Matriz de indicadores de logro o efectividad

I designed semi-structured interviews for all three type of interviews discussed above. I chose this interview style because I wanted to free my respondents from the constraints of a structured interview in order to obtain richer data. However, I also wanted to do so in a controlled way and within the confines of an interview guide. As the literature shows, semi-structured interviews can achieve this due to their flexible structure in which key topics generally substitute rigid questions (Bryman 2012; Cohen et al., 2005; Dörnyei 2007). Thus, this considerable degree of open-endedness, though controlled by the interviewer, allows for a much deeper exploration of the individual’s inner self by means of, for instance, probing for detail, and clarification of misconceptions (Richards 2003, 2009). Furthermore, the aforementioned flexibility also provides a great deal of leeway for the emergence of spontaneous co-constructed new topics, and allows for rapport building with the respondent(s) (Bryman 2012). My objectives could not have

been better accomplished with either a fully structured interview, due to its lack of flexibility, or with an open interview, because of the lack of control by the interviewer.

Following Richards’ (2003) suggestions, in preparation for the interviews, my first move was to draft an interview guide with the topics I wanted to cover alongside some

memory prompts to explore these topics. To some extent, I did not specify the sequence in which I would cover them, and this was actually decided during the course of the interview (Dörnyei 2007; Richards 2003). Nevertheless, there were some topics whose order was established in order to make the respondents feel that they had participated in a conversation with structure, progression, and most importantly, purpose (Richards 2009). To illustrate, in the pair interviews, I started off with non-intrusive personal questions about interests and hobbies and I gradually moved on to more purposeful ‘down-to-business’ questions. The topics/questions featured in the interviews were influenced by a wide array of factors. Some of these were informal chats with teachers and researchers, research articles on my research topic, questions or topics that other researchers have used in their interviews, and my own experience in language teaching. In the case of the pair interviews, the pilot interview also had a great influence in shaping the final interview guide.

Additionally, in harmony with the literature (Cohen et al., 2005; Dörnyei 2007; Richards 2003, 2009), I conducted a pilot for the pre-model implementation pair interviews. However, I did not do this for the group interviews or the informal interviews with Pamela for the reasons specified below. Regarding the pair interviews, I piloted my interview questions with 4 students (2 boys and 2 girls) taking Spanish in another Year 9 group. As for the group interviews, I considered a pilot unnecessary for two reasons. First, as this type of interview was intended to gather information about the after-project experience of the group, I needed individuals who had gone through that particular experience, so interviewing students from other groups was not an option. Second, I felt

that piloting the interview with some of my Year 9 students who would also be present in the real interview would not be feasible from an ethical standpoint. On another note, I left the informal interviews with Pamela unpiloted for the same reasons as the after- project group interviews. That is, a formal pilot for our interviews could not be done because I would need someone with the same characteristics, and this was just not possible. Secondly, each one of the interviews was different in terms of topics, questions, and sometimes even in the approach; therefore, a pilot for each one of our interviews (five in total) would have been unfeasible in practical terms.

That said, regardless of the type of interview, as recommended by Richards (2003), I did trial all the interviews several times with some fellow PhD students at the Centre for Applied Linguistics. This allowed me to improve and refine my interview technique as well as the structure of the interview in question, including timings and prompts. In addition, I treated each one of the interviews as a new opportunity to grow in the art of interviewing (Richards 2003, 2009). Thus, in a way, each interview was a new learning experience for me.

Having organised the topics and designed the prompts for the interviews (and piloted them, in the case of the pre-model implementation pair interviews) I proceeded to look for an appropriate space to conduct the interviews. For the informal interviews with Pamela, the choice was obvious; I could interview her in her own classroom or outside school. Nevertheless, for the pair and group interviews I was compelled to look for other venues since regular classes and the interviews would occur concurrently. In this

respect, I tried to stick to Richards’ (2003) directions as much as possible and I always searched for ‘unthreatening’ spaces in which my students would feel comfortable, which would allow me to elicit more valid and natural responses (Eder & Fingerson, 2003). Thus, often, both the pair and group interviews took place in actual classrooms except for times in which these were unavailable and we had to use an empty office.

In the majority of the cases, once I had elaborated and polished the interview guide(s), and selected a suitable space in which to conduct the interviews, I moved on to the implementation phase. In the instance of the pre-model implementation pair interviews, their implementation took place after an initial period of observation (cf. 5.2), which Eder and Fingerson (2003) highly recommend for the successful introduction of

interviews with adolescents. As they note, without such observation, I would have found it very challenging to engage for the first time with the respondents in a natural manner (see also, Kuchah & Pinter, 2012). I must say that the following was also applied to Pamela. That is, even though there was not a formal period of observation, I carefully studied her in all respects (e.g., behaviour within the school, motivations, beliefs, etc.) for about a month before I first interviewed her. This was especially useful in

developing a tactful and safe approach to interviewing her.

