3.3. Research Methods
3.3.3. Research Sampling
Johnson and Christensen (2019) define research sampling as the process of selecting the participants who take part in a research. Research sampling is further elaborated by Fraenkel, Wallen and Hyun (2018) by saying that it gives details about two things: research population (or accessible population) and research participants. The data of this study was collected from two different representative samples to answer the two research questions.
To clarify this, the main quantitative data was collected conveniently from 92 Egyptian EFL third-year general secondary students. Those participants were chosen from a total of 113 students based on their results on an Oxford Quick Placement Test (OQPT) to ensure the homogeneity of the participants in terms of language proficiency level prior to the experiment, then equally divided into two intact groups of 46 students per each (see Appendix “C” for a copy of the placement test and samples of students’ answer sheets).
175
The selected participants were split into two intact groups because the random assignment of participants was not possible, as each participant did not have the equal chance of being assigned to either group, but rather each group was taken as a whole. Moreover, this sample was conveniently selected from this school for three main reasons. Firstly, the researcher was able to readily access this research site. Secondly, he expected no loss in the research sample during the treatment. Thirdly, more importantly, the research sample seemed to be a representative sample of the accessible population (10 % out of 1000 students).
Furthermore, the qualitative data was collected purposively from eight teachers because they were the only teachers who had ample knowledge of TBI and its practices through a pilot questionnaire conducted before the treatment. This pilot questionnaire was conducted to ensure the participating teachers’ awareness of the espoused TBI approach and also to ensure the unfamiliarity of the control group’s teacher with TBI. Thus, to rationalize our selection of the qualitative sample, we can say that the qualitative sample was purposively selected from eight teachers for two main reasons. Firstly, the assigned teachers were the only qualified teachers who provided the researcher with the required information. Secondly, this sample seemed to be a representative sample of the accessible population (10 % out of the quantitative sample).
A note to mention is that the regular class size in the current research site is 45 students per class. However, due to Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) and the associated social distancing, the school principal, based on a circulation from MoE, decided to split one class into two classes and to confine the attendance of each grade to two days per week. So, to ensure the representative quantitative sample, while at the same time mitigating any external factors that may affect students’ performance on the post-test other than the experiment, each group was divided into two classes with 23 students per each and taught by the same teacher. Moreover, it
176
was decided by the researcher in coordination with the class teachers to expose the participating students to the two investigated teaching approaches during their presence at school. Also, for the purpose of analyzing the quantitative data, the experimental and control groups’ scores on the pre-post tests were wholly considered.
It should also be noted that, 93 students were primarily chosen for the experiment based on their results on the placement test. However, one student later apologized for not attending the school during the period of the experiment for health issues and then his inability to participate in the experiment. Thus, the total number of the participating students reached 92 constituting the first research sample. Similarly, the researcher got the initial consent of 9 teachers to do the expected semi-structured interviews. Nevertheless, one teacher was unavailable at the time of conducting this type of interviews, and thus, only 8 teachers, forming the second research sample, were interviewed to get the necessary descriptive data.
Adding more detail to the two research samples, the participants of the quantitative sample, were all Egyptian male students, aging between 17 and 18 years old. They all studied English as a second language for almost eleven years, and thus, it was expected from them to have an adequate English proficiency level to take part in the experiment. Besides, Table (5) displayed the necessary demographic information about the eight participating teachers including their gender, age, qualifications, the total years of experience as English teachers, the type of schools they work in, the educational secondary level of students and finally the number of courses, workshops or programs attended to increase their awareness of TBI and its practices in the classroom context. To easily refer to the eight participating teachers during the analysis phase of this thesis, they were coded as Teachers A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H successively.
Demographic The participating teachers
177
information A B C D E F G H
Gender Male Male Male Male Male Male Female Female
Age 36 39 29 33 41 32 40 33
Qualifications Master Master
1st graduate diploma
Bachelor Master
2nd graduate diploma
Master Bachelor Total years of
experience 14 15 9 5 18 8 - 9 16 11
Type of
schools Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Educational
secondary level
3rdyear
All secondary
levels
1styear 1styear 3rdyear 2nd year 1styear 1styear Courses,
and/or workshops
0 0 2 0 0 0 5 or
more 0
Table 5: Interviewees’ Demographic Information