Like in most phenomenographic studies, the data for the present study was collected in interviews (Limberg 2008: 612). According to Hirsijärvi and Hurme (2008: 35), in interviews the research subject, that is, the interviewee is considered an active party who can create meanings and express his or her thoughts freely.
Tuomi and Sarajärvi (2009: 73) find flexibility the greatest advantage of interviews. They state that the interviewer can among other things ask for clarification, repeat questions and reformulate phrasing or the order of the questions at any time of the interview. This is not possible in many other data collection methods, for example in questionnaires. Interviews enable more in-depth discussion about the research topic, and hence, are a better method for studying teachers’ and pupils’ experiences and thoughts of assessment.
(Hirsijärvi and Hurme 2008: 35.) The need for an interactive data collection method also excluded other methods, such as observations and self-reports.
Interviews are also a much used method which many people are familiar with.
Hirsijärvi and Hurme (2008: 11) point out that interviews are often considered pleasant by both parties. They further note that interviews are close to everyday practices, and hence, people often know what to expect when they receive a request for an interview. Yet, another reason for choosing interviews was that I had previous experience of using this data collection method. As Hirsijärvi and Hurme (2008: 35) state, a lack of skills and experience can be problematic when conducting interviews.
The interviews were semi-structured interviews based on chosen themes. Like usually in semi-structures interviews also in the present study the themes and the questions were planned beforehand but the sequence and form of the questions varied from one interview to another (Hirsijärvi and Hurme 2008: 47).
Some questions were also added during the interviews if the discussion led to a new and interesting point. Thus, in semi-structured interviews the interviewees’
views and opinions are not restricted by the interviewer or the structure of the interview but the interviewees have a chance to express and clarify themselves more freely (Hirsijärvi and Hurme 2008: 48).
The outlines of the interviews for teachers and pupils were tested in two pilot studies before the actual interviews. Eskola and Suoranta (2008: 88) highly recommend pilot studies also because it is important to test the interview practices and equipment before the actual interviews. The first pilot interview was done with a teacher who previously taught in an upper secondary school and used the ELP but who currently has a different type of teaching job, still involving the ELP. The other pilot interview was done with a lower-secondary school pupil. Originally the pilot interview was supposed to be a pair interview but unfortunately the other interviewee got ill and was not able to participate on the prearranged day. The outlines for both interviews included the same themes but the questions are somewhat different. The questions were formulated in consideration of the respondents’ expertise and point of view. Based on the pilot interviews some minor modifications were made to the wording of questions before the actual data collection begun. The outlines of the teacher and pupil interviews can be found in Appendix 1 and 2.
4.2.1 The data collection process
The data collection process began in January 2014 when several teachers were contacted by email and the pilot interviews were conducted. Finding English and Swedish language teachers who are using the ELP was challenging and some of the teachers were very busy but finally five primary and lower secondary school
teachers of English and/or Swedish agreed to an interview. Some of the teachers had also pupils who were willing to participate in the study, and thus, for practical reasons the teachers recruited altogether ten the pupils for the interviews.
The interviews were held during February and March 2014. Before the interviews the principals of the schools were contacted and asked for a permission to conduct a study at their school. Also the parents of all the interviewed children filled in a permission form confirming that their child can participate in a recorded interview. At the end of each interview the teachers too signed a consent form giving a permission to use the collected data in the present study.
One of the teachers was interviewed at her home, according to her own wish, but all the other teachers and pupils were interviewed at their schools.
The teachers were interviewed individually whereas pupils were interviewed in small groups of two to three pupils. Hirsijärvi and Hurme (2008: 63) acknowledge the advantage of group interviews when research participants are young children. They state that children are often shy, and hence, group interviews often result in more confidence to talk. Moreover, Eskola and Suoranta (2008: 94) note that in group interviews the participants can support each other, recall things that happened in the past and evoke memories together.
Although the pupils in the present study were not young children but rather teenagers aged between 11 and 14, it was to be expected that they had not been interviewed before and that they might feel nervous talking to a stranger.
Moreover, as it was discovered during the pupil pilot study, the topic of the interviews was somewhat challenging and the support of a peer was considered valuable. Thus, group interviews were chosen to make the young interviewees feel more comfortable and also to rouