Rachelle Medenilla

Chapter 3
Research Design and Methods
3.0 Introduction
This chapter describes the methods used to collect data in this study and explains their
appropriateness to the exploration of the three research questions outlined at the end of the
previous chapter.
In order to answer the three questions posed in Section 2.6 above, a methodology which
would allow the elicitation of the teachers’ beliefs and assumptions and their perceptions of
change and focus in second language education in a range of diverse teaching contexts in
Queensland was necessary. A mixed-method research design was used which involved two
phases of data collection, as depicted in Figure 3.1.
Phase 1 Phase 2
Self-report survey of all language teachers in the state Focus group interviews of both primary and secondary
looking at a range of issues raised by current policy teachers drawn from the original respondents to explore
decisions and the inclusion of LOTE in the core in more detail a number of issues arising from the
curriculum. original survey and to provide qualitative data to
support the quantitative data from Phase 1.
Figure 3.1: Phases of research design
The first phase involved a broad quantitative survey of LOTE teachers across the state by
using a self-report questionnaire designed to explore the extent to which teachers have shared
views of the place of LOTE in the curriculum and the purpose of the programs in which they
are engaged. As discussed in the previous chapter, research suggests that subject cultures can
be strong and extend across the variety of school contexts in which teachers work. Such
subject cultures are socially constructed and are influenced by and, in turn, influence the
beliefs and assumptions of teachers engaged in teaching a given subject. The expansion of
LOTE teaching and the change in focus resulting from its introduction to the primary program
and then to the core curriculum with a stronger emphasis than in the past both on proficiency
outcomes and the inclusion of Asian languages has brought new players to the moving mosaic
(Hargreaves, 1994) that makes up the statewide context. The survey data in this study were
117
designed to explore the extent to which the subject culture among language teachers is
consistent or fragmented and to explore whether different school sectors, affiliations or
language groups form distinctive subgroups. Details of the design and trialling of the survey
and administrative procedures are provided in the following section.
Phase 2 of the study involved a series of focus groups in which primary and secondary
teachers were invited to comment on issues identified through the survey and ongoing
changes in the LOTE program such as the development and trialling of a new syllabus. The
second phase which used a qualitative methodology was undertaken in recognition of the most
common criticism of surveys, namely, that the preset response categories may limit the way in
which respondents can answer a question (Foddy, 1993) . The focus groups were designed to
give respondents an opportunity to explore issues more openly from their own perspective,
thus reaching beyond the survey to discover why they act, think, and feel as they do (Vaughn,
Schumm & Sinagub, 1996:2) . The data were then used to assist in the interpretation of the
survey data. Given the interplay between teaching or subject matter culture and teachers’ own
beliefs, assumptions and knowledge, focus group discussions presented an instance of the sort
of negotiation whereby teachers’ understanding can evolve and change over time.
The overall study design thus sought to move from a broad perspective of the language
teaching profession in Queensland to the more concrete contextualised experience of small
groups of teachers discussing issues from the perspective of their individual schools and in
response to the evolving LOTE teaching context. The focus groups took place twelve months
after the original questionnaire and so included discussion of the new trial syllabus which had
been developed in the intervening period. The professional practices of individual language
teachers evolve over time and are the product of the balance they achieve between their
intentions - largely the product of their interpretation of their job through the filter of their
background beliefs, assumptions and knowledge - and the different contextual constraints and
pressures which impinge on their freedom of action. Both intentions and constraints are
influenced by the sociocultural context as reflected in the biographies of the teachers and the
culture of the education system and the individual schools in which they work.
118
3.1 Phase 1 - Self report questionnaire
Phase 1 of the study involved a survey of LOTE teachers in Queensland to investigate their
perceptions of the place of LOTE in the curriculum and the impact of policy changes on
professional practice. The advantage of a self-report questionnaire is that it permits the
collection of standardised, quantifiable information from a large, geographically scattered
population (Gay, 1992) . Because all respondents deal with the same set of questions, data are
easier to analyse for patterns than data acquired by less structured techniques (Lynch, 1996).
As discussed in the previous chapter, colleagues are important reality definers for individual
teachers (Dalton, 1988; Bailey, Berrell & Gibson, 1991) and so play an important role in
establishing the teaching culture of different subject areas in schools. Given the quite radical
changes to the status of LOTE and the expansion of LOTE, particularly into the primary
school, but also its higher profile in secondary schools where many more students are taking a
language in Year 12, it was deemed important to try to get a group perspective on the
language teaching culture to see to what extent there is consensus or a range of conflicting
views influencing teaching practices. The instrument was developed specifically for this study
to reflect local issues identified by the researcher from the literature and from her position as a
teacher educator with frequent contact with school programs. While an outsider to the situated
context of school and classroom, this involvement gives her a “‘member’s competence’, i.e.
an ability to interpret teachers’ statements within the range of meanings normal to the
language teaching profession” (Woods, 1996:49). While responses to a self-report
questionnaire reflect the individual respondents’ interpretation of the questions in the light of
their experience of their own teaching context (Foddy, 1993) and their reading of the
questioner’s intent, the sum of these interpretations nevertheless forms part of the context in
which teachers work and so influences the socially constructed norms which determine, in
part at least, what it means to be a language teacher in Queensland.
The use of a survey also made it possible to raise a series of issues with respondents which
reflect the current thinking in second language learning/teaching research in order to establish
to what extent teachers felt these perspectives were true of their own teaching practice. The
119
final questionnaire is attached in Appendix 1. The instrument was developed, trialled and
modified as described in the following sections.
3.1.1 Design of the instrument

The draft survey was developed based on issues in the language education literature and
initially consisted of seven sections which covered a range of questions aimed at tapping
respondents’ experience and behaviour, opinions, values, and knowledge as well information
about their background and demography (Patton, 1990). Mindful of the length of the survey
and of the need not to turn people off by requiring lengthy responses (Gay, 1992), most
sections required respondents either to select an appropriate response from the choices
provided in a variety of formats or to give a one or two word answer. While this meant some
detail was lost, it reduced the time required to complete the questionnaire. Where appropriate,
space was provided for comments or alternative responses to ensure the information provided
reflected as accurately as possible the intentions of respondents.
The following description outlines details of the original questionnaire. The modifications that
were made as a result of the trialling are discussed in Section 3.1.3.
3.1.1.1 Teacher details

The first section sought details of the respondents’ profile including gender, qualifications,
language(s) taught, years of experience, experience in the target culture, year levels taught in
current year, and status of languages as a preferred teaching area and a major or minor part of
the respondents’ current teaching load. Respondents were also asked to indicate whether they
had taken a proficiency interview prior to being employed as a language teacher. Since 1993
teachers in Queensland have been required to take a language proficiency interview when
seeking employment as a LOTE teacher with Education Queensland. This requirement has
aimed at improving the proficiency level of teachers to ensure they have the level required to
achieve the improved proficiency outcomes implicit in the LOTE Initiative and subsequently
specified in policy documents such as the CoAG Report (Rudd, 1994). The measurement of
teacher proficiency is always a contentious issue, however, and so the survey sought to find
out whether the respondents felt the level of proficiency required was appropriate for the level
120
at which they were teaching. In order to ensure anonymity in the interests of frank responses,
respondents did not indicate their name or identifying details about their school and were
assured in the accompanying letter (see Appendix 1) that their answers would be totally
confidential. A coding procedure marked on questionnaires prior to distribution enabled
monitoring of responses and follow up and also later identification of participants for focus
groups. Lists linking names and codes were kept secure and hence confidentiality of responses
was ensured.
The purpose of these teacher data was to allow an analysis of a number of response patterns.
The first of these was a comparison of novice versus more experienced teachers based on
Huberman’s career phases (Huberman, 1993b). Teachers of longer standing have experienced
the old regime as well as the new and would, therefore, be more conscious of changes in the
program and may have different attitudes to change. They would also potentially have
experienced different preservice teacher education programs. An additional difference

