PROVISIONAL TITLE
2.2 Data Collection Instruments
2.2.4 An Interactive Workshop
Due to the nature of my study and the level of learners (Grades 5 - 7) as the main target group from which I have to gather the data I need, the appropriateness of taking a rigorous qualitative approach and spending time in deciding on the appropriate methods are necessary. I therefore decided to use an interactive workshop approach for data gathering.
9
According to van Harrnelen et al (2001 :36) "a structured interactive workshop is seen to provide opportunities for data gathering in a 'natural' setting in the sense that the data is captured in a learning and teaching situation". Again, van Harrnelen et al (2001) contend that the interactive workshop is intended to give a sense of ownership and participation of the researched target group. The workshop will be of particular value as it will provide insights regarding the perceptions of learners about the ESL classroom teaching and learning activities they encounter / experience. As van Harmelen et al (2001 :36) puts it:
"a particular advantage of interactive workshops is that the activities can be specifically designed and developed to focus on particular sets of outcomes, they can as easily focus on individual learning as on group interactions". As part of the interactive workshop learners would be asked to write a one-page composition about what they like and dislike about English.
In selecting this tool, it will be used to crosscheck the data gathered during questionnaires, observations and interviews. Only one such workshop will be held with a relatively large group of learners.
2.2.5 Focus Group Discussions
Focus group discussions are chosen as one of the data collection tools because the learners selected for this exercise will be able to give their experience and perspectives on the nature of ESL classroom activities. According to van Harrnelen et al (2001 :28)
"focus groups can provide a good means of analysing how people interact and discuss issues". T hey are thus useful as they combine elements 0 f participant 0 bservation and individual interviewing. Group discussions with +-4 - 5 students from each of grades 5 - 7 will be conducted. Besides engaging in general discussion about learning English and the types of activities they experience in their classes, this focus group will be asked to elaborate on some of the points to be raised in the compositions. These discussions will also be audio taped and later transcribed.
10
Research Time Table
Month Activity
February - March 2003 Selection of the school where the study would be conducted.
Permission sought from the Regional Education authority.
Approach principal and teachers: negotiate access and a research contract with respective roles, the process obligations and benefits clearly stated.
April 2003 Contact school again and confirm Grades
5,6 & 7 learners and teachers participating.
Visit school for pilot data collection (1 week).
June 2003 Visit the selected school for data collection
July 2003 Completion of data analysis and reflection.
August - October 2003 Write up.
Dissemination
The researcher will write up the paper on the research for national as well as international journals.
11
REFERENCES
1. Allwright, R.L. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied Linguistics, ,2, (1), 156 - 171.
2. Bassey, M. (1995). Creating education through research. Buckingham: Open University Press.
3. Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
4. Block, D. (1994). A day in the life ofa class: Teacher / learner perceptions of task purpose conflict. System, 22, (1) ,473 - 486.
5. Breen, M. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R. K.
Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pP. 187 - 206). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
6. Burgess, R.G. (Ed.). (1985). Field methods in the study of eduction. London:
Falmer.
7. Cantrell, D.C. (1993). Alternative paradigms in environmental education research: The interpretive perspective. In R. Mrazek (ed.), Alternative paradigms in environmental education research (pP. 81 -104). Troy, Ohio: NAAEE.
8. Clarke, M.A. (1994). The dysfunctions of theory / practice discourse.
TESOL Quarterly, 28 (1), 9 - 26.
9. Cohen, 1., & Manion, 1. (1994). Research methods in education (4th ed.).
London: Routledge.
10. Connole, H. (1993). "The research enterprise" In issues and methods in research: Study guide. University of South Australia: Underdale.
11. Cray, E., & Currie, P. (1996). Linking adult learners with the education of L2 teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 30 (3), 113 - 130.
12. Ellis, R. (1993). Do -it yourself classroom research. Communique.
(Newsletter of the South African Applied Linguistics Association), PP. 1 - 2.
13. Fien, J. (1992). Education for the environment: Critical curriculum theorising and enviromental education. Deakin University: Deakin University Press.
14. Gardner, R.C., & MacIntyre, P.D. (1993). A student's contributions to second- language learning. Part II: affective variables. Language Teaching, 26 (2), 1- 11.
15. Guba, E. (Ed.). (1991). The paradigm dialog: Options for social science inquiry.
Sage: Beverley Hills.
16. Hopkins, D. (1985). A teacher' guide to classroom research. Milton Keynes:
Open University Press.
17. Janse van Rensburg, E. (2001). An orientation to research. Rhodes Enviromental Education Unit: Grahamstown.
18. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991). Language - Learning tasks: Teacher intention and learner interpretation. ELT Journal, 45 (4), 98 - 107.
19. Lotz, H.B. (1996). The development of environmental education resource materials for Junior Primary Education through teacher participation. The case
of the We Care Primary Project. (pP. 77 - 110). Unpublished D. Ed. Dissertation, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch.
20. Nunan, D. (1989). Hidden agendas: The role of the learner in programme implementation. In R.K.Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (PP.176 - 186). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Rndduck, J. (1991). Innovation and change. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
22. Van Harmelen, U., Adams, J., Avenstrup, R., Van Graan, M., Murray, S., &
Wilmot, D. (2001). Evaluating change: An impact study of the Life Science Project. Ibis: Windhoek.
23. Wals, A. (1993). What you can't measure still exists. In R. Mrazek (Ed.), Alternative paradigms in environmental education research. (pP.32-56). Troy,
Ohio: NAAEE.
24. Wright, T. (1990). Understanding classroom role relationships. In J.C. Richards
& D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (PP.82 - 97).Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.