CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
3.2 Research context and participants
3.2.3 Teacher Participant
Apart from students, course instructor was also included. Instructor Hsiao is very young and just completed PhD degree from one Taiwanese prestigious university.
During the period of data collection, it was her second semester teaching in the
institution. Because she offered required course for second-year students last semester, she was quite familiar with their in-class performance. However, even though she did not offer course for first-year students before, information about this group was gained from chatting with other instructors. Their observations indicated that
relationship among these 6 first-year students are unusually close, compared to those in previous years. When it comes to course interactions, the instructor “felt very relieved that the seniors took this course,” as she phrased it. She believed the second year students can also guide novice ones to participate in her class.
Before the start of spring session, I invited the instructor to share her perceptions and expectations of how good oral presentations are characterized. Fortunately, I received the instructor’s approval to participate. At the first class, instructor left 10 minutes for me to officially describe main goals and ways of involvement in the study to all participants. At the same day, I left students with copy of Informed Consent Form (see Appendix D) for their consideration. Signed consent forms were then collected within following few days. Available access to the course includes observations, video taping student presentations, at least one interview with the instructor and collections of all written documents.
3.3 Data collection
Following the tradition of language socialization research, multiple data
collection strategies were used to ensure trustworthiness of the study (Lincoln & Guba, 1995; Merriam, 1998). It is widely considered the major technique to help researchers
confirm emerging themes and meaning (Merriam, 1998). Accordingly, all data gathered within four months included class observation, interview with students and instructors, video-recording of oral presentations, collection of written documents.
3.3.1 Beginning-of-semester survey
On the first week after class, copies of survey questionnaire (see Appendix E) were handed to all focal participants. Because some of them preferred to type on computers, electric version was e-mailed to all the participants a few days after. The purpose of this survey was to gain information regarding participants’ biographical information, education background, teaching experiences, expectations about their graduate studies, perceptions of their roles in the program, course-taking and future career plans. In cases when their responses were needed further explanations, I would clarify their meanings in the first interview.
3.3.2 Interviews and conversations with students
Semi-structured interviews with focal students from February to June 2009 were the primary data source in this study. Average length of each interview lasted from 20 minutes to an hour. Prepared prompts (see sample questions in Appendix F) would be explained to the interviewees before the recordings. Interviews were conducted in Mandarin Chinese; yet, code-switching to English happened very often. Throughout the whole semester, each student was interviewed four times (some were five times due to their tight schedules). Constant conversations were also permitted to be recorded while they shared reflections on course interactions, instructors’ comments, content of lectures, and observations on their own and others’ oral presentations.
Hence, the data pool consisted of over 50 recordings, total in excess of 40 hours of audio-recorded conversations.
First interview was conducted within first three weeks. The purpose was to gain information about their (1) current reflections and concerns on instructor’s guidelines/
requirements regarding OAPs, (2) conceptions of OAPs and (3) other courses they are taking and schedule for interviews. The second and third interview then held after each one’s presentations. Students were asked to send me their electric PowerPoint files before their in-class presentations. Moreover, to document the process of their PowerPoint composing, focal students were required to save slides in separate files whenever content was re-arranged4. While conducting second interview, I would print out all the versions of PowerPoint slides, bring the research article, and ask prepared questions to elicit their preparation processes. Most of the time, the second interview was held in computer lab in case students felt the need to refer to visual images on slides. With the presence of samples, it is suggested to facilitate interviewees discuss in detail a particular piece of work (Gass & Mackey, 2000; Seror, 2009).
Within one to two weeks after the second interview, the third one focused on participants’ own evaluations on their presentations. According to course requirement, instructor asked course takers to view their own recorded video and wrote a critique about it. Particular criteria were based on a list of characteristics regarding a good oral academic presentation from Morita’s study (2000). Based on their written reflections, I would reconfirm the meanings and elicit their own list of characteristics and
perceptions of this task. Last interview was held in the same week of last course meeting. Students were invited to discuss (a) what they have learned from the course, (b) any changes of their perceptions/ conceptions of OAPs and (c) suggestions for course instructors about preferred organization of OAPs.
