in mind throughout the interviews and addressed them, but I was also open to other topics and allowed informants to go in unanticipated directions when what they shared was relevant to the overarching research question (Richards, 2009). I believe this made my informants feel that they were engaged in conversation with me and had their voices heard instead of merely responding to my questions in a mechanical way.
I took into account the following in conducting interviews: building rapport with informants, considering power differentials, and employing strategies to ask appropriate
questions (Davis, 1995; Lichtman, 2012). With student participants, I made it clear in emails, my recruitment talk, and interviews that whether or not they participated in this study and what they shared with me would be confidential. I also emphasized that I appreciate honest answers. I tried to be truthful, honest and non-authoritative. For instance, with U.S. educated bilingual writers in the Southern-ELP, I told them that I am not familiar with the U.S. high school curriculum and how writing is taught and practiced and asked them to be an informant about that.
I employed numerous questioning strategies that would allow students to give detailed
Table 3.4Questioning Strategy (Adapted from Lichtman, 2012) Questioning
strategy
Explanation Example
Elaboration Expand ideas. You said that Hahn students do not have critical
thinking skills. Can you give me an example?
Neutral Maintain non-
directionality.
Do you think English Composition 101 will help your writing in other courses?
Single question Ask only one. How long did it take for you to complete the draft?
Wait time Allow silence,
pauses.
I did not give an impression that I am in a rush.
There was one-time interview with the director of the Southern-ELP, Sophia4. I shared
the consent form before the interview to inform her of the purpose of the study, interview procedures and confidentiality (see Appendix A for consent form for directors). I asked the director about program goals and objectives. Specific questions were asked based on the
information I gained in curricular documents (See Appendix D for administrator interview guide). A total of nine instructors were interviewed. I first sent the consent form to the instructor
informants before the first interview to inform them of the purpose of the study, interview procedures and confidentiality (see Appendix B for consent form for instructors). Except for one instructor in the Hahn-ELP, they were interviewed individually twice: the first interview during the first month of data collection and the second interview during the second half of the semester. Instructor interviews lasted 50 to 80 minutes. The first interviews were about their previous teaching experience, course goals and objectives, and instructional approaches to L2 writing. The second interview took place after at least a few of their classes were observed by the researcher. Questions were asked about their class content, assignment details, and feedback about student writing. Stimulated recall was adopted to examine the instructors’ thought processes and perspectives behind their instructional orientations and decisions in the classroom (Gass & Mackey, 2000) (See Appendix E for the instructor interview guide).
4
I planned to interview directors of both programs, but the director of the Hahn-ELP did not accept my invitation for the interview.
There were two interviews with the 15 focal student participants – 7 in the Southern-ELP
and 8 in the Hahn-ELP5. The first interview was conducted during the first month of data
collection and the second interview, during the second half of the semester. The first interview was about their literacy backgrounds, educational trajectories, perceptions of learning to write, and academic and career goals. To understand their L2 writing goals, I asked about their expectations of the course and what they wanted to learn from the course. To gain the in-depth understanding of their goals, I also asked about their literacy backgrounds in their L1 and L2. The second (with all focal participants) and third (with some of the focal participants) interviews took place toward the end of the semester. I asked their perceptions of class lessons I observed and any other lessons that they wanted to make comments on. Questions were also asked about their writing process for major writing assignments, challenges with regard to their writing class and assignments, and strategies to meet them. I also asked about their L2 writing related goals again to check if there were any changes in their perceptions of L2 writing (See Appendix F Student Interview Guide).