Research Methods in Language Teaching and Learning

In this research, different types of data were collected with varied purposes. This necessitated implementing different methods for data analysis. The quantitative data were collected through closed-ended items included in initial, post-session and final student questionnaires. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze items, which aimed to reveal general tendencies of the participants (e.g., the usefulness and the effectiveness of activities) and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to explore possible changes in participants’ responses to the same items in initial and final questionnaire (e.g., satisfaction with speaking ability, perceived engagement in speaking activities).

Qualitative data were collected with four different purposes: (a) describing classroom procedure, (b) identifying general tendencies, (c) understanding different cases, and (d) generating a theory. The differing purposes made it necessary to find the right data analysis for each purpose. The first objective was addressed through observations. I referred to chronologies of classroom events to analyze my field notes of observations. As proposed by Patton (1980), I identified key events in the classroom procedure by focusing on the interviewees. The second objective was addressed through open-ended items included in student initial, postsession, and final questionnaires. Qualitative content analysis of the data was implemented, as this enabled me to identify schema of categories and compare different cases (Flick, 2006). I used inductive coding, in which the categories emerged from the data rather than the literature or theory (Burns, 2010a). To do this, I read the data several times, coded and categorized these, and then listed them in descending order to reveal the most commonly recurring themes. The third objective was concerned with understanding the interviewees. I analyzed teacher and student interviews using case analysis, focusing on each person individually (Patton, 1980). I was not interested in finding out the differences and similarities among the interviewees, but rather to understand how each interviewee’s responses differed throughout the study. To do this, I conducted qualitative content analysis and compared their responses to earlier interviews. The final qualitative data was collected in Stage 3. This stage aimed to develop a new understanding of the situation through exploring the impacts of student-negotiated speaking classes on issues that were relevant to the scope of this research.

As can be seen in Table 3.1, three main constructs seemed to hinder participants’ satisfactions with their speaking ability: being not fluent, lack of practice opportunities, and anxiety. These emerged as important issues that we needed to take into account in designing speaking activities.

Table 3.1 shows a sample analysis of the data collected in student initial questionnaire. The open-ended item asked participants to comment on their satisfactions with their speaking ability.

All of the analyses were implemented with the purpose of generating a new theory about the possible outcomes of student-negotiated speaking classes. To do so, we scrutinized our interpretation of the data collected throughout the study. Table 3.2shows how each data source contributed to developing the theory.

Table 3.2 Sources of findings related to developing a theory

As displayed in Table 3.2, observation and questionnaire data revealed several problems that participants encountered in the class. These findings informed the designs of our research interventions in Stage 2. We developed the theory based on the findings of the final questionnaire, which revealed positive outcomes of student-negotiated speaking classes. These data led to developing an assumption regarding the role of student negotiation in EFL speaking classes, which was that it increases student engagement in speaking activities by means of fostering positive affective states such as motivation, perceived speaking competence, perceived speaking fluency, willingness to communicate and self-esteem. This hypothesis was the outcome of grounded theory.

In qualitative research studies, the subjective involvement of researchers is acknowledged, because they are seen as a natural part of research. They make important decisions and interpretations throughout the research and these are inevitably informed by their subjective viewpoints. This is considered to be a strength of qualitative research. However, with regard to data analysis, relying on researchers’ subjective intuition is questionable, because this might lead to making wrong interpretations. Miles and Huberman (1994) do not consider this to be a strength of qualitative research and assert that qualitative data analysis should be systematic and methodology-driven.

One of the significant methodologies for qualitative research is grounded theory. Strauss and Corbin (1998) describe grounded theory as a “general methodology for developing theory that is grounded in data systematically gathered and analyzed” (p. 158). It proposes carefully planned steps of developing a theory (Crotty, 1998), and hence, it is “a systematic process of developing a theoretical hypothesis from descriptive data” (Perry, 2005, p. 75).