4 During preparation phase, some students may not complete their PowerPoint slides in one time.
There are also possibilities students keep modifying the content or adding new information before final display. By saving all the changing in various versions, I would be able to see their composing
strategies or even struggles. Section 3.3.5 will still refer to the electric documents.
The prepared open-ended questions were informed by research inquiry and tried to discuss various aspects of students’ experiences and feelings. The choice of the semi-structured format enabled flexibility in conversations with interviewees. More emerging questions were based on their responses, developing an “authentic”
understanding of each person’s perspectives (Silverman, 2003; Kobayashi, 2004).
Except scheduled interviews, some interesting insights were gained from daily conversations with focal students. These conversations could take place right before or after the course meetings with one or more students. It was used to compensate my failed attempt to have focal students keep journals in response to my guided questions.
Students found any type of written responses extra burden to their already heavy workload. Therefore, we decided to have more talks with their permission of
recording sometimes, so I could trace their ongoing reactions and lived experiences in courses.
3.3.3 Interviews and conversations with instructor
Interviewing with course instructor was in the same format of that with the focal students. It was semi-structured, informal and audio-recorded. One scheduled
interview was held after the course ended. It lasted one and a half hour and was
conducted in Mandarin Chinese5. Prepared sample questions (see Appendix G) invited the instructor to share (1) perspectives and expectations of what functions and
purposes do OAPs fulfill, (2) the rationale for the pre-set requirements for OAPs, (3) evaluative remarks on students’ performances, and (4) expectations of focal students’
participation in course. The data is valuable because instructor plays important role in students’ socialization process (Morita, 2002; Kobayashi, 2004). Her viewpoints
5 Excerpts from interviews and written documents were all translated from Chinese to English by the researcher. In cases when some are originally in English would be marked with note [original in English].
provided another angle viewing students’ classroom experiences which would be used for data triangulation.
3.3.4 Observation and video-recording of classroom discourse
On an ongoing basis, class observations were another major part of the data pool.
To closely document participants’ course participation and experiences of OAPs, only observing in one course can not represent what they are dealing with (Morita, 2002).
Also revealed from conversations, students were fully aware of their different ways of preparation and participation cross courses. Learning occurs as a “cumulative effects”
(Kobayashi, 2004, p 63); what they have picked up from other courses may contribute to current beliefs, attitudes and performances. Therefore, with instructors’ permission, I observed two (course ITE1001 and ITE1002) out of three courses taken by all six first-year students. Yet, primary data for analysis was from course ITE1002 which required presentations of research articles. Observations in course ITE1001 would serve as extra sources for interviews, comparisons and triangulation6. In all, 18 out of 18 ITE1002 lessons and 7 out of 16 ITE 1001 lessons were observed, which compiled a total of 75 hours observations.
While sitting in courses, I kept written records of course events, procedures and instructor-student interactions on my field note sheet (see Appendix H). I was
permitted to record the periods when students were giving presentations. Lights in the front row were always turned off in order for audience to clearly see the content on the PowerPoint slides. The video camera was kept in certain distance from the speaker in order to capture also the projected screen. In such circumstances, quality of the
6 Course ITE1001 was a required course for first-year students during the research period. Among 8 student participants, six first-year students were all taking the course. Remaining two second-year students have already taken the course a semester before. Moreover, the two seniors only took ITE1002 when participating in the research, so I was not able to observe them in other courses.
recordings sometimes was poor. Thus, I also utilized software Camtasia Studio 6.0 to ensure clear oral and visual output – students’ voices and PowerPoint display on computer screen. Camtasia allows users to record presentations by capturing full-motion screen recordings as well as the speaker’s narration though microphone (see Figure 1). Each time when students present, they would attach little microphone onto their collar and press “recording” button. During presentations, I would observe the presenter, display of PowerPoint slides, and rest of the students, including the instructor. Recording files would then be immediately saved in classroom computer whenever it stopped recording.
Figure 1. PowerPoint interface with Camtasia Add-in
Ongoing written records systematically helped me to trace development of the course and structures of OAPs (Morita, 2002). Collections of impressions, thoughts and emerging hypothesis all turned into themes or questions for further exploration.