between older and novice teachers may be their proficiency and experience of the target
culture. Several studies (e.g. Nicholas et al., 1993; NLLIA, 1994) have suggested that
language teachers lack confidence in their own proficiency and that this might influence their
ability to teach communicatively. The survey aimed to establish if such feelings persisted or
whether the requirement that newly appointed teachers take a proficiency interview as part of
the selection process for employment meant that this group, at least, reported higher levels of
proficiency and whether this influenced their attitude to proficiency outcomes for students.
A second focus was on the extent to which teachers working in the primary and secondary
programs saw the two programs as complementary and with similar goals, thus requiring
similar levels of proficiency on the part of the teacher. The third pattern to be investigated was
the extent to which there was a LOTE subject culture or whether there were differences in the
perceptions and attitudes of teachers teaching different languages and between native-speakers
and those teaching a language of which they were not native speakers. The recent debate
about Australia’s place in Asia, for example, may have raised the vocational status of Asian
languages (Rudd, 1994) and, indeed, challenged the value of European languages (Atherton
1997, personal communication) but the perceived difficulty of the former (Kirkpatrick, 1995a)
121
would suggest current time allocations are inadequate to achieve useable levels of proficiency
whereas the core program, if extended in a sequential fashion from Years 4 to 10, might just
about allow students of European languages to achieve the CoAG proficiency objectives
(Rudd, 1994) by the end of Year 12 (Crawford, 1995).
Gender has also become a potential issue in language teaching. As LOTE is a key learning
area it can no longer be deemed a subject choice dominated by girls within the school system.
The presence of male teachers as role models is therefore of considerable importance although
women tend to predominate in teaching, particularly in the areas of primary schools (Apple,
1994; Datnow, 1998) and languages (Baldauf, 1995). Leal, Bettoni and Malcolm (1991), for
example, found the overwhelming majority of students studying languages in the tertiary
sector were women.
Any attempt to introduce a new curriculum area raises the issue of the provision of adequately
qualified teachers and a number of reports (e.g. Nicholas et al., 1993; ALLC, 1996) have
stressed the importance of appropriate preparation of teachers. Respondents were asked to

indicate whether they had formal language teaching qualifications and to specify which course
they had taken.
The final points of comparison looked at teachers’ work load and the proportion of their
working day spent in language classrooms on the grounds that these experiences may
influence their commitment and teaching approach. Their attitudes and expectations may also
be influenced by whether their language is their preferred teaching area and they are familiar
with the target culture and so are able to take on the role of a cultural go-between, a person
able to help learners develop cultural awareness by developing insights into the culture which
at once shapes and is shaped by the language they are learning. As discussed in Chapter 2, a
number of studies have suggested that length of exposure in the target culture is a poorer
predictor of higher accuracy or greater proficiency, perhaps because exposure does not
necessarily mean intake (Johnson & Newport, 1989; Moyer, 1999). While experience in the
target culture is a very imprecise indicator of cultural understanding and may actually increase
negative attitudes and stereotypes (Coleman, 1998), it nevertheless provides scope for
122
experiential learning, for encountering the language as cultural practice. Without such
experience, therefore, teachers may find it difficult to help learners develop their own cultural
understanding. Communicative competence involves understanding “the social and cultural

practices of a community of which language is a central part” (Barro, Jordan & Roberts,
1998:76) and without which there is no shared meaning. Teachers who have not had extended
contact with the target language would seem, therefore, to be somewhat disadvantaged in
communicative classrooms. Respondents were asked to indicate if they had spent a year or
more studying or working in the target culture.
3.1.1.2 Teacher proficiency

As discussed in the previous chapter, communicative language teaching, particularly if it is to
be responsive to the needs and interests of students and to encourage their active participation,
requires a sound level of proficiency on the part of teachers so that they can deal with a level
of unpredictability and respond spontaneously to student contributions. While high

proficiency is no guarantee of greater use of the target language, lack of it can certainly be a
constraint.
In the second section of the survey, therefore, respondents were asked to rate their own
proficiency on listening, speaking, reading and writing on the 12-point ASLPR self
assessment scale (Wylie & Ingram, 1993). This proficiency scale was developed in
Queensland and has been used in previous studies of teacher proficiency (Nicholas et al.,
1993; NLLIA, 1994). The descriptors for each of the scale points were attached as an
appendix to the survey. Proficiency scales of this type are “a sort of metaphor to inform a
judgement” (Davies, 1992:13) and so only provide an indication of the respondents’
perception of their ability to use the language. Ingram and Wylie (1991:44-45), nevertheless,
reported finding “a high degree of accuracy of learners’ own perceptions of their proficiency,
though clearly it could not be relied on utterly when a person could be tempted to inflate or
deflate his or her ratings for some personal gains”. In this survey where responses were
anonymous there was no such temptation. The same scale was used to determine the
perceived minimum level for an effective secondary teacher. Respondents were then asked to
indicate if they thought a primary language teacher should have the same level or a higher or
123
lower level. The interest here was whether respondents saw the two programs as requiring
similar use of the language and ability to interact with students in the target language.
3.1.1.3 Use of the target language

The third section of the survey focused on use of the target language, mainly in class but also
more widely in the school community. The first series of questions focused on use of the
LOTE as medium of instruction in the primary program, Year 8, Years 9 and 10 and Years 11
and 12. These divisions were chosen because they represent distinct stages in the program,
with LOTE currently included in the core curriculum of most schools in Years 6 and 7
(primary) and in Year 8 (secondary). While some schools do offer languages in lower primary
grades as well or extend the compulsory program into Year 9 or 10, for most students
languages become an elective beyond Year 8 and students choose to continue either to Year
10 or through to Year 12 where the syllabus is under the direction of the Queensland Board of
Senior Secondary School Studies.
Respondents were also given a number of additional scenarios and asked to what extent they
agreed with the use of their language in these scenarios. These questions asked teachers at all
levels the perceived desirability of use of their LOTE: (a) for every day classroom
management; (b) to encourage students or give them feedback; (c) to teach about the culture
and lifestyle of the target community; (d) explain grammar; (e) when responding to children;
(f) in newsletters, on noticeboards , at assembly and so on; and (g) schools should have
optional “immersion” strands in which at least one or two subjects are taught in the LOTE.
These questions focused on the extent to which teachers were providing functional
specialisation and making the schools a domain of use for the target language. The inclusion
of an optional immersion strand was presented as it represents a means of extending the time
available for language learning.
The statements were presented in the form of hypothetical statements (‘Teachers should . . .’)
in order to standardise the format as it was impossible to predict the respondents’ actual
experience at the different levels. The intention was also to explore the extent to which
124
respondents saw use of the target language as desirable even if constraints made achievement
of such use difficult in their current context.
In addition to indicating whether or not they saw these uses of the target language as desirable
teaching practice for language teachers, using a six-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 6 (strongly agree), respondents also indicated the extent to which this level of
use of the target language was actually being achieved in their schools. Again the proposed
responses were on a six-point continuum ranging from 1 (not at all being achieved) to 6
(definitely being achieved). Through out the questionnaire, each of the six points on the scale
was given a brief verbal description as well as a number with six representing the highest
level of agreement and one the lowest. The decision to use an even number of response
options was taken to “force” respondents to indicate whether they viewed the use of the target
language in various contexts favourably or unfavourably. Given that respondents were able to
indicate the intensity of their views and were invited to leave the section blank if they did not
have an opinion, it was felt that provision of a middle category would lose information about
the directions in which people were leaning even if they did not occupy a definite position
(Converse & Presser, 1986) . This does mean, however, that, if respondents did not avail
themselves of the non-response option, middle categories may have conflated the views of
those who were truly neutral or ambivalent with those who did hold a substantive view but
with reservations (Foddy, 1993).
The focus on the use of the target language reflects the current emphasis that language
learning requires plentiful comprehensible input, that is, exposure to the language in
purposeful, contextualised use. In foreign language contexts where access to native speakers is
often limited, the teacher becomes the main source of such input and the classroom is also
often the only opportunity for output. The quantity and type of language use in the classroom
are therefore significant (Polio & Duff, 1994) and may depend on the teacher’s ability and
confidence to use the target language interactively in the classroom (Jarvis, 1987). It is also
through such use that students get a sense of language being somewhat different from other
school subjects because of its role as a means of communication and cultural expression
(Tedick et al., 1993), the medium and the message.
125
The second set of questions in this section used the same strongly disagree-strongly agree
continuum to explore why teachers might choose to use or not use the target language. Three
key issues were explored using statements worded so that use of the target language or
English as the main medium of instruction was presented equally as offering advantages and
disadvantages. This was designed to reduce the impression that use of either language was
favoured by the researcher.
The first of the issues investigated was the positive impact of use of the target language on
student motivation (17i, ix, xiii, xiv in the final instrument - Appendix 1). Proponents of the
use of the target language (e.g. Hamilton, 1994; Polio & Duff, 1994; van Lier, 1996) argue it
can enhance the learners’ sense of achievement, provide an immediate reason for learning and
using the language, maximise their experience of the language in use and show them their
teacher is confident in their ability to learn the language.
Four statements (17v, x, xi, xii) looked at the potential negative impact of using the target
language. Researchers who have looked at teacher reluctance to use the target language (e.g.
Franklin, 1990; Macaro, 1995; Powell, Barnes & Graham, 1996) cite reasons such as the
disadvantaging or demotivation of “less able” students by “submerging” them, failure to treat
cultural issues in sufficient depth because of the learners’ limited language proficiency and the
ineffective use of time involved in using the target language for behaviour management. The
statements therefore explored whether the teachers in this study had similar perceptions.
The remaining statements (17ii, iii, iv, vi, vii, xv, viii) explored potential constraints working
for or against use of the target language. These included expectations of peers and students,
work program requirements, the teacher’s own level of proficiency, the availability of support
materials, and the presence of mixed-level or composite classes.
The final question in this section asked respondents to estimate the percentage of time the
LOTE is used with the different year levels in an average week or teaching cycle. A five-point
scale was used (less than 20% of the time; 20% to 40% of the time; about 50% of the time;
126
60% to 80% of the time; more than 80% of the time) and, as before, teaching levels were
divided into Years 1-5; Years 6 and 7; Year 8; Years 9 and 10, and Years 11 and 12. The
specification of a week or learning cycle was made to acknowledge the potential for different
amounts of target language use depending on the focus of the lesson or the phase of the
teaching unit. Responses to such a question can only provide an estimation of the use of
language but do allow teachers to express their perception of the extent of their use of the
target language in class and whether they see this as varying across different levels.
3.1.1.4 Student proficiency outcomes

The fourth section of the questionnaire asked respondents to use the ASLPR scales again to
indicate the level they thought should be achieved by students taking their language from Year
6 through to Year 10 and through to Year 12. This reflected the new interest in proficiency
outcomes exemplified, for example, in the CoAG recommendations (Rudd, 1994).
Respondents were also asked to indicate if they felt students taking the LOTE at primary
school should achieve higher levels of proficiency than those starting in Year 8 and whether
the proficiency outcomes should be the same for students studying Roman script and non-
Roman script languages. Those who answered ‘no’ to this question were asked to use the
ASLPR scale to indicate what level they thought students in the other language group should
achieve.
127
3.1.1.5 School community support for LOTE
In this section of the survey respondents were asked the level of support they and eight
potential stakeholders had for compulsory LOTE at four different levels of the program, Years
4 and 5, Years 6 and 7, Year 8, and Years 9 and 10. As discussed in the previous chapter,
teachers’ beliefs and attitudes are influenced by the people with whom they interact in their
teaching context. The school context can either support or constrain teacher efforts to
implement change. The stakeholders listed were the principal, the deputy principals/school
management team, colleagues teaching other subject areas, other language teachers, the
respondent’s Teachers’ Union, the students at this level, their parents, and the local business
community. Again a six-point scale was used ranging from 1 (is/are strongly opposed) to 6
(strongly support(s)).
3.1.1.6 Goals of the LOTE program

This section of the survey asked teachers to indicate the extent to which they agreed with a
range of goals for both the primary and secondary programs and also the extent to which
current programs were successful in achieving these. As the expansion of the LOTE program
was on hold in 1997, the questions with regard to the primary program focused on Years 6
and 7 because all Education Queensland schools and the majority of Independent and Catholic
schools had programs in these two years. The outcomes for the secondary program focused on
Years 8 to 10 in order to include classes covered by the old Junior syllabus and also to cover a
sequence of learning for those dealing with beginners in Year 8.
The goals presented reflect the goals discussed in the literature, syllabus documents and policy
statements and all, therefore, have a part to play in the language program. The purpose of this
section was to see if certain goals were more strongly supported by the teachers at different
levels of the program and also whether they felt the current programs were more successful in
some areas than in others. For this reason, respondents were asked to respond on six-point
scales ranging from Strongly disagree to Strongly agree and from Definitely not successful to
Definitely successful.
128
There was some overlap in the eleven options listed for respondents but each represented a
different underlying focus. Options 1 and 2, language proficiency and taster programs, took up
the depth/breadth debate outlined by Gibbons (1994) and also, indirectly, any regrets
secondary teachers might feel at the disappearance of taster programs which were a feature of
many Year 8 programs and sought to give students an experience of two or more languages
before they committed themselves to LOTE as an elective in Year 9. Taster programs,
therefore, have the advantage of offering a choice of languages rather than potentially long-
term commitment to one. As an acceptable option, taster programs would also reduce the need
for articulation between primary and secondary programs as a change of language in
secondary school would simply provide this broader experience.
Options 3 and 4, cultural awareness and cultural knowledge, sought to distinguish between
small c and capital C culture, with the former focusing on understanding the everyday life and
values of speakers of the target culture, while the latter favoured knowledge about high
culture, such as art, literature, geography, and history. While both can be related to language
learning, awareness is more likely to be the focus of those who see language and culture as
indissolubly united. Byram, Lloyd and Schneider (1995), for example, found no explicit links
with language learning made by teachers who take a knowledge-about-high-culture view of
culture. Indeed, cultural studies programs as proposed by Rudd (1994) and Hill and Thomas
(1998) suggest cultural knowledge of this kind can be transmitted in the L1. Nagata (1998),
for example, comments on the persistence of studies about Japanese society and culture taught
in English, despite general acceptance of the concept that culture is an integral part of
language at all levels.
While cultural awareness and knowledge are both outward looking, options 5 and 6, personal
enrichment and social cohesion, are more inward or Australia-oriented. Personal enrichment
sees the value of a LOTE as being its ability to foster better understanding of the learners’
own language and culture. The emphasis of this goal is thus the ability of language learning to
enrich the local culture rather than expand horizons towards other cultures. The goal of social
cohesion acknowledges the multilingual, multicultural nature of Australia and sees the
purpose of LOTE to extend learners’ understanding of this home diversity. One would expect
129
teachers favouring social cohesion to emphasise the teaching of community languages and the
linking of their LOTE to local speakers of that language.
Option 7, language maintenance, suggests that LOTE programs can serve the purpose of
assisting non-English speakers to maintain their first language either as a personal
equity/language rights issue (Gibbons, White & Gibbons, 1994; Pierce, 1998) or for the social
advantage that their advanced speaker status can provide (Kirkpatrick, 1995b).
Option 8, vocational benefits, is related to proficiency but with a narrower instrumental focus
on the development of skills which will assist in employment. This option was included
because of the increased emphasis on the value of languages for those working in the new
global village. The push for Asian languages, for example, has largely been promoted in terms
of the economic benefits of such skills.
Option 9, positive attitudes, emphasises potential non-linguistic outcomes of a LOTE program

where the goal is not necessarily an ability to use the language but a positive experience with
the target language and culture resulting in positive attitudes to other cultures.
Option 10, educational benefits, looks at the value of LOTE studies in enhancing the learners’
abilities to communicate and think analytically and creatively. Again the emphasis here is on
outcomes other than the ability to use the language proficiently although the educational
benefits goal is certainly not incompatible with developing proficiency.
Finally, option 11, learning-how-to-learn, focused on the school experience giving students
the skills they need for learning a language should it become necessary at some stage in their
life. Such a goal recognises the need for the learner to be able to make the most of learning
opportunities inside and outside the class and to develop a taste for autonomous, lifelong
learning. From such a perspective, the language learnt or the proficiency achieved may not be
as important as the strategies for learning developed. Where students change their language in
Year 8, for example, a key purpose of the primary program might be developing learning
strategies and language learning skills in preparation for this definitive choice of language
(Parkinson, 1998).
130
Space was also provided for respondents to specify any additional goal they felt was
significant to their teaching practice.
Having gone through these various options, respondents were asked to rank the three most
important goals for students finishing their LOTE studies in Year 8 and Year 10. The purpose
here was to get a further sense of the priority given to goals and whether they changed over
the course of the program. Respondents were also asked to indicate whether they felt the
teacher’s task in achieving these goals would be made easier or more difficult if LOTE was
made compulsory to Year 10.
3.1.1.7 Teacher perspectives

The final section of the survey asked respondents the extent to which they agreed with 35
statements covering a range of issues. Responses were again recorded using a six-point scale.
The statements covered the following issues:
(i) Time allocation for LOTE - Two statements related to the adequacy of the current time
allocation for LOTE in the primary and secondary program. A third suggested an increase in
time allocation in the primary program to two and a half to three hours per week. This fits the
CoAG recommendation (Rudd, 1994) and would almost double the primary level and ensure
about 100-120 hours per year of instruction and so represent about 700-800 hours across the
Year 4-10 program. This would still fall short of the time estimated necessary to achieve
proficiency in languages such as Chinese and Japanese (Kirkpatrick, 1995a; Mackerras,
1996). For this reason, the fourth statement relating to time allocation proposed additional
lessons be provided for these languages to allow for the development of better literacy skills.
(ii) The status of LOTE - The inclusion of languages in the core curriculum has meant a major
change in mindset for many Australians. Statements explored the respondents’ own
acceptance of proficiency in LOTE as an essential part of a broad and balanced education and
their perception of the impact of its inclusion in the core curriculum on the acceptance of
LOTE by students and other teachers.
131
(iii) The impact of the primary LOTE program - Respondents were asked if they had noticed
changes as the result of the primary LOTE program in terms of higher proficiency outcomes
for those beginning in the primary school and the need for secondary schools (a) to change
their content and teaching approach in Year 8 and use different assessment tools for beginning
and continuing students; and (b) to develop more advanced work programs in Years 9 and 10.
(iv) Resources and syllabuses - A cluster of statements dealt with the availability of adequate
resources to deal with increased student diversity. Two of the major changes teachers are
dealing with involve language programs for all, and potentially for three or more years,
instead of short taster programs and a chance to advise less able or less motivated students to
pursue other options. This group of statements looked at how well teachers feel the schools
are resourced to deal with this new ‘clientele’. Statements covered the availability and
suitability of materials, resources and outcomes both in general and for use in multilevel
classes, and the ability of the syllabus/guidelines to cater flexibly for the needs, interests and
abilities of all learners and to set appropriate outcome levels. Teachers were also asked if they
believed there should be special syllabuses for background speakers and whether primary
schools should offer at least two languages so that students have a choice about which
language they will study or even have an opportunity to experience two languages.
(v) Continuity and articulation between sections of the program - Respondents were asked
whether, for their students, the Year 8 program articulates with the primary program and
whether the 1995 Year 11 and 12 syllabus builds on the Year 6 to 10 program. As discussed in
the previous chapter, the achievement of proficiency goals is very much dependent on
students persisting long enough with their studies to ensure they have adequate exposure and
experience of the language in a program that provides continuity across the different stages of
the curriculum. The crucial junctures are the change from Year 7 (primary) to Year 8
(secondary) and from Year 10 (in future using the syllabus developed by the Queensland
School Curriculum Council but currently without a set syllabus) and Year 11 where the
syllabus is developed and supervised by the Queensland Board of Senior Secondary School
Studies.
132
To balance these statements, the option of changing languages in Year 8 and/or Year 11 was
also convassed
(vi) Compulsion and exemptions - Policy changes have seen languages other than English
included as a key learning area, those areas of human endeavour and knowledge deemed of
sufficient value to be passed on through the school curriculum (Curtain & Pesola, 1995).
Statements focused on whether knowledge of a second language forms part of a broad and
balanced education for all or should be reserved, as in the past, for those interested and with
aptitude. Statements also canvassed the desirability of exemptions for students with learning
or literacy difficulties, and the possibility of offering alternative ESL classes to non-English-
speaking background students and ‘culture’ classes in English to those not wishing to take a
language.
(vi) Teacher contact - The remaining statements looked at teachers’ use of the language
outside the classroom and their opportunity to discuss their program and teaching with others.
The interest here was with the issue of language maintenance for teachers and the interaction
with colleagues whereby teaching cultures develop and influence norms and expectations.
A final question in the survey asked respondents to indicate whether the presence of mixed-
level Year 8 classes in their school was due to logistics such as timetabling and number
constraints, an integration policy requiring the mixing of students from different feeder
schools, a perceived difference between primary and secondary approaches making the
distinction unnecessary or some other reason. Perceptions here are significant in that an
extension of the compulsory program to Year 10 would largely solve the logistics problem but
would not resolve the other issues.
To further investigate the issue of continuity between the primary and secondary programs,
respondents were also asked to indicate how long, on average, it takes Year 8 beginners to
‘catch up’ with continuing students who have done the LOTE for two or more years at
primary school if they are placed in a mixed-level class. Six response options were including
ranging from There is no real difference between beginners and continuing students through
133
3, 6 or 12 months, by the end of Year 10 to They don’t ever catch up. The interest here was
whether separating beginning and continuing students in Year 8 was simply delaying the
problem of mixed-level classes for one year or provided an opportunity to bring motivated
students to an appropriate level where they could join their more experienced colleagues if the
school, as is often the case, could only offer one Year 9 class.
Space was provided to allow teachers to raise issues that had not been covered already in the
survey and they were asked if they would participate in the second phase of the study.
3.1.2 Trialling the survey

The instrument was initially sent to 28 teachers (see Table 3.1) who were invited to respond to
the instruments and to comment on any questions they felt were difficult to understand or
answer. They were also asked to point out any omissions. Participants were basically the first
names provided for the overall population survey, as discussed below, with an attempt made
also to ensure that there were both Education Queensland and Independent/Catholic school
respondents across both primary and secondary programs. The greater number of
Catholic/Independent respondents reflects the more rapid response of the Catholic Education
Offices and the Association of Independent Schools of Queensland to the request for
permission to approach the schools in their jurisdiction.
134
Table 3.1
School sector and affiliation of respondents invited to trial questionnaire
Sector Affiliation
Primary Secondary
Education Queensland 2 7
Catholic/Independent 7 12
Total 9 19
Of the 28 teachers approached, 17 returned a completed survey (see Table 3.2). Of these, one
teacher was not teaching in Term 1, 1997 and so responded in terms of her experiences in
1996. An eighteenth survey was returned with comments but was not completed as the teacher
concerned was not currently teaching LOTE. Feedback was also provided by one of Education
Queensland’s Regional LOTE Co-ordinators.
Table 3.2
School sector and affiliation of respondents returning trial questionnaire
Sector Affiliation
Primary Primary/ Secondary
Secondarya
Education Queensland 0 0 6
Catholic/independent 3 3 5
Total 3 3 11
a Three respondents indicated they were teaching in both primary and secondary classes.
3.1.3 Modifications to draft questionnaire

The major feedback from this trial was that the instrument was too long and, therefore, too
time-consuming and likely to encounter respondent resistance. As a result, steps were taken to
considerably shorten the instrument. The teachers in the trialling commented that some
sections were more relevant to primary or secondary teachers. In response to this feedback
several changes in wording were made to clarify the meaning of specific questions and to
encourage respondents to reply from the perspective of their current teaching context whether
primary or secondary. This recognised the situated nature of the teachers’ responses and also
sought to make the questions as relevant as possible to each of the respondents and to
encourage responses from a similar perspective. Participants were also invited explicitly to
leave a section blank if they did not have a response. Despite such difficulties, the use of the
same questionnaire was generally supported by the trial participants. As noted earlier, policy
135
does stipulate that the language program continues across the transition from primary to
secondary school and, in any case, many primary programs employ teachers with secondary
experience. The use of the same questionnaire for both the primary and secondary teachers
was deemed valuable in order to investigate to what extent they share a subject culture and see
the program as a single unit or two distinct programs.
In the process of shortening the questionnaire, a number of questions which respondents

found particularly difficult to answer were removed. This left the final version of the
questionnaire containing four major sections (see Appendix 1). The purpose and major
emphasis of the initial instrument was preserved but the following changes were made.
3.1.3.1 Teacher details

The required information remained essentially unchanged although the question about contact
with the target culture was simplified. A question about the appropriateness of the proficiency
interview requirements - originally in the final section of the survey - was also included in this
section.
The teacher proficiency self-assessment in the trial survey caused a number of problems for
respondents who found it was time-consuming and very complex to use. In order to reduce
respondent resistance, a shorter five-point scale was prepared which ranged from minimal to
native / near native and was inserted into the first section. The descriptions for this scale were
adapted from the ASLPR self assessment scale descriptors for levels 1 to 5 (Wylie & Ingram,
1993) as it seemed inappropriate to include the zero or beginners’ level in a scale presented to
language teachers. The shorter descriptions made the scale even more impressionistic but
nevertheless gave teachers some guidance on where to place themselves on the five-point
scale provided. Respondents used the same scale to indicate the minimum proficiency
required for an effective secondary and primary teacher. In response to comments in the trial
that different levels of proficiency are required for secondary teachers working at junior and
senior levels, respondents rating the minimum proficiency required for a secondary teacher
were asked to reply specifically in terms of a teacher working from Year 8 through to Year 12.
136
3.1.3.2 Goals of the LOTE program
In the revised questionnaire the focus on the eleven goals identified from the literature was
moved into the second section and respondents were asked to rank the three most important
goals for students finishing their LOTE studies in Year 12 as well as in Year 8 and Year 10.
The inclusion of Year 12 goals was designed to check whether teachers saw the three phases
in a similar or different light and was prompted by the number of teachers in the trial survey
who distinguished the proficiency required by secondary teachers working with the junior and
senior syllabuses.
The second section also included the questions about the potentially higher proficiency
outcomes of those starting in primary school over those starting in Year 8 and those studying a
Roman-script language over those studying a non-Roman-script language. In response to
feedback from the teachers trialling the instrument, this question was split between oracy and
literacy skills.
3.1.3.3 Use of the target language in class

