Legislación sobre propiedad intelectual

Validity and reliability are two major concepts associated with assessing the research

instruments either in qualitative and quantitative research studies. Applying, mixed-

methods obviously increase the validity and reliability for any research; although it

should be carefully employed and justified. Implementing classroom observations, questionnaires and interviews

“provides (a) more reliable information about events; (b) greater precision regarding their timing, duration and frequency; (c) greater accuracy in the time ordering of variables; and (d) more accurate and economical reconstructions of large-scale social episodes” (McCall in Bryman, 2012: 279).

Validity is simply assuring that the instrument is ‘measuring what it is supposed to

measure’ (Bryman, ibid: 280). However, validity should also be concerned with the findings and the transferring of them. Perry (2011) stated that many researchers are confused and do not distinguish between the validity of the instruments and validity of the findings which are different issues. In recent studies, researchers have used the terms internal validity and external validity instead of the out-of-date terms, as many researchers argue, content validity, face validity, construct validity, etc. (Perry, ibid). Qualitative researchers used the term credibility interchangeably with term validity (ibid). Employing the triangulation design of mixed-methods will increase, clearly, the validity of the study from measuring the instruments of the study to finalising the results (Dörnyei, 2007). In the current study, using L1 is the core of the study; therefore all the questions should lead to this objective. To assure and control the

internal validity, questions were asked through different instruments to avoid

ambiguity as they were translated into Arabic that, according to Dörnyei (2010), improves internal validity of the instrument employed. Moreover, a number of variables were taken into account for both teachers and students to find if there were correlations with the main objective of the study (using Arabic in English classroom)

which contributed to control the internal validity. The simple example for internal

validity is given by Bryman (2012) if x causes y how we can be assured that x is the

cause and not anything else; I assume, almost all of the functions and attitudes in the role of L1 were sought and not only by teachers but also by students. Moreover, the questions of the use of L1 were asked, in the questionnaire and the interview, in different ways and were reported from the classroom observation so that, in my opinion, will help improve the internal validity. Many previous studies focused on either teachers or students using one or two instruments; while the current study brings teachers and students together to gather more information and to achieve better understanding using three different instruments. Accordingly, a contribution to the internal validity can be attained.

The external validity, however, is the generalizability/ transferability of the findings and the situation e.g. the sample in other words (Dörnyei, 2007). It is perhaps

impossible to prove validity; yet evidence of validity could be achieved (Dörnyei,

2007; Perry, 2011). Adapting well designed instruments such as Macaro’s (1997) observation checklist and questions from previous validated studies would presumably contribute efficiently in the validity and also reliability of the study (Seliger and Shohamy, 1989)

Reliability, on the other hand, is ‘the consistencies of the data, scores or observations

obtained using elicitation instruments, which can include a range of tools from standardised tests administrated in educational settings to tasks completed by participants in a research study’ (Chalhoub-Deville in Dörnyei, 2007: 50). Clearly, the key concepts of the definition of reliability or dependability, another term used by other researchers Denscombe (2010), are consistency and accuracy. This refers to how accurate the findings will be if the instruments are reemployed at a different time and by another researcher. In the case of my study, besides using previous instruments, the translations of the questionnaire and interview transcriptions were checked by independent expert translator and the questionnaire was back translated by colleagues who are doing their PhD in linguistics. Mainly, it was almost similar to the original version and there were minor differences. I assured all of the

participants that filling out the questionnaire was voluntarily and not compulsory. Likert five point scale form was predominantly used throughout both questionnaires,

and this type of rating scale, according to Lyberg (1997), maximises the reliability and also the validity of the measurement of attitude.

To check the reliability or in other words internal consistency to ‘calculate the average of all possible split-half reliability coefficients’ named Cronbach’s Alpha that is ranged between (0 and +1) (Bryman, 2012: 170). The range of the test should score 0.80 and above with +10 point scale. However the scale in second language studies are often shorter, between 3-4, and scoring above 0.60 in the Cronbach’s Alpha test is acceptable (Dörnyei, 2007). Bryman (2012: 280) stated that ‘a coefficient between 0.60 and 0.75 is considered good’. In the current study, the Cronbach’s Alpha test coefficient scored 0.72 for the students’ questionnaire and 0.65 for the teachers’ questionnaire (see Table 3.6 and Table 3.7), which is

considered good and acceptable according to Dörnyei (2007) and Bryman (2012); furthermore by the correlation to the scale items (five point scale) the scores should be reliable (Larson-Hall, 2010).

3.7.1 The role of the Researcher

One of the main factors that may be seen as a threat to the validity is the role of the researcher. In qualitative methodology, namely reflexivity, which indicates the role of researcher when collecting data, for example, interviews and classroom

observations and how this role could influence the settings or interpretations (Duff, 2008). I used to be a TA, Teaching Assistant, in the English Department before I transferred to another college, which made my position, according to Duranti (1997) as an outsider’s perspective and an insider’s one. One advantage to being a teacher in

Table 3.6: Teachers’ Questionnaire Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.654 75

Table 3.7: Students’ Questionnaire Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

the college in the past, was that it created a friendly atmosphere and the participating teachers and administrators felt free to express their ideas, as they seemed to see me as a colleague. In addition, they allowed me to attend their lessons as an observer which is not common. In universities and colleges in Saudi, there is not any role for classroom inspections unlike primary, intermediate and secondary schools. Because I had left the college, this could have increased the confidence and security of all participants when they gave their opinions, as the researcher will not have any role in the department in future. I was also a student in the department, this advantage offered me extra understanding into students’ perspectives and needs. Including Arab and none-Arab teachers and a sheer number of students (n=178) were

considered avoiding researcher bias. During the classroom observations, however, my role was limited and I was a non-participant observer.