Classroom observation is one of the important sources of information in qualitative study. According to Nunan (1992), classroom observations provide useful information that help the researcher understand social events in the classroom context. In this study, the researcher used direct observation. Compare to participant observation, direct observation is more focused and observer only observes specific occurrences in the classroom context.
According to Patton (2002) direct observation of situations and people is advantageous for two good reasons. Firstly, direct observation helps the researcher gain a better understanding of the research context. Secondly, direct observation “allows the researcher to be open, discovery oriented and inductive and reduces reliance on pre- conceived notions of the setting” (Patton, 2002, p. 262).
The participants need to be informed that the observation is not a performance evaluation but the aim is to see what is happening in their classroom (Liao, 2003).
Therefore the teachers were told not to perform in a different way on the observation days. The observed teachers received a formal permission letter (Appendix A), that needed their consent signature prior to being observed (Lichtman, 2009). The researcher designed a classroom observation worksheet for the purpose of classroom observations to gather more information on teachers’ responses during classroom teaching (Appendix C).
A panel of experts in qualitative research (Appendix D) commented on the observation worksheet to verify the accuracy and appropriateness of each item in the classroom observation worksheet. The purpose was to determine if the instrument content was sufficient to represent an effective sample pertaining to the content domain. Content validation lay in the format of the instrument involving the clarity of instructions and printing, size of type, appropriateness of language, and so on (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2007).
To gain a thorough appreciation of the participating teachers’ classroom instruction, the ESL teachers’ classes (Year One A & B as well as Year Two A & B) were observed by the researcher together with one of her colleagues as a co-observer over a period of 16 weeks, ten periods a week, with every period taking 30 minutes. So, fourty periods of each classroom were observed during sixteen weeks.
Fraenkel and Wallen (2007) pointed out that observers should collect data from different viewpoints through various formats by working “in teams so that they can check each other’s observations against another’s” since “not only do they prepare extremely detailed fieldnotes, but they attempt to reflect on their own subjectivity as a part of these feildnotes” (p. 453).
Prior to the field observations, the co-observer needed to be instructed for effective observation and tape-recording with the help of a panel of experts concerning practice observations, role-playing demonstration, familiarity with all coding themes
and features in observation sheets, and the handling of the whole observation process (Creswell, 2008; Lichtman, 2009). The number of observations is shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2
Number of Observations Conducted in Each Class
Classes Number of Observation Teacher
Year One A 40 periods Devi
Year One B 40 periods Devi
Year Two A 40 periods Izyan
Year Two B 40 periods Irwan
Then the researcher examined the teachers’ lesson plans to see the consistency and distinctiveness of what was planned to actual teaching practices. While observing the lessons, the researcher and co-researcher made anecdotal notes of all the events and interactions that took place in the classroom. All the observation sessions were tape- recorded and transcribed using transcription symbols (Appendix H) for further analysis.
As Bogdan and Biklen (1998) put it “field notes are the written account of what the researcher hears, sees, experiences, and thinks in the course of collecting and reflecting on the data in a qualitative study” (cited in Zhang, 2008, p. 84). Thus, fieldnotes are taken in the matter of the physical setting of the classroom, the teacher- student interactions, the students’ learning tasks, and the teacher-participant’s blackboard writing design as well as the fulfillment of observation sheet (Lichtman, 2009; Merriam, 2009; Zhang, 2008).
3.6.2. In-depth Interviews
According to Bogdan and Biklen (1998) “interview is a purposeful conversation, usually between two people but sometimes involving more, that is directed by one in order to get information from the other” (p. 93, cited in Zhang, 2008, p. 80). Interview is
typically used to reveal participants’ internal viewpoints on their behavioral performance (Bartels, 2005).
The interview offers participants an opportunity to express their perspective on a phenomenon (Liao, 2003), that is an important approach to check the accuracy of the information gained through observation, and provides the researcher with opportunity to bridge the gaps in understanding (Patton, 2002).
To achieve validity during the interview, firstly, a harmonious relationship of rapport with the interviewees was established in order to create a friendly atmosphere (Liao, 2003). A formal permission letter (Appendix A) was also sent to the teachers and also participating students’ parents for signature.
Secondly, in the process of interviewing, the interviewer avoided asking leading questions and giving possible answers (Liao, 2003). If a certain question was ambiguous then the interviewer paraphrased that question to make sense for the interviewees.
Thirdly, semi-structured interview protocols were designed for the convenience of the teachers and the students to elicit responses to predetermined research questions (Creswell, 2008; Fraenkel & Wallen, 2007; Kvale, 1996; Verma & Mallick, 1999). For the purpose of this study, an interview protocol was designed to interview the participating teacher (Appendix E) and another protocol was designed for students group interviews (Appendix F). Interview questions were formulated in an open-ended way so that an elaborate elucidation from the interviews was apparently stimulated due to the fact that semi-structured questions give participants the opportunity to express what is important to them (Li, 2004). The interview questions were explanatory, contextual and generative in nature and allowed the teacher and students to express their views in detail.
As in the observations, the panel of scholarly qualitative specialists (Appendix D) was kindly invited to provide constructive insights to strengthen the validity of
interviewing. Since English is the second language of the interviewees, the interviews with the teacher were conducted in English. However, considering that the students are not proficient in English and also to gain accurate information, the group interviews with students were conducted in Bahasa Melayu their native language.
In the process of interviewing, Fowler’s (1993) five aspects of standardized interview behavior were strictly adhered to, which are (1) to introduce the research purpose and the main aims, (2) to submit questions, (3) to further explore insufficient replies, (4) to keep a record of answers, and (5) to properly handle the issues concerning interpersonal respects of the interviewing (cited in Zhang, 2008). All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed using transcription symbols (Appendix H) for further analysis. Moreover, making phone calls and also chatty conversations were applied to facilitate communication with the participants for further data collection (Tsui, 2003; Woods, 1985).
To develop the interview questions, emphasis was laid on pre-determined themes in order to elicit relevant information from the interviewees, which increased the reliability of the interview (Creswell, 2008; Fraenkel & Wallen, 2007).
On the basis of three-interview series structure (Seidman, 1998), three interviews, namely, pre-study interview, pre-observation and post-observation interviews were conducted with the participating teachers. One Mixed ability group of eight students was created by the teachers in each classroom and four group interviews were conducted with the students to gain more data on the teachers’ implementation of AfL.
Each of the interviews was conducted by both the researcher and the co- interviewer. The co-interviewer was trained beforehand, to increase the power of the interview and to make herself completely acquainted with all the question items (Creswell, 2008); training encompassed solutions to unexpected cases in the
interviewing process such as interruptions or issues that the interviewees might have on the spot. Therefore, this study maintains the credibility of the data gathered.