Recordings, on the other hand, enabled me to capture the dynamic of the situation. It would a primary data set showing the speaker’s gestures, interaction with the
audience and the use of PowerPoint slides for visual communication.
3.3.5 Collection of relevant documents
Written documents relevant to OAPs were collected whenever possible from students. Course syllabus, for example, provides not only course outline,
recommended and required readings but also guidelines for each course task and Speakers need to
press this “Record”
button before presentations.
assignment. Course handouts from the course instructor and those prepared by students for presentations were also collected. Presenters usually printed out
PowerPoint slides in format of handouts – six slides in one page; in such case, other peers can take notes. More relevant documents included students’ self-critiques of their presentations, written descriptions about their perceived roles during
presentations and final proposal outlines. Among all, one particularly valuable document linked to students’ composing processes of PowerPoint slides was the different versions of their electric files. Students were required to separately save PowerPoint slides if they modified the content several times. In doing so, students would be able to explain their reasons for selecting content from written text and slide organization.
Table 3.2 Summarizes the data collection methods and database Method Data collection period in two courses (75 hours of observation)
Interview 3: After student’s self-critique report
data set): student
presentations (1.5 hour x 6 OAPs)
Guidelines for course work
Handouts for presentations
Self-critique report on viewing own presentation
Electronic files of PowerPoint slides (every version during composing processes)
3.4 Transcription procedures and conventions
Large proportion of data pool was audio-recorded. All interviews were transcribed and some relevant sections of oral academic presentations were
transcribed as well. Relevant issues to research inquiry from daily conversations with focal students would be adopted and transcribed as source for further analysis. The transcription conventions employed are detailed in Appendix I.
3.5 Data analysis
According to Merriam (1998), “data analysis is a process of making sense out of data” (p.192). Facing considerable amount of the data pool, data management is particularly important in generating findings. I followed suggested principles as in
tradition of qualitative research to grapple with intensive descriptions of more than one case. It was a cyclical and complex process, reviewing back and forth between cases, between raw data and grounded themes, and between descriptions and
interpretations. Moreover, the process involved steps to organize, categorize, sort and search the data both within- and cross-cases. As mentioned earlier, the thesis focused on course ITE1002 and 8 course takers’ socialization experiences in undertaking oral academic presentations. The observation data from course ITE1001 was used to supplement case descriptions and data triangulation.
First of all, collected data by different methods were kept in different files. Also, I created separate files for each participant, assembling all raw data about the person.
Descriptive display of each case and different data set helped move to next analytical level (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This would allow me to develop sense of individual characteristic, perspectives, behavioral patterns and tentative themes. At primary stage, focus was on a case-specific basis (Séror, 2008). Transcribed interviews and
recordings were categorized under each individual’s name. Each student’s responses then called for further triangulation by comparing with field notes from class
observations and written documents. I repeatedly reviewed raw data and looked for
“recurring regularities” (Patton, 1990). Next, separate case summaries would be created for every focal participant. It was used to identify individual’s patterns of belief, preparation and performances involving OAPs and the link between these three to the settings (Marshall & Rossman, 2006).
The next stage moved to cross-case analysis, such as comparisons between instructor’s and students’ conceptions of OAPs. The process started with “grouping together answers from different people to common questions or analyzing different perspectives on central issues” (Patton, 1990, p.376). I then developed coding
categories, trying to recollect main themes and patterns evident from individual case.
The attempt was to see “processes and outcomes that occur across many cases” and
“develop more sophisticated description and more powerful explanations” (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). Except indicated by data itself, more theoretical categories were generated by consulting relevant literature (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003; Morita, 2002).
Again, returning back to transcripts and documents, following steps involved sorting every unit of data into which category they belonged.
After coding the data, another major decision concerning how themes would be associated and organized in reports. The conclusion, according to Duff (2008), needed to be “plausible and coherent and well supported by evidence” (p.163). Therefore, patterns and themes were presented accompanied by quotes and examples from documents. Moreover, focal students in part contributed to the credibility of final reports by responding to any misunderstanding occurred concerning my
interpretations. It was hoped that this study would draw insightful implications on the role of OAPs in Taiwanese TESOL graduates’ socialization processes into disciplinary learning.
3.6 The researcher and the researched
My relationship with the focal students constitutes a notable feature in this study.
We share same linguistic backgrounds, have studied English as our major in
undergraduate study, and are now experiencing same academic training in a Taiwan TESOL program. To them, I am not only an insider but a “senior” – hsueh chieh in Chinese, whom they resort to when facing concerns about written assignment, final projects and course-taking decisions. We developed a close relationship through daily chit chat. The rapport and friendly interaction are believed to make them more willing and encouraged to express their perspectives.
At the course, I was a participant as observer involving “in the setting’s central
activities, assuming responsibilities that advance the group, but without fully committing [myself] to members’ values and goals” (Adler and Adler, 1994, p. 380, cited in Merriam, 1998). I did all the course work that focal students were required, including carefully read each presented article. Although full participation was not able to reach, my field experiences would facilitate my understanding of students’
explanations for their own rationales or processes of OAP formation. On the other hand, students’ awareness of self-learning through giving oral academic presentations might be aroused. As I was informed in the last interview, focal students mentioned that they have never thought about what purposes do OAPs fulfill and how they have improved by giving OAPs. This suggested reciprocal effects that bring changes to both parties (Morita, 2002, 2004).
However, there are also drawbacks of this method. The danger of being a participant as observer is that I may go too “native” into the research group and lose fresh perspectives as observers. In addition, my researcher identity and performance at the class may be strongly identified so that affects the student and instructor participants’ practices. According to Merriam (1998), “the question, then, is not whether the process of observing affects what is observed but how the researcher can identify those effects and account for them in interpreting the data” (p. 103). Thus, I acknowledged my primary role as interpreter to the situated learning environment; yet, it shall be noticed that every individual presented themselves unique personal
histories and occupied different positions and roles (Morita, 2002).
CHAPTER 4 DEVELOPMENT OF DISCIPLINARY EXPERTISE RQ1: How do oral academic presentations facilitate the focal students to develop
disciplinary expertise in knowledge consumption and dissemination?
In answering research question 1, the results are addressed in terms of knowledge consumption and knowledge dissemination. The chapter ends by
summarizing and discussing how giving OAPs socialize students to the practices of knowledge consumption and dissemination.
4.1 knowledge consumption
In terms of knowledge consumption, major findings pertain to the focal students’
(a) reading processes and (b) three reading foci of research articles (identify important information, think about the logic, and appreciate the research and the language).
4.1.1 Reading Process: three approaches to texts
Overall speaking, all students expressed having different reading processes opposed to casual reading at times when they do not have to present articles. For example, Monti wrote in her written report, “Before presenting the article, I thought I needed to read in detail and know more than my peers for the reason that I was the presenter” (original in English). To these student presenters, it is the presenters’
responsibility to have good comprehension of written texts and display the essence of a research article. As shown from the data, students dig deeper rather than focus on surface level comprehension throughout the reading processes. There were three obvious approaches to written texts which concentrated on three levels of information processing: (1) reading for general picture and underlining important sentences, (2) decoding the text and outlining the structure, and (3) using text as reference.
The first approach was a combination of reading for general pictures and underlining important sentences. Since the subject matter was new to students, they focused on learning the knowledge of the topic. In Courtni’s words, “When preparing
for making oral academic presentations, I considered myself as a novice in the academic community” (written report, English in original). She believes that acquiring knowledge of the field study from reading is definitely the priority for novice learners. In addition, student participants marked pieces of information which they might want to show on slides. Ann described, “when I read [for the first time], I may not read in detail. But I will underline; I will highlight the main statement of a paragraph or such as descriptions of participants” (interview, 2009/03/17). Although Monti, Courtni, and Erica, unlike Ann, mentioned they would read carefully right at
for making oral academic presentations, I considered myself as a novice in the academic community” (written report, English in original). She believes that acquiring knowledge of the field study from reading is definitely the priority for novice learners. In addition, student participants marked pieces of information which they might want to show on slides. Ann described, “when I read [for the first time], I may not read in detail. But I will underline; I will highlight the main statement of a paragraph or such as descriptions of participants” (interview, 2009/03/17). Although Monti, Courtni, and Erica, unlike Ann, mentioned they would read carefully right at