The third section of the survey continued to focus on use of the target language and on reasons
for choosing English or the target language as the main medium of instruction. The number of
contexts of use was reduced to include the four levels of the program (primary, Year 8, Years
9 and 10 and Years 11 and 12) and also when communicating with children outside the
classroom, in newsletters, on noticeboards, in assembly and so on and in optional
“immersion” strands in which at least one or two subjects are taught in the LOTE.
As in the draft instrument, the final question in this section asked respondents to indicate the
percentage of time they estimated they spoke their LOTE with the different year levels in an
average week or teaching cycle.
The student proficiency outcomes section of the draft survey was not included in the revised
version as most of the teachers in the trial suggested it was unrealistic to expect teachers to
think in terms of proficiency when school assessment is achievement-based. The teachers

involved in the trial were also uncertain about the level of support from the different
stakeholders listed in the Section 5 of the draft. It was decided that this support could better be
137
investigated in the focus groups discussions and so this section was also removed in the
interests of reducing the length of the instrument.
3.1.3.4 Teacher perspectives

The final section of the survey was reduced to 27 statements covering a range of issues.
Statements referring to teaching approach were removed as it was felt this could be dealt with
more effectively in Phase 2 of the study. The section included statements in the following
groupings:
(i) Time allocation - The same four statements (Statements i, ii, xxi and xxii) as in the draft
version dealt with the time allocation for LOTE and explored the adequacy of current
provisions, the desirability of two and a half to three hours per week for all levels and the need
for additional lessons for the non-Roman script languages to allow for the development of
better literacy skills.
(ii) The status of LOTE - The next cluster of statements (Statements iii, v, ix, xi) concerned
the status of LOTE and the respondents’ own acceptance of proficiency in LOTE as part of
the curriculum as well as their perception of the acceptance of LOTE by students and other
teachers, thus covering two of the key stakeholders likely to influence teachers’ practices.
(iii) The impact of the primary LOTE program - Statements iv, x, xvi, and xvii focused,
firstly, on whether the primary program has resulted in higher proficiency outcomes for
continuing students (resulting in schools needing to develop more advanced work programs in
Years 9 and 10) and, secondly, on the impact of the program on retention through to Year 10.
Respondents were also asked to comment on whether they believed the outcomes achieved by
those discontinuing at the end of Year 8 were worthwhile.
(iv) Student diversity - As in the draft survey, a cluster of eight statements (Statements vii, xii,
xiii, xiv, xix, xx, xxiii, and xxiv) dealt with the availability of adequate resources and
appropriately flexible syllabus/guidelines to deal with increased student diversity.
(v) Articulation - Two statements (Statements xv, xviii) concerned articulation between
sections of the program and asked respondents whether, for their students, the Year 8 program
138
articulates with the primary program and whether the 1995 Year 11 and 12 syllabus builds on
the Year 6 to 10 program.
(vi) Exemptions - Three statements (Statements vi, xxv, xxvi) concentrated on the issue of
compulsion or whether LOTE should be reserved, as in the past, for those interested and with
aptitude. The desirability of exemptions for students with learning difficulties and of ‘culture’
classes in English for those not wishing to take a language was also canvassed.
The final two statements (viii and xxvii) looked at opportunities to use the language with
colleagues outside the classroom (language maintenance/models of effective language users)
and Ingram’s claim that most of the cultural and educational benefits of studying a language
depend on achieving useable levels of proficiency (Ingram, 1993a). This latter issue reflects
the debate about Asia literacy and whether crosscultural understanding can be achieved from
within an L1/C1 context or requires a level of bilingualism.
The question with regard to the time taken in mixed-level classes for Year 8 beginners to
‘catch up’ with continuing students who have done the LOTE for two or more years at
primary school was retained as an indicator of the achievements of the primary program.
The space for teachers to raise additional issues was also retained as was the inquiry about the
participants’ willingness to participate in the second phase of the study.
139
3.1.4 Participants in the population survey
Given the different sectors of education and the lack of centralised data, it proved impossible
to get an exact estimate of exactly how many language teachers there are in Queensland. In
the state system, permission was obtained to approach teachers to request their participation
and the eleven Regional Co-ordinators were then asked to provide a list of the LOTE teachers
in their region. All but one did so. A second request to this coordinator produced a partial list
and these teachers were included in the participant invitations. The Manager and LOTE co-
ordinator of the Association of Independent Schools in Queensland provided a list of 91
Independent schools and Catholic colleges with language programs and principals of these
schools were asked to give permission for their staff to participate in the survey and also to
provide a list of the names of their LOTE staff. For the systemic Catholic schools, permission
was sought from the Catholic Education Office (CEO) in each Diocese (Brisbane, Cairns,
Toowoomba) and surveys were forwarded to the teachers identified by the CEO for primary
schools and by the principals in secondary schools. Where names were not included, letters
were sent to the principals of the schools listed requesting their assistance and permission to
approach their staff.
This process produced a list of 1215 names. Three principals refused permission, one on the
grounds that his staff was already involved in a similar study, the other two without specifying
a reason. Four of the schools contacted responded that they currently did not have a LOTE
teacher. Several principals sent the names of those teachers ‘who had expressed their
willingness to participate’. This suggests there may have been other colleagues who were not
prepared to participate or whom the principal did not wish to have participate.
Table 3.3 provides information about the sectors and affiliation of the 1215 teachers invited to
participate and the overall response rate. Seventy-eight per cent of the teachers thus
approached were in the state system, 12.9% in Independent schools and 9.2% in Catholic
schools.
140
3.1.5 Administration procedures
The initial mailing produced 501 responses. To improve the response rate and ensure as wide
a response base as possible, the majority (72%) of the 714 non-respondents were contacted by
phone or fax to encourage them to participate. The remainder were not contacted either
because their phone was not responding or due to time constraints. As a result of this further
contact a second copy of the survey was requested by 51 respondents and 63 further responses
were received, making a total of 564 responses.
As a further follow-up, a second mailing was then made to every tenth remaining non-
respondent (Table 3.4), contact again being constrained by time and cost. This resulted in 57
second invitations to participate being sent out, producing a further 17 responses. In the
course of this initial data collection process, 55 of the original 1215 were found to be
uncontactable, either because they had left the school or taken leave (see Table 3.5). When
these names were removed from the list of invited participants, the final response rate
achieved for the survey was 50.1%.
The response rate for each sector was quite similar: 49% for Education Queensland; 47% for
the Independent schools; and 59% for the Catholic schools1. The data are nevertheless
dominated by Education Queensland which provided 76% of the total group of respondents.
The Independent schools provided 12% and the Catholic schools 11% of the total group.
These percentages reflect very closely the proportion of original invitations to participate sent
to each sector (see Table 3.4). For each sector, a higher percentage of primary teachers
responded than did their secondary colleagues. For Education Queensland, for example, 66%
of primary teachers returned the survey, compared with 37% of secondary teachers (see Table
3.6).
1 In discussing percentages, these have been rounded up or down to the nearest whole number.
141
Table 3.3
Initial mailing
School sector/affiliation Invitations Responses

N %a N %b
Education Queensland
Primary 319 26.3 192 60.2
Primary/Secondary 161 13.3 80 49.7
Secondary 466 38.4 158 33.9
Total 946 77.9 430 45.5
Independent schools
Primary 15 1.2 7 46.7
Secondary 121 10.0 41 33.9
Total 157 12.9 69 43.9
Catholic schools
Primary 45 3.7 27 62.0
Secondary 61 5.0 30 49.2
Total 112 9.2 64 57.1
School sector/affiliation
not stated 1
TOTAL 1215 100.0 564 46.4
a
Percentage of total invitations sent
b Percentage of respondents from those invited in this sector/level
Table 3.4
Second mailing to every 10th non-respondent
School sector/affiliation Invitations Responses

