Data collection

This section will introduce the multiple methods for data collection used when conducting qualitative or mixed methods research relating to different research questions during different stages of this study.

4.2.3.1 Data collection by qualitative methods for Research Question 1 As mentioned above, qualitative methods were employed to collect the data for answering Research Question 1 during the first stage of this study, in which two explorative classroom research projects were conducted. The data in the first research session (see Paper 1) was collected through participant observation and a qualitative questionnaire for course evaluation. The data in the second research session (see Paper 2) was collected through interviews, participant observation and evaluation forms.

1) Data collected in the first research session (see Paper 1)

Data in the first classroom research session was collected from October to December 2011, the time in which a Chinese language and culture course (see Chapter 2) was delivered, and also when I was applying for a position as a PhD student. In the course, there were ten teaching units (one teaching unit each week, two hours each teaching unit), which were taught and observed by me. My observation focused on how the course was delivered, how the students performed in the classroom activities, and how they reacted to different teaching methods used in the course. The data from participant observation was collected through field notes (allowing for documenting of speech and personal reflections) (Gray, 2014), informal talks with the students and school representatives and pictures of daily learning activities. In the process, I played two roles at once, acting as both teacher and researcher. It is argued that participant observation involves immersing oneself in a setting, and thus it was important for me to learn to remove myself from the immersion after each teaching unit in order to intellectualise what I have seen and heard, to put it into perspective and to write about it convincingly (Bernard, 2011).

During the process of collecting data (quantitative or qualitative) in this study, I paid much attention to the communication with my students, trying to help them understand what I was doing and how they could help with the research (freely sharing what they felt).

At the end of the course, instead of doing interviews, I distributed a qualitative questionnaire for course evaluation (designed by CI team, see Appendix B) to 18 participants in order to gather data concerning the students’ motivation, expectations, learning experiences and plans for the application of knowledge in the future. All of these methods were useful in collecting data on the students’ lived experience in the classroom.

2) Data collected in the second research session (see Paper 2)

Data in the second classroom research was collected mainly from the end of January to June in 2012. The interviews with two teaching staff (male) were conducted in September and October of 2012 respectively, due to their busy schedule. The interviews with four students (female) were conducted in May and June of 2012, roughly two months after the end of the Chinese culture course of the Chinese Area Studies programme (see Chapter 2), also due to the students’ busy exam schedule. All interviewees were volunteers. The interviews were semi-structured and followed interview guidelines (see Appendix C). The interviews were recorded with the interviewees’ permission, and each interview lasted approximately 30 minutes (one with a student reached 65 minutes).

The data from participant observation was collected through field notes, informal talks with the students and teachers, and pictures of daily learning activities. One danger of taking field notes is that it is easy to fail to note a situation due to the belief that it can be recalled at a later date (Gray, 2014). To avoid this danger, I noted all of the situations I observed, including the space, actors, activities, objects, acts, events, time, goals and feelings (Burgess, 1984), right after each teaching and learning activity. The informal talks with participants helped to answer my questions that arose in the process of observation, and the pictures I took helped me to recall the situations.

Two questionnaires were completed by students at the end of the course. One was designed by the teaching team to gather students’ feedback on the designed activities, and the other was an official questionnaire for course evaluation distributed by the office of the study programme. The data from these qualitative questionnaires were expected to enrich and supplement data gathered by other methods.

4.2.3.2 Data collection by mixed methods for Research Question 2 Mixed methods were employed in data collection for Research Question 2 during the second stage of this study. The data for sub-question 2.1 (see Paper 3) was collected through a post-course survey, group interviews and participant observation in a convergent parallel mixed methods design. The data for sub-question 2.2 (see Paper 4) was collected through pre- and post-course surveys and group interviews in an explanatory sequential mixed methods design.

