For the purpose of gathering in-depth data for this study, the following research instruments will be employed: these include documentary evidence, observations and interviews.
3.4.1 Documentary evidence
Documentary evidence is a research tool in which documents, in a variety of forms, written or visual, are produced and examined for the purpose of interpreting certain human phenomena (Lunenburg and Irby, 2008). As discussed in the previous chapters of this study, the focus placed on dominant discourses within the HEIs created a further impetus to analyze certain curricular documents within the ALUGS module. These documents include the course outline, course packs and students‟ written texts (tests and assignments). Among these documents, the Faculty handbooks and the module course pack will be considered as the source of empirical knowledge about institutional perspectives of academic literacy at the institution under study. Hence, these two documents will serve the purpose of revealing the Faculty‟s views on academic literacy practices, how it should be taught, to whom it should be taught as well as the strategies envisaged by the Faculty towards making such practices accessible to the students. Accordingly, these documents will be representing the Faculty‟s values and beliefs regarding the module.
On the other hand, nothing else reveals the situation of students‟ writing practices than their own written work. Thus, students‟ written texts comprising their assignments and tests within the module were analyzed to reveal their knowledge and understanding of academic writing.
Consequently, their major written assignment, an academic essay and the two written tests in the second semester of the 2014 academic session were analyzed. All these documents- comprising the institutional perspective of literacy and the students‟ understanding of literacy were analyzed to assist in uncovering “underlying causal mechanisms that produce events (in the classroom) and influence students‟ experiences of academic literacy” (Bengesai, 2012, pp. 109-110) at the university under study.
The table below shows the document analysis schedule:
67 Figure 3.1 Document analysis schedule
Text type Number of texts Year
Faculty handbook 1 2014
ALUGS course pack 1 2014
Students‟ written assignments 4 2014
The document analysis schedule shown in Figure 4.1 was employed to reveal the number of documents used in carrying out this study. Thus, the 2014 Faculty handbook and the 2014, second semester‟s ALUGS course pack will be used to examine the institutional perspective on the module. The major assignment written by students on Hyland‟s (1992) argument for the genre approach to the teaching of writing was used in examining their writing practices within the module. Thus, six documents were used as documentary evidence in the present study to corroborate what was said during the interviews. However, irrespective of r how effective such documents are, they may be confusing and may even lose their effectiveness if the researcher does not have a specific purpose for using them. Consequently, the rationale for examining the Faculty handbook was to reveal the nature, audience, purpose and objectives as well as the history of the ALUGS module. Apart from this, the module course pack was examined for the purpose of analyzing the privileged D/discourse; content, purpose, pedagogy, outline, and outcome of the module. This was used to assist in the understanding of why writing is taught the way it is being taught within the module; that it is the contents of the course pack that dictate what is to be taught and how it should be taught.. The students‟ written work was used to examine their writing practices in relation to D/discourses, issues of social identity, voice, feedback on written texts, as well as student‟s knowledge and beliefs about academic writing.
The implication of this is that the documentary evidence was employed to assist the researcher in answering the second research question: “Why is writing taught the way it is being taught?”
3.4.3 Observation
According to Simpson and Tuson (2003) observation goes beyond mere looking, but is a systematic looking and noting of people, events, behaviours, settings, artifacts, routines and so on. This technique is distinctive in that it offers the researcher (observer) the privilege of gathering live data from naturally occurring social situations. In addition to this, Robson (2002,
68
p. 310) adds that „what people do may differ from what they say they do‟. Apart from this, it is obvious that observational data helps in enabling the researcher to „enter‟ and understand the situation that is being described. In order be part of (enter) the situation under study and for the purpose of understanding it, the researcher has chosen to be a participant observer. A participant observer becomes an empathic, sympathetic member of a group in order to gain access into the insiders‟ behaviour and activities, while still acting as a researcher with a degree of detachment (Simpson and Tuson, 2003). This technique was selected with the knowledge that it would provide the opportunity to gather descriptive and in-depth data from the students. They will in time consider the researcher as a supporter of their learning, and will begin to feel at ease with him. Thus, the choice of this technique will enable the gathering of rich data for the study.
Due to the fact that the researcher is also presently teaching the module, a total number of six tutorials and one lecture were observed, the reason being that most of the tutorials in the second semester of 2014 were held at the same hours; they are all double-period tutorials and lectures.
Two of the tutorial sections were audio recorded and the remaining two were observed using field-notes. The lectures also were audio recorded and the field-notes were used as well.
Furthermore, the researcher took pictures of some of the events happening in these classes. The first research question, how writing is taught within the ALUGS module, prompted the researcher to focus on the way lecturers and tutors teach in the classroom. The privileged perspective of academic literacy, as discussed in chapters two and three of this study, also necessitated the inclusion of issues of power, identities, as well as interaction. Within this perspective, knowledge is said accessible only when there is a level of interaction between the apprentices and the expert (Gee, 2006). Consequently, addressing these limited issues assisted in understanding how lecturers and tutors teach writing and why they teach it the way they do. The contents of the observation schedule are shown in figure 4-3 below.
Figure 3.2 Classroom observation schedule
Focus Notes
Teaching method Level of interaction
69 Teaching objectives
Classroom situation Student motivation
3.4.4 Interviews
Interviews are methods of gathering data via oral questioning through the use of a set of pre- planned questions. This technique is advantageous in that only a few participants are needed to gather rich and in-depth data. Moreover, it allows for direct interaction between the participants and the interviewer. Scholars such as Genise (2002) and Shneiderman and Plaistant (2005), describe the main merits of the interview method in data generation as follows:
i) it involves direct contact between the interviewer and the participant resulting in specific and constructive suggestions;
ii) it is essential in gathering detailed information;
iii) it requires only a few participants to generate in-depth and detailed data.
In line with the needs, purpose and design of the research, interviews can be structured, unstructured and semi-structured. However, for the purpose of this study, semi-structured face- to-face type interviews, with open-ended questions will be used to gather descriptive data in the participants‟ own words. Semi-structured interviews are commonly used to obtain open-ended responses from research participants by asking them open-ended questions rather than observing them, (Tuckman & Harper, 2012, p. 246). Moreover, for the purpose of consistency, a set of pre- planned questions are used by the interviewer in order to cover the same areas of interest with each participant in the course of the interview. This research technique also gives the participant the privilege of detailing and providing more relevant information as the interview progresses.
This technique will assist in the gathering of information about students‟ writing experiences within the module in students‟ own voices. Below is the interview schedule for the study.
70 Figure 3.3 Interview schedule
Interview schedule
- How do you find the ALUGS module?
- Is there any difference or similarity between the teaching of writing in the ALUGS module and the way you were taught in high schools? If yes, explain.
- Did you receive any training before you started tutoring the ALUGS module? If yes, explain.
- If not, what is your opinion about providing in-service training for tutors, especially those outside the field of language studies?
- Are you restricted to a particular way of teaching in the ALUGS module, or you are allowed to make choices in your approach?