N N %
Primary 26 6 23.1
Primary/secondary 3 3 100.0
Secondary 17 4 23.5
Total 46 13 28.3
Independent Schools
Primary 1 1 100.0
Secondary 6 2 33.3
Total 7 3 42.9
Catholic Schools
Primary 3 0 0.0
Secondary 1 1 100.0
Total 4 1 25.0
TOTAL 57 17 29.8
142
Table 3.5
Reasons for non-response (1st and 2nd mailing)
Reasons N %a
Known
No longer at school 19 3.0
Leave (sick, maternity, overseas) 15 2.4
Returned to sender 16 2.5
Not teaching this semester 5 0.8
Not known 579 91.3
Total 634 100
a Percentage of those not responding to the questionnaire
Overall the response rate from the population is regarded as reasonably high. Lynch
(1996:134), for example, suggests that “without a concerted follow-up effort a 25 percent (or
less) return rate is typical”. In interpreting the results of the survey, however, caution is
needed in generalising the results to the entire population as there is no information about how
representative the respondents’ information is. This is particularly the case with the secondary
respondents whose response rate was lower than for the primary teachers across all three
sectors. The 581 responses nevertheless constitute a large body of information, making it
possible to make comparisons among these respondents themselves across factors such as
school affiliation and sector, language, LOTE teaching experience and self-reported
proficiency.
Table 3.6
Summary of first and second mailing
School sector Invitation Response Explained %a %b

non-response responding of total
in this group
Primary 314 193 19 65.4 33.2
Primary/secondary 167 89 0 53.3 15.3
Secondary 464 162 31 37.4 27.9
Total 945 444 50 49.6 76.4
Independent Schools
Primary 15 8 1 57.1 1.4
Secondary 121 43 2 36.1 7.4
Total 157 72 3 46.8 12.4
Catholic Schools
Primary 45 28 1 63.6 4.8
Secondary 61 31 2 52.2 5.3
Total 113 65 3 59.1 11.2
TOTAL 1215 581 55 50.1 100.0
a
Percentages of respondents in this school sector group excluding explained non-responses
143
b
Percentage of total 581 respondents
3.1.6 Quantitative data analysis

The data were analysed using the SYSTAT package (Wilkinson, 1989) to calculate totals,
percentages and, where appropriate, inferential statistical comparisons and factor analyses.
The use of these statistics and the rationale for their use are documented where appropriate. In
undertaking some of these analyses such as the inferential statistics, the respondents’
representativeness of the population has had to be assumed.
Overall, the analyses looked at distributions of responses (percentages, means, standard

deviations) for each item on the survey. These analyses were undertaken initially for all 581
respondents to explore the total LOTE teaching culture. In addition the same analyses were
repeated to compare and contrast the effect of the different factors identified earlier such as
proficiency, experience, affiliation, sector and language taught. Further group analyses were
undertaken as differences emerged.
While the preferred analytical approach was to avoid inferential statistics because of the
assumptions such statistics require, at times a parsimony in analysis in handling such a large
body of data required such statistics to be used, in order to assist the reader to understand
similarities and differences in patterns of response. However a cautious interpretation of these
statistics has been employed2, with use of Bonferroni procedures to reduce the probabilities of
false interpretations.
A second data analysis procedure to introduce parsimony to the findings was factor analysis.
Factor analysis was used to confirm different underlying philosophical and theoretical
orientations held by LOTE teachers. The procedure used through the SYSTAT program
2 An alternative approach could have been to use effect size (Glass, 1978) which has gained increasing popularity
in quantitative data analyses. These have been presented for some analyses to verify the inferential statistics. In
general, it was found that, for group sizes of 100 or more, p<0.001 was approximately equivalent to an effect size
of 0.70 and p<0.002 to an effect size of 0.50. Lynch (1996) suggests an effect size of 0.5 is a moderate effect
whereas an effect size of 1.0 is considered strong.
144
(Wilkinson, 1989) was the quartimax-rotated factor solution. Quartimax solutions allow
factors to be correlated and was therefore most suited to different factors regarding LOTE
teaching. Factor scores for individuals using unit weighting of factor items were created.
These were then used to undertake further group comparisons.
Even with the use of such procedures to summarise outcomes, the detail of the questionnaire,
its multiple dimensions, the large number of respondents and the various factors identified as
having a possible impact on teacher beliefs, assumptions and knowledge have resulted in a
large body of outcomes for interpretation and, indeed, tables. Throughout the analyses,
consistency in exploring relationships has been a goal. However, when possible, findings of
no difference, or of similar patterns to previous sections, have been summarised in words
without accompanying tables. These findings are presented in table form in Appendix 2.
The reader is asked to have patience with the comprehensive results analysis necessary to
explore the complexity of the context of reception for changes to LOTE education in
Queensland.
3.2 Phase 2 - Focus group interviews

Phase 2 of the study was part of a rolling or emergent design and involved open-ended focus
group interviews with groups of teachers to explore in greater depth issues raised by the
survey and the points of agreement and disagreement emerging in the broad survey of the
beliefs and assumptions underpinning the LOTE teaching culture in Queensland. Because
teaching is very context dependent, generalisations about teaching conceal as much as they
illuminate (Grossman & Stodolsky, 1994). The use of focus groups gave further insight into
respondents’ thinking and allowed a closer investigation of their different contexts by
providing a flexibility in approach not possible with the more impersonal survey data. They
thus served as a source of triangulation against which survey outcomes could be considered in
search of possible explanations for different positions taken by respondents to the survey.
The value of triangulation is not as a technological solution to a data
collection and analysis problem, it is a technique which provides more and
145
better evidence from which researchers can construct meaningful
propositions about the social world (Mathison, 1988:15).
The decision to use focus groups was also based on a number of advantages this technique
offers (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). These include their flexibility and the collection of the
opinions of a greater number of participants than individual interviews. They also allow for
more refined responses than surveys through the availability of probes, noting body language,
clarification requests and so on. The use of an open response format provides opportunity for
rich and large amounts of data in respondents’ own words, thus allowing for the inclusion of
the teachers'own voices, the authentic expression of their own experiences and concerns
(Carter, 1993), at least in as far as they are prepared to elaborate and defend these in the
company of peers (Wilson, 1997). As Vaughn, Schumm and Sinagub (1996:4) argue:
The major assumption of focus groups is that with a permissive atmosphere
that fosters a range of opinions, a more complete and revealing

understanding of the issues will be obtained. . . . The goal of focus groups
is to create a candid, normal conversation that addresses, in depth, the
selected topic.
Focus groups allow respondents to react and build on responses of others - this synergistic
effect of the group setting is stimulating and aids recall thus allowing for data and ideas not
available in individual interviews (Vaughn, Schumm & Sinagub, 1996). The presence of
people of like-kind may also make it easier for otherwise shy people to talk about their
personal thoughts, feelings and experiences (Lederman, 1990). A further advantage is that the
group allows for a broader audience than an individual interview. While the researcher may
bias results by knowingly or unknowingly providing cues about what types of responses or
questions are desirable (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990), the presence of colleagues can reduce
this influence and allow the researcher to participate more as an observer than an active
participant in the discussion. This leads to a greater emphasis on the participants’ own points
of view (Morgan, 1988).
146
The decision to focus on issues arising from the survey data rather than to determine in
advance what would be dealt with was necessary for two reasons. Firstly, the focus groups
were used as confirmatory tools to facilitate interpretation of the quantitative results obtained
in the survey and add depth to these results. Stewart and Shamdasani (1990) suggest that the
less structured nature of focus groups means they provide data that are closer to the emic side
of the emic/etic continuum. Individuals respond in their own words, use their own
categorisations and perceived associations. This helps give insights into the salience of
different variables in different contexts. Survey research, on the other hand, is closer to the
etic end of the continuum with respondents using categories prescribed by the researcher. The
two approaches thus complement each other and the one compensates for the limitations of
the other, ensuring that the emerging picture is more complete and captures the complex
interactions among context conditions that support or undermine particular educational
outcomes (Talbert & McLaughlin, 1993). In one sense, as Geertz (1988:208) has argued, the
data produced by focus group interviews are still the researcher’s own constructions of other
people'
s constructions of what they and their colleagues are up to. The interviews nevertheless
help to construct and share cultural values, meanings and personal experiences (Coffey &
Atkinson, 1996). Because of this same group dynamic, responses of group members are not
independent of each other which restricts generalisability of results (Stewart & Shamdasani,
1990; Myers, 1998). The goal is not to generalise to larger populations but
to elicit a greater, more in-depth understanding of perceptions, beliefs,
attitudes, and experiences from multiple points of view and to document
the context from which those understandings were derived (Vaughn,
Schumm & Sinagub, 1996:16).
The question remains whether the interaction in groups would mirror individual behaviour
(Morgan, 1988). Given that peers are important reality definers, however, the group
interaction seemed an appropriate source of data in this exploratory study of teacher beliefs. It
is precisely in such negotiation with colleagues that beliefs and understandings may be
“constructed”.
Becker (cited in Morgan, 1988) suggests qualitative data can be placed on two dimensions.
The first distinguishes between data volunteered by informants and data requested by the
147
researcher. The second dimension distinguishes whether the data are presented publicly or to
the researcher alone. The presence of the researcher and colleagues in focus groups means the
data lean towards the researcher-directed and publicly stated poles of the continua. Focus
groups can thus be seen as constituting a public forum, “an interaction in which participants
respond collectively and collaboratively, are aware of a common purpose, and reflexively act
in terms of that purpose” (Myers, 1998:107).
In order to minimise the possibility of researcher and group bias, participants were invited to
comment individually on a summary of the discussion. This gave them an opportunity as
individuals to check on the researcher’s construction of the discussion and clarify any
misreadings of what was said or any biases that might have resulted from one dominant
member.
The focus group questions were deliberately kept as open as possible to allow respondents to
use their own words and raise issues of personal relevance. Allowing participants to determine
the directions of the response also reveals what is in their minds and the cultural assumptions
with which they are working. It also encourages responses based on their specific situation
(Krueger, 1988) and experiences (Morgan, 1988). This acknowledges the situated nature of
teaching and the impact context has on perceptions. Focus groups investigate what people
think and why they think as they do. As with most research decisions, there is also a down
side of this openness, namely that the resultant data are relatively chaotic (Morgan, 1988),
making summarisation and interpretation of results difficult (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990).
To ensure some comparability across the five groups, however, the researcher used a common
introductory statement in each group and posed the same four questions.
148
3.2.1 Format of the focus groups
One of the features of language teaching in Queensland is that it is scattered over a large
geographical area. While the largest cluster of language teachers is in the Brisbane area, it
seemed important to include voices from beyond this area, particularly as the comments in the
survey suggested there were some major concerns among those in country areas. For this
reason five focus groups were planned. Four involved respondents from the Brisbane area, a
decision taken also on the grounds of easier access and cost. The fifth group involved an
audio-teleconference with teachers in rural areas.
Given the numerous differences to emerge in the survey between primary and secondary
respondents, it was decided to run separate primary and secondary groups, thus creating more
homogeneous groups. Myers (1998) comments that the use of homogeneous groups has
become standard in focus group practice because too much heterogeneity is likely to produce
superficial statements or influence the participants’ willingness to discuss a topic together. As

many of the rural group actually teach across both primary and secondary schools, no attempt
was made to separate secondary and primary teachers for the teleconference with the rural
group. In this case, therefore, the issues were discussed from both a primary and secondary
perspective.
The questions used for the focus groups were prompted by the analysis of the surveys which
showed considerable variation in response to the extension of the program from Year 4 to 10,
concern about continuity and dealing with mixed-level classes, and the use of the target
language. In the period between the survey and interviews, there had also been considerable
change with the trialling of the new draft syllabus with its strong emphasis on comprehensible
input and proficiency outcomes and a relaunching of the debate about whether LOTE should
be compulsory through to Year 10. The focus groups invited participants to relate the issues
explicitly to their current school context and sought to investigate their response to four broad
triggering questions:
(i) How do you feel about LOTE being compulsory from Years 4 to 10?
(ii) Can you please tell me about how you and your school are tackling the issue of
articulation between Years 7 and 8?
149
(iii) How do you feel about the new syllabus’s stress on teacher talk?
(iv) What do you think the LOTE program in your school will be like in 5 years? Will it
have changed? In what ways?
3.2.2 Conduct of the focus groups

In order to ensure that each participant had an opportunity to engage in the discussion and also
that there were a range of points of view (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990), sufficient invitations
were extended to achieve between five and eight participants in each focus group.
Because of the difficulty of finding suitable times in the busy lives of teachers and the value
of having a range of respondents, the groups were not divided by language, experience or
sector. Respondents working across both primary and secondary levels were invited to join the
group in which they spent most of their time. The rural focus group was mixed, reflecting the
number of teachers in country areas who do work across the two levels.
3.2.3 Identifying participants

To identify potential participants for the first two focus groups, names were chosen at random
from a list of respondents to the survey who had indicated they were prepared to participate in
the second phase of the study. This list included approximately 50% of the original 581
respondents. Letters of invitation were then sent to the first twelve primary and secondary
respondents from the Brisbane area. These letters were followed up by phone calls or faxes to
establish if the respondent was available and willing to participate in the group interview.
Where people indicated they were not available, additional letters of invitation were sent to
the next names on the list until an appropriate group size was achieved. Following
identification of members of the first two groups the process was repeated for a further two
groups.
The same procedure was followed in identifying and inviting rural respondents to participate
in the teleconference.
Response rates were relatively low (see Table 3.7). This underlines a major limitation of such
groups (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990), namely, that the small numbers and convenience
150
nature of most focus group recruiting practices significantly limit generalisation to a larger
population. Those willing to attend may be different from those not willing to attend.
Hargreaves (1996) warns against the tendency to ignore this and represent teachers'voices as
representative or as a voice that embodies qualities that are generic to all teachers and
teaching.
Research on teachers'voice and teachers'knowledge is . . . replete with
studies of teachers who are caring, committed, and child-centred, but not of
teachers who are cynical, traditional, sexist, or racist! What would we say
about these latter teachers'voices and the knowledge they articulate? What
might be the generic worth of teachers'knowledge and teachers'voices,
then? (Hargreaves, 1996:13).
The aim of the focus group discussions was, therefore, to explore why not how many (Byers &
Wilcox, 1991), to produce a "polyphony" of voices (Fontana, 1994) through which the shared
and diverse perspectives of respondents could be investigated. The groups were small to
moderate in size (see Table 3.7) thus ensuring everyone had an opportunity to participate in
the discussions which lasted approximately one and a half hours. Participants in the face-to-
face groups were invited half an hour earlier to take afternoon tea and get to know one
another. Table 3.8 shows the detailed background of the participants in each focus group.
While data from the groups could not be generalised, they provided useful support to the
survey data and pointed to possible explanations or interpretations of these.
This process of selection produced four additional respondents who were eager to participate
but were not available for the focus group sessions (Table 3.9). In order not to exclude them,
the researcher spoke to each individually either face-to-face or by telephone. In one instance
the discussion was recorded and a tapescript prepared. In the other three cases, detailed notes
were taken during the discussion. In these interviews the same four questions were posed.
151
Table 3.7
Response rates to invitation to participate in focus groups
Response Group
1(P1) 2(S1) 3(P2) 4(S2) 5(R)
Not available 4 2 2 5 2
Willing but unavailable 1 2 a 0 0 2 d
Did not respond to invitation 5 0 4 2 2

No longer at school/teaching LOTE 3 4 1 0 2
Accepted invitation but did not attend 1 2 0 0 1 d
Participated in group interview 5 7 6 5 6

Total invitations 19 17 13 b 12 c 14
a One of these participants spoke to the researcher separately.
b Includes 1 participant unable to attend Group 1 interview.
c Includes 2 participants unable to attend Group 2 interview.
d These three participants spoke to the researcher separately.
Table 3.8
Participants in focus groups
Group number and type Details of group

Group 1 - Primary • 4 primary only / 1 primary/secondary
5 participants • 4 from Education Queensland / 1 from a Catholic independent boys’ school
• 1 in 1 school, 3 in 2 schools, 1 in 3 schools
• 4 females / 1 male
• 2 native speakers (Chinese / French)
• 2 Japanese / 2 French / 1 Chinese
• 2 reported no formal LOTE teaching qualifications
• 2 rated their proficiency ‘reasonable’, remainder were ‘native/near native’
• 2 ‘beginners’ (1-3 years) / 3 ‘diversifiers’ (7-25 years)
Group 2 - Secondary • 6 secondary only / 1 primary/secondary

7 participants • 5 from Education Queensland / 2 from independent schools
• 4 females / 3 males
• no native speakers
• 2 German / 2 Japanese / 2 French / 1 Chinese
• 3 reported no formal LOTE teaching qualifications
• 3 ‘beginners’ / 1 ‘stabiliser’ (4-6 years) and 3 ‘diversifiers’
Group 3 - Primary • 5 primary (1 primary at time of survey, now secondary)

6 participants • 5 from Education Queensland / 1 from an independent school
• all females
• 2 native speakers (German)
• 2 Japanese / 3 German / 1 French
• 2 ‘beginners’ / 2 ‘stabilisers’ / 1 ‘diversifier’
• all reported formal LOTE teaching qualifications
• 1 reported proficiency as ‘reasonable’, 2 as ‘very good’ and 3 as ‘native/near native’
152
Table 3.8 (Cont.)
Group number and type Details of group

