Literature Review
4.4 Data Collection Techniques
4.4.1 Techniques of Secondary Data Collection
Qualitative and quantitative data from secondary sources were collected through library research. Literature survey technique was used in order to collect secondary data.
This technique was used as a continuous process for developing the study’s conceptual and theoretical aspect as well as to help primary data collection and supplement the primary data. In order to ensure systematic collection of secondary data, the researcher made a list of available literature that included books, recognised journals, electronic journal, and published and unpublished theses. After listing of literature related to the
proposed study, the researcher had taken notes in the note-cards accordingly. The researcher discussed and evaluated the literatures with experts and the supervisor, and he had developed a checklist to collect data from secondary sources systematically.
4.4.2 Techniques of Primary Data Collection
The survey method for empirical study was applied for collecting primary data.
Moreover, relevant methods and procedures were followed for ‘Assessment Test’ and
‘Experiment’. Depending on the objectives and nature of the study, six major techniques were adopted. These are:
a. Students’ questionnaire survey;
b. Teachers’ Questionnaire survey;
c. Principal’s /Headmaster’s interview;
d. Teachers' interview;
e. Classroom observation;
f. Key Informant;
g. Assessment test (of learners’ written English);
h. Experiment on a group at an SSC level school (Case Study).
4.4.2.1 Questionnaire Survey
Two sets of questionnaires were developed for eliciting primary data from students and teachers. In this method questionnaire was prepared with relevant questions or statements to fulfil the set objectives. The form of questions was of different types for students, and most of them were close-ended. Questionnaires for teachers also contained items with diverse type of options; teachers' questionnaires were basically dominated by close-ended questions. Questionnaire survey was conducted in order to find out what kind of activities the students usually perform in the classroom, the size of the classroom, language of the classroom, information about class work, home work, class test, mode of teaching, practice of the micro skills/sub skills of writing, the existing situation of teaching writing, socio-economic background, expenditure, teacher’s salary, educational qualification, training etc.
A professor of Statistics Department of a public university was requested to check and evaluate the questionnaire in terms of face and content validity, practicality, rliability,
wording and the clarity of the items. Most of the items of the questionnaires of teachers and students were built on a five point Likert scale having the options of (i) Not al all (ii) Rarely (iii) Sometimes (iv) Very Often (v) Always. A pilot study was conducted before administering the questionnaire survey to improve the instruments and make the items comprehensible to the respondents. Thus reliability of the questionnaire was ensured.
4.4.2.2 Interview
Required qualitative data were collected through unstructured interview. Heads of the institutions as well as English teachers of the schools were approached separately. In this technique, the researcher made verbal queries and recorded responses on papers. The questions encompassed academic aspects, classroom procedure and issues that could not be addressed through questionnaire. The information collected from the heads of the institutions encompassed academic, infrastructural, social, cultural and financial aspects.
The advantage of this technique was that the researcher succeeded in collecting more in- depth information, and he had the scope of extracting the respondent’s personal information related to the survey.
The interview was pertinent to collect essential data as it was focused on eliciting qualitative data. Moreover, it was a comparative study and this tool was used for eliciting such data that might have been overlooked or missed in questionnaire survey. ‘Interview’
helped the researcher to reach the heart of the issue.
4.4.2.3 Observation
Observation checklist was used to elicit data through direct observation and cross check the data extracted through questionnaires. Data were collected by the researcher’s direct observation of the classroom procedure where both the teachers and students were involved. Here the researcher got the chance to observe practical situation of the classroom. Observation helped the researcher compare the validity and reliability of data collected through questionnaire survey and interview, and to gather supplementary data that might qualify or interpret findings obtained by other techniques. Teacher-student interaction, group work, classroom environment, technical aids and materials, class organization, digression, eliciting techniques, mode of error correction, and feedback were observed.
A professor of Statistics Department of a public university was requested to check and evaluate the observation checklist in terms of face and content validity, practicality, rliability, wording and the clarity of the items. Most of the items of the observation checklist were built on a five point Likert scale having the options of (i) Not al all (ii) Rarely (iii) Sometimes (iv) Very Often (v) Always. Before administering the observation checklist, two classes were observed to improve the instrument and make the items comprehensible to the respondents. Thus reliability of the questionnaire was ensured.
4.4.2.4 Key Informants
Reputed and experienced persons were consulted and interviewed to have their ideas, views and suggestions regarding improvement of the present scenario in the field of English language teaching. They were academics, ELT experts and officials of SSC and O levels Examination Committee. Questions were not formulated earlier to interview them; it was like an unstructured interview.
Academics and ELT experts were at first briefed the issue and then their opinions were sought. Questionnaire survey was conducted on students and teachers. Teachers were interviewed as well. This is why they were not accepted as key informants. The purpose of considering academics, ELT experts and officials of SSC and O level examinations as key infoemants was to have some suggestions and policy guidelines from them.
4.4.2.5 Assessment Test
A special test was designed for the students, and they were provided with three tasks, which were devised conforming to the writing components of the respective syllabuses. The main purpose was to assess the effectiveness of teaching writing;
strengths and weaknesses. Analytic marking scheme was used for checking the scripts, considering that it would provide more information about the nature of weaknesses in writing. Three raters were involved; the researcher himself, and two others, who were experienced in the field of ELT. The marking scheme included internationally recognised criteria. A banding scale, tested in international examinations, was also used for assessing the scripts.
The selection of tasks largely depended on the analysis of the syllabuses and texts of the two levels. When the tasks were selected, the marking scheme was prepared stressing importance on the sub-skills of writing and the areas where emphasis were laid in the syllabuses of SSC and O levels. This was followed by the formation of a banding scale.
In this assessment test, the instrument to collect data on students writing skills contained three subjective writing tasks which required students to produce language, and a scoring scale was designed to measure the quality of the students’ texts; three types of tasks and the presence of a scoring scale ensured that the data obtained had construct validity. No option was given and the tasks were focused on language production. If options were given, it would measure knowledge of the participants instead of skills and thus it would destroy the construct validity of the test. Another source of validity evidence from the instrument was the coverage of the tasks. The tasks (three in numbers) covered the samples of all contents of the domain of the variable to be assessed, and the data obtained could be claimed to have content validity evidence.
In order to attain reliability of the Test it is always suggested that there should be at least two raters for marking the scripts. In this study three raters were appointed to ensure reliability. Reliability of the scores of writing refers also to the preciseness of the writing scores in representing the actual level of the students’ writing skills. The writing scores have high reliability as the scores precisely represent the true level of the students’
writing skill. Consistency in attaining the same type of scores indicates reliability from one point of view, while consistency of marking the same scripts by different raters signifies inter-rater reliability. Marks of two tests were counted and the inter-rater reliability was tested with coefficient of variance.
4.4.2.6 Experiment
After comparing SSC with O level, and taking an assessment test, the researcher was able to find out the strategies for teaching writing skills at the two levels. The researcher then formed a group of students in an SSC level school with the students of class 10 and took classes following the strategies used in O level. Materials of O level were used during the course. Both Pre-test and Post-test were taken during the experiment to explore the effectiveness of the course.
The designing and implementation have been explained in details in chapter 9.