Selección de grupos de tratamiento y control

Phase Two involved conducting a set of semi-structured interviews with a sample population for each of the three participant groups in Phase One. As mentioned earlier, the inclusion of a qualitative phase in this study was decided on in order to provide a more detailed picture concerning stakeholders’ evaluation of the effec- tiveness of in-sessional academic English language provision. To this end, the inter- view schedule comprised seven sections, each consisting of a number of questions. These questions were created in an attempt to further ascertain the effectiveness of in-sessional provision, particularly in relation to the pre-determined evaluation sub-criteria which were emphasized in response to the open-ended items in Section 2 of the survey, and those which emerged as new sub-criteria. These two sets of sub-criteria were therefore used to design the survey questions in order to garner more in-depth information regarding these evaluation criteria.

3.7.1 Sampling

As stated previously, this study used both probability and non-probability sam- pling techniques. While, in Phase One, participants were selected using both sam- pling techniques, only non-probability sampling was employed to determine the sample population for Phase Two. ‘The main goal of [purposive] sampling is to find

individuals who can provide rich and varied insights into the phenomenon under in- vestigation so as to maximize what we can learn.’ (D¨ornyei, 2007, P.126). According to the purposive sampling selection, criteria should be informed by the quantitative data set, and the sampling criteria are more important than the sample size. Based on this, the selection criteria for Phase Two samples were as follows:

• Those participants who responded to at least one open-ended item

• Those who had provided an email address and showed a willingness to partic- ipate in follow-up interviews

• Participants represented different institutions

All participants meeting the above selection criteria were emailed. Based on those returning participants who showed willingness to take part in follow-up interviews, the ultimate sample size was set at 10 participants for each group. This resulted in a total of 30 participants who were interviewed.

In relation to the student group, all participants were students at postgraduate taught and postgraduate research degree level with two who had also completed an undergraduate degree in the UK. The participants were also representative of both home and international students. Regarding the subject specialists, the participants were from a range of disciplines teaching at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. And finally, the in-sessional staff group consisted of both senior staff (e.g. director of study and coordinator) and tutors.

3.7.2 Instrumentation: semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews were used in Phase Two of the study. As mentioned above, the decisions about interview questions and participation selection were made based on the data collected in Phase One. This included the direction and depth of the investigation. A preliminary interview schedule was developed for the follow-up interviews and was amended based on the feedback received in the piloting stage (see below). Table 3.6 shows the final interview schedule consisting of seven sections and 14 questions, and the corresponding evaluation criteria they intended to address.

As shown in Table 3.6, section 1 consisted of a background question about par- ticipants encounter with in-sessionals. This question was chiefly asked to set the ‘tone and create initial rapport’ (D¨ornyei, 2007; p. 137). The rest of the question in the remaining sections were content question asking about participants’ percep- tions towards the effectiveness of in-sessionals. Section 2 then addressed the first evaluation criterion (i.e. accessibility of in-sessional programmes) and consisted of

four questions. Each question focused on one sub-criterion relating to the acces- sibility of in-sessionals. The first related to how awareness of the existence of the provision can be raised across an institution. The second focused on the delivery format of these programmes; that is, whether they should be offered on a one-off basis such as via drop-in sessions which students can utilize whenever they require support, or in the form of continuous provision via a course, where there is mon- itoring of students’ progress. Finally, the third and the fourth questions focused on access to in-sessional provision for home and international students. The second evaluation criterion (i.e. position of in-sessional programmes within HE institutions) was investigated in section 3 and through four questions, with a focus on four sub- criteria: ‘how to raise the status of the provision across an institution’, ‘whether the in-sessionals should be embedded within degree programmes and/or be credit bearing’, and ‘whether there should be any collaboration between subject specialists and EAP specialists in designing and/or delivering such programmes and if any in what forms’. Relevance and adequacy were also investigated in the sections 4 and 5 respectively. While the former criterion investigated the relevance of in-sessional programme content to students’ degree courses, the latter focused on the adequacy of resources provided to and by in-sessionals. Finally, the needs analysis methods adopted by in-sessional programmes was also investigated via one question in section 6. Section 7 entailed the final question eliciting any further information regarding the evaluation of in-sessional provision.

3.7.3 Pilot study

Following the development of the initial interview template, the draft was piloted before the main data collection in Phase Two. Using participants’ responses and feedback forms in the pilot stage, the instrument was evaluated and revised for the main study. The piloting procedure in this phase resembled that used in Phase One, with an initial stage in which two experts and two non-experts were consulted, and a main stage consisting of a representative of the sample population targeted in Phase Two.

3.7.4 Main data collection

As with the data collection in Phase One, preparations were made before the main data collection commenced. This included extracting and creating a list of contacts’ information from the survey, preparing an invitation email template and sending invitation emails, arranging interviews with participants based on their pref-

erences regarding the time and mode (in-person, over the phone or via Skype), and identifying the final number of participants from each group (See Appendix G and Appendix H for the interview arrangement methods and procedures). Ultimately, it was agreed to interview all participants via Skype as a majority of them were based in different regions across the UK and it was not feasible, therefore, for the researcher to conduct in-person interviews with each and every participant.