Group 4 - Secondary • all secondary
5 participants • 3 from Education Queensland / 2 from Catholic Girls’ Schools
• all female
• 2 native speakers (French)
• 3 French / 1 Italian / 1 Indonesian
• 2 ‘stabilisers’ / 2 ‘diversifiers’ / 1 ‘serenity/conservatism’ (26-33 years)
• all reported formal LOTE teaching qualification
• 2 rated their proficiency as ‘reasonable’, 1 as ‘good’ and 2 as ‘native/near native’
Group 5 - Primary and secondary (Rural teleconference)

6 participants • 4 from Education Queensland / 2 Catholic
• 3 primary / 1 secondary/primary / 2 secondary
• 1 male / 5 female
• 2 native speakers (1 German / 1 Japanese)
• 2 Japanese / 2 German / 1 Indonesian / 1 French
• 1 ‘beginner’ / 2 ‘stabilisers’ / 2 ‘diversifiers’ / 1 not specified
• 3 reported formal LOTE teaching qualifications
• 1 rated proficiency as ‘minimal’, 2 ‘reasonable’, 1 ‘good’, 2 ‘native’
Table 3.9
Participants in additional group
Group type Details of group

Additional interviewed • 3 rural Education Queensland, 1 Independent city-based
respondents • 2 male, 2 female
• 1 primary, 3 secondary
• 1 French, 1 German, 1 Italian, 1 Japanese
• 2 ‘beginners’, 2 ‘diversifiers’
• 1 native speaker (Italian)
• 1 rated proficiency as ‘very good’, 1 ‘reasonable/good’, 1 ‘reasonable’, 1 ‘native’
• 1 reported no qualifications
In focus groups the relation between the interviewer/moderator and the participants can be a
crucial factor in the dialogue that ensues. Focus groups allow the researcher to take a less
prominent role as an interlocutor because participants relate to each other as well as the
interviewer. On the whole the participants were strangers although in each group, except the
rural group, some teachers knew each other professionally. The advantage of working largely
with strangers is that the discussion cannot draw on the taken-for-granted assumptions that
occur between friends (Morgan, 1988) and so meaning needs to be articulated in the
discussion as participants take on the role of facilitating each other’s understanding of the
issues (Wilson, 1997).
153
In the present study, the researcher’s own experience as a teacher educator with frequent
contact with schools through practicum supervision also meant that she had had professional
contact with one or two of the participants in each group except the rural group. The issues
raised in the questionnaire also provided the interviewees with an idea of the researcher’s
interests and perspectives. The participants did not come to the focus groups unaware of the
issues likely to be discussed. Indeed the letter of invitation to participate (see Appendix 1)
specifically mentioned that the focus groups would look at issues raised in the questionnaire.
At the same time, the fact that the interviews were held in the interviewer’s context rather
than the teachers’ may have marked her as an outsider and this may also have been a factor in
shaping responses. The interviews, in other words, do not simply report on external realities.
They are also “situated narratives” which display perspectives and moral forms (Silverman,
1993). In other words, they can be considered as instances of “performance”, at once “unique
and emergent”, “conventionalised” and “patterned” (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996:77). The way
in which participants constructed their self-presentations and negotiated their identities vis-à-
vis their audience, in this instance the researcher and a number of colleagues, was part of the
data being collected and provided a critical way of examining cultural conventions and social
norms.
3.2.4 Focus group procedures

The focus group interviews were non-standardised (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993) to allow for
the responsiveness required to pursue issues of relevance to the participants although a
question schedule was prepared (see Appendix 1) and each group was asked the four primary
questions. Given the overlap in the topics, the discussion was timed with each question
introduced in a natural break or as a redirection of the ongoing discussion. Each group began
with an explanation from the researcher of the procedure and purpose and then each
participant was asked to make an introductory statement. This not only got everyone on record
with their different contexts and experiences but was also intended to help deter “groupthink”
(Morgan, 1988). The probes used, however, depended on the direction the discussion took in
response to these initial prompts and the issues raised.
154
Summaries of the discussions were prepared and sent to participants who were invited to
make corrections or clarifications or to add further comments. These member checks (Guba &
Lincoln, 1989) were to ensure that the speakers’ intentions were captured as faithfully as
possible in the focus group analysis.
3.2.5 Qualitative analysis

The group discussions were recorded and transcribed to allow for an analysis of recurring
features both in terms of content, the positions taken, and in terms of how this content was
expressed. One advantage of working with transcripts is that they allow for coding which can
help identify themes and patterns but can also be revisited as necessary as different issues
emerge.
. . . codes are organising principles that are not set in stone. They are our
own creation, in that we identify and select them ourselves. They are tools
we think with. They can be expanded, changed or scrapped altogether as

our ideas develop through repeated interactions with the data. Starting to
create categories is a way of beginning to read and think about the data in a
systematic and organised way (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996:32).
The QSR Nud*ist software (Qualitative Solutions and Research Pty Ltd, 1997) was used to
assist in the analysis. The coding made use of key research concepts and ideas emerging from
the questionnaire (e.g. goals of the program, use of TL as medium of instruction, constraints,
attitudes of reality definers and so on) but also included “in vivo” codes (Strauss, 1987) which
derived from the terms and language used by the teachers themselves in the course of the
interviews. This sought to combine a “bottom-up” as well as a “top-down” approach to the
data in order to provide illustrations in the teachers’ own words of the sort of thinking that
underpinned the more quantitative data from the broader survey, thus ensuring the teachers’
voices were not lost. The coding allowed the exploration of threads across the five focus
groups and the additional interviews.
155
3.3 Summary
The research design utilised in this study involved two phases of data collection and analysis.
The first involved a survey using an instrument designed specifically for the study which
collected background information from respondents and used a six-point Likert-like scale to
explore languages teachers’ responses to the ongoing developments in policy and practice,
focusing particularly on the goals of the program, use of the target language and actual and
proposed change. A number of respondents to the survey were then invited to participate in
phase 2 of the study, a series of five focus group discussions which explored in more detail
the issues of compulsion, continuity between Years 7 and 8, use of the target language in
teacher talk and predictions of where the program will be in five years time.
The data analysis of the survey is presented in Chapter 4 with the focus group discussion
reported in Chapter 5. These outcomes and their implications are then discussed in Chapter 6.
156

Rachelle Medenilla

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rachelle Medenilla

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 3

Research Design and Methods

3.1.1 Design of the instrument

reflected as accurately as possible the intentions of respondents.

3.1.1.1 Teacher details

experienced different preservice teacher education programs. An additional difference

stressed the importance of appropriate preparation of teachers. Respondents were asked to

understanding. Communicative competence involves understanding “the social and cultural

3.1.1.2 Teacher proficiency

of unpredictability and respond spontaneously to student contributions. While high

3.1.1.3 Use of the target language

Senior Secondary School Studies.

with reservations (Foddy, 1993).

3.1.1.4 Student proficiency outcomes

3.1.1.6 Goals of the LOTE program

Option 9, positive attitudes, emphasises potential non-linguistic outcomes of a LOTE program

3.1.1.7 Teacher perspectives

3.1.2 Trialling the survey

Queensland’s Regional LOTE Co-ordinators.

3.1.3 Modifications to draft questionnaire

In the process of shortening the questionnaire, a number of questions which respondents

3.1.3.1 Teacher details

3.1.3.3 Use of the target language in class

think in terms of proficiency when school assessment is achievement-based. The teachers

3.1.3.4 Teacher perspectives

School sector/affiliation Invitations Responses

School sector/affiliation Invitations Responses

School sector Invitation Response Explained %a %b

3.1.6 Quantitative data analysis

Overall, the analyses looked at distributions of responses (percentages, means, standard

3.2 Phase 2 - Focus group interviews

that fosters a range of opinions, a more complete and revealing

superficial statements or influence the participants’ willingness to discuss a topic together. As

have changed? In what ways?

3.2.2 Conduct of the focus groups

3.2.3 Identifying participants

then? (Hargreaves, 1996:13).

Did not respond to invitation 5 0 4 2 2

Participated in group interview 5 7 6 5 6

Group number and type Details of group

Group 2 - Secondary • 6 secondary only / 1 primary/secondary

Group 3 - Primary • 5 primary (1 primary at time of survey, now secondary)

Group number and type Details of group

Group 5 - Primary and secondary (Rural teleconference)

Group type Details of group

3.2.4 Focus group procedures

3.2.5 Qualitative analysis

we think with. They can be expanded, changed or scrapped altogether as

You might also like