Regarding the student observations, I first assessed my prospective respondents while in my role as their teacher from a socio-psychological perspective, during a two-month period (September – November). This allowed me to understand, among other things, the social dynamics of the classroom, and study aspects such as personalities,

behavioural patterns, language routines, communicative norms, and social structures. Also, the observation period gave me the opportunity to build a high degree of rapport with the students and gain their trust (Kuchah & Pinter, 2012). Overall, the knowledge obtained from the observation period considerably impacted on me, especially regarding the first interview. To illustrate, the period of observation affected the way in which I paired the students for the pre-model implementation pair interviews (i.e., students who got along well), the order in which I conducted the interviews (i.e., starting first with those students with whom I had a better relationship and leaving the more ‘difficult’ ones for when I was more experienced with the interview process), the interview development itself (e.g., placing more emphasis on topics on which I knew the student

were very vocal); and my approach to the questioning (e.g., being more or less subtle depending on my relationship with the students).

Regarding the implementation of the interviews, once in the room, the pre-interview stage mainly consisted of some small talk to break the ice (Richards 2003). Here I would take the opportunity to explain the purpose of the interview and I would also highlight the value of the participants’ contributions to the education sector. Furthermore, in my first contact with the participants I also explained the nature of my research and I discussed the contents of the informed consent form with them. Before starting the interviews (both pair and group), I encouraged the students to follow some basic conversational rules during the interview to avoid transcription issues. These mainly consisted of speaking loudly and clearly, and turn taking.

Thus, all the interviews opened with a fairly easy-to-answer, open-ended question (Dörnyei 2007; Richards 2003). This, in most cases, was designed to lead to the first topic in my interview guide. After the opening question, I then moved on to the remaining topics. Exploiting the benefits of the semi-structured interview, these were occasionally covered in a fairly non-linear manner. Also, when possible, I used my respondents’ replies to move from one topic to another. This helped to establish a sense of a jointly constructed conversation (with a purpose) rather than an overly structured Q&A session (Bryman 2012; Richards 2003, 2009). In turn, the aforementioned non- linearity also helped me establish a non-threatening atmosphere in which the

interviewees could feel comfortable expressing themselves — and thus, develop unexpected lines of discussion (Richards 2003).

On another note, during each interview, following Richards’ suggestions for responding in an interview as encompassed in Table 4.3, I tried to show genuine interest in the respondents’ answers. I also set out, as far as possible, to adopt the role of a discussion

to minimise the number of my interventions to strive for a well-balanced interview (ibid.). Regarding the former, I endeavoured to limit my participation in the conversation to merely asking questions, checking for understanding, seeking

clarification, following-up on answers, and probing for detail. Whenever possible, I also refrained from indicating agreement or disagreement and expressing my viewpoint.

Table 4.2: Responding in an interview (Richards 2003: 54)

Do Don’t

Listen carefully (e.g., non-verbally say, “I’m listening”) Close off interviewee space Offer supportive feedback (e.g., “hmm”, “yes”) Interpret for the interviewee Respond to emotion (give interviewee chance to talk about

it) Judge (e.g., offer a moral comment, advice or consolation)

Let the interview take its own shape – let the interviewee

discover things as well Stick rigidly to the topics you think you are important Monitor your responses to give the interviewee proper

space Interrupt unthinkingly

At the end of the interviews, there was a winding down phase in which I would thank the participants and allow some time for questions and clarifications (Dörnyei 2007; Richards 2003). Additionally, I always gave the participants a token of appreciation for their collaboration. In the case of Pamela, this took the form of informal luncheons during the academic year. In the case of the students, this meant lots of sweets and, whenever appropriate, I offered to converse about any topic they had in mind (see Eder & Fingerson, 2003, for a discussion) — an opportunity that they seized very happily. In so doing, I was trying to achieve a higher degree of reciprocity, which in turn would allow me to empower the learners, hopefully leading to a reduction of the potential power inequality in future engagements (Kuchah & Pinter, 2012; Lather 1988; Reinharz & Davidman, 1992). Furthermore, as recommended by Richards (2003, 2009), after each interview I also completed an evaluation form on which I evaluated the overall development of the interview with a view to improving my approach. The interview

evaluation form included aspects such as my interview technique, further topics to be covered or follow-up questions, and the lessons learnt.

Finally, regarding the process of recording and transcribing the interviews, as

recommended in the literature (e.g., Dörnyei 2007; Richards 2003), I used two recorders in each interview to avoid missing any data due to technical issues. Then the data recorded was transcribed for easier analysis. In the transcription sheet, I numbered each line so that I could identify pieces of data rapidly and precisely, and I also kept a column on the side of the sheet where I made annotations alongside the interviewee’s words (Denscombe 2010) (see Appendix B). The former allowed me to record any memories recalled during the transcription process, which would in turn help better interpret the data (Dörnyei 2007). Finally, for the transcription, I did not follow a naturalised

transcription approach where utterances are described in as much detail as possible (i.e., stutters, pauses, accents, noises). Rather, I embraced a denaturalised approach where the data, although still representing a verbatim depiction of speech, is slightly ‘cleaned up’ in terms of minute details so that it is easier to understand by the reader (Oliver et al., 2005). I felt that since the focus of the interviews was to explore a particular

phenomenon (i.e., focus on content) rather than, for example, exploring communication itself (i.e., focus on the form) it was not absolutely necessary to provide a naturalised transcription; a highly time-intensive activity for more than ten hours of interview data. That being said, I am aware that my decision affected the authenticity of the data, as the data was stripped of some of its meaning. Having explained the nature and process of the interviews of this study, I will now move on to discuss the next instrument of data collection, the research journal.