1) Data collected for sub-question 2.1

The data for sub-question 2.1 was collected in autumn 2012 (September – November) and spring 2013 (February – April). As discussed above, the aims of Paper 3 were to explore to what degree the tasks could make the students feel

motivated to learn Chinese, and what characteristics they might associate with those motivating tasks. Therefore, six selected tasks were focused upon from all the methods. In the last teaching unit of the course in each year, post-course surveys were distributed to 153 participants from seven classes. The question, To what degree did the following tasks/activities provided during the course make you feel motivated to learn Chinese? was central in the surveys. Participants were asked to score each task on a five-point Likert-type scale. Space was provided for qualitative comments or suggestions relating to each task. As mentioned above, the study presented in Paper 3 followed a convergent parallel mixed-method design (see its prototype in Figure 4-1). As Figure 4-1 shows, quantitative data and qualitative data may be collected during the same phase of the research process. Therefore, data from 3 group interviews (17 participants in total, 9 male) in 2012 and 4 group interviews (19 participants in total, 9 male) in 2013 were conducted right after the last teaching unit in each year.

Figure 4-1 The prototype of a convergent parallel mixed-method design (Creswell & Clark, 2011)

Participation in the group interviews was voluntary, and the interviews were semi-structured (see interview guidelines in Paper 3). The paper focused exclusively on the data related to the specific tasks. Before conducting the interviews, the teacher had quickly read through the results of the surveys in order to add relevant questions to the interview protocol. Both audio and video recordings of the interviews were taken, with the permission of the interviewees, and some of my thoughts were noted during the interviews. Each interview was approximately 60 minutes long. Generally speaking, group interviews may have limitations; for example, the responses of individual participants may be influenced and potentially shaped by the presence and perspectives of other participants, which might reduce the validity or credibility of data (Hobson & Townsend, 2010). However, this format provided a number of advantages for this study. For example, this method saved time given the large number of students. Also, in a group interview, the participants may be stimulated into thinking more deeply about the discussed topics due to the participant-to-participant dynamic. It can also be argued that group

discussion may better reflect the processes of meaning-construction in everyday life, and may thus produce more legitimate claims to the validity or credibility of data.

The data from participant observation was collected through field notes and informal talks. Since these classes were much larger than previous ones, I seldom had the chance to take pictures in the classroom. The disadvantages of participant observation in this study are that the participant-observer may be too connected to the group to make objective records (Norton, 2009), and that it is challenging to observe a large group of people (Jorgensen, 1989). However, this method can still provide an insider view and prevent misinterpretation of the observed behaviour.

2) Data collected for sub-question 2.2

The data for sub-question 2.2 was collected in autumn 2013 (September - November) and spring 2014 (February - April). The aims of Paper 4 were to provide evidence of the orientation changes and find out in what aspects and to what extent learner orientation/motivation changed, and what factors might have been related to the changes in the given context. To reach these aims, a longitudinal, survey-based investigation (consisting of pre- and post-course surveys) was designed and conducted in both years, allowing us to collect data and investigate the orientation changes over time. The pre-course surveys were given to students in the first teaching unit (September 2013 and February 2014, respectively) to collect information such as the students’ orientations (reasons/ goals for learning Chinese), perception of the difficulty of learning Chinese and other background information. Post-course surveys were given to students at the end of the penultimate teaching unit (November 2013 and April 2014, respectively) to assess the students’ orientations for continuing study, feedback on the motivational degree of tasks, perception of the difficulty of learning Chinese, course evaluation and overall satisfaction. As mentioned above, the study presented in Paper 4 was conducted in an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design (see its prototype in Figure 4-2). As Figure 4-2 shows, the data collected by qualitative methods is followed by the data generated by quantitative methods. Thus, following the collection and analysis of survey data in this study, group interviews were conducted to gain insight into what had been related to the orientation changes in the given context.

Figure 4-2 The prototype of an explanatory sequential mixed-method design (Creswell &

Clark, 2011)

In this paper, data were collected from three group interviews (12 participants in total, 6 male) in 2013 and two group interviews (13 participants in total, 6 male) in 2014. Participation in group interviews was voluntary. In 2013, three group interviews were conducted right after the last teaching unit in each class. In 2014, since there was only one class with a large number of students, two group interviews were conducted separately, one right after the last teaching unit and one the week after completion of the course. The group interviews were semi-structured, focusing on students’ feedback on the course design and the learning experience of the course with regard to factors including their satisfaction, their perception of learning Chinese, and others. Both audio and video recordings of the interviews were taken, with the permission of the interviewees, and some of my thoughts were noted during the interviews. Each interview ran for approximately 60 minutes.