Given that grounded theory centers on research data as a means to develop theoretical hypotheses, it may not be appropriate to write specific research questions without interpreting any data. The mainstay of this assumption resides in the fact that researchers cannot anticipate what is worth investigating in a particular research context. Therefore, they should be flexible in their research scopes and need to acknowledge new issues that emerge from the data. Otherwise it could be difficult to develop hypotheses based on the data. With my supervisors, we took this perspective in writing the research questions.
Before data collection, I had one research question for Stage 1 (the reconnaissance phase): “What problems do Turkish EFL learners experience while speaking English?”; and one question for Stage 3 (developing a new idea): “In what ways is this action research procedure useful for providing students with opportunities to improve their speaking ability?” However, we were unable to anticipate what would happen during research interventions in which we implemented student negotiation and, therefore, we did not define the focus of our research. After collecting and interpreting the data collected in reconnaissance phase and during research interventions, we developed a new understanding of the constructs that seemed to discourage student participation in speaking activities. This knowledge allowed us to determine the focus of our research and write a further research question with five sub-questions: “In what ways does negotiation of activity types impact on students’ (a) perceptions of speaking ability, (b) classroom participation and performance, (c) anxiety level, (d) willingness to speak, and (e) self-esteem?”
Gaining Ethical Approval, Approaching the Participants
I received official ethical approval from the university, I also obtained the consents of participants by asking them to sign an informed consent form, in which I explained the general objectives of the study. I assured them that participation was on a voluntary basis and their identities would be protected. The questionnaire data were collected anonymously. I asked for permission to audio record the interviews and avoided asking sensitive and judgmental questions. The data were stored in my personal computer and audio files were deleted after transcribing.
The research necessitated an emic perspective (Rossman & Rallis, 2003) by interacting with the participants in the research context. To ensure this, I acted as if I was a member of the group by entering classes 10 minutes before the lesson and spending time with participants during the break. This enabled me to be a part of this community, provide an insider point of view and make a more thorough interpretation of the learning and teaching process.
Sampling
The method used to sample participants is critical in designing research. The quality of a research study is partly determined by the appropriateness of its sampling method. This becomes more critical in grounded theory because it relies on research data as a means to develop theories. Therefore, it is essential to collect data from the right people. Morse (2007) defines excellent participants as individuals who have been through, or observed, the experience under investigation and asserts that having excellent participants is key to developing comprehensive and dynamic theories.
Two sampling methods are common in grounded theory – convenience sampling and purposeful sampling. Convenience sampling selects participants on the basis of accessibility and serves the purpose of identifying the scope of research at the beginning of the study (Morse, 2007). This research was based on convenience sampling because it was difficult for me to conduct the study in any other institution (Richards, 2003). I selected the particular class because, compared to other classes, its members were more experienced learners of EFL as they had taken a one-year preparatory class in the previous year. The research sample included the 32 students in the class as well as the teacher; I collected data from her throughout the term and we worked collaboratively to design the content of the following class by taking into account the data collected from the students. The convenience sampling method enabled me to define the scope of my research, in that I revealed issues that seemed to delay student engagement in speaking activities. In doing so, I used my observation field notes where I recorded the classroom behaviors of those students who volunteered to take part in the interviews.
In the second stage of research, interviewees were sampled using the purposeful sampling method. This method is important in grounded theory as it ensures that the research sample has specific characteristics. I employed a process of maximum variation sampling (Richards, 2003). Based on my interpretation of the data collected in the previous stage, I invited three students who were positive about their self-confidence, classroom participation and perceived speaking competence, and three students who were negative about these aspects. Thanks to this, I ensured diversity in my sample in order to develop the theory by taking into account varied perspectives.
Data Collection Methods
Grounded theory is flexible in terms of data collection methods and permits researchers to use any methods that serve the purpose of developing a theory. Researchers can change their methods at any point during research (Charmaz, 2006) to attend all important constructs emerged from data. During research interventions, we shifted the focus of observations and interviews from revealing students’ characteristics and instructional problems to understanding their reactions and classroom behaviors. This led to collecting richer and more relevant data.
In grounded theory, it is important to reach data saturation: collecting data until it stops producing new topics, ideas and categories (Morse, 2007). Data saturation is the point where researchers ensure that further data will not add new knowledge. This is important to develop a thorough understanding of the phenomenon. However, reaching data saturation was not possible in this research because I had to complete the research in one term.
Another important aspect of collecting data in grounded theory is using “comparative methods” (Charmaz, 2006). Considering that it may not be appropriate to develop theories by relying on the data that emerged from one data collection method, researchers are encouraged to use “methods triangulation” in order to check the consistency of findings generated by different data collection methods (Patton, 1980). This argument shows the complexity of developing a theory, in that it requires understanding the phenomena from different perspectives by using different data sources. We addressed this assumption in selecting our data collection methods.
Three data collection methods were used in the study: observation, questionnaire, and interview. In Stage 1, which lasted 4 weeks, the methods were employed to become familiar with the classroom situation. In doing so, we sought an answer to the first questions that grounded theory should ask, “What’s happening here?” (Glaser, 1978). This made it possible to uncover problems that hindered the effectiveness of classes and to identify issues to address in the study. In doing so, as suggested by Hopkins (2008), questionnaires were used to gather broad and rich information regarding different aspects of classroom. Although using questionnaires is not common in action research studies, McNiff et al. (1996) maintained that it is appropriate when the information cannot be ascertained otherwise. Considering that conducting interviews with 32 students throughout the term would be difficult, a questionnaire was a convenient method for collecting data from the whole class. The questionnaire included open- and closed-ended items and comprised four main sections: (a) personal information, (b) EFL learning experiences and perceived EFL competence, (c) self-evaluation, and (d) views about the ideal speaking class. In this stage, I observed classes to describe the setting from my perspective (Patton, 1980). Observation provided “live data” (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 396) and made it possible to record “non-verbal behavior in natural settings” (Bailey, 1994, p. 224). These helped me analyze learners’ reactions during speaking activities and select my interviewees. My observation was nonparticipant and I made field notes to record comments that I believed to be important (McKay, 2006). After analyzing the questionnaire and observation data, interviews were implemented as they are useful when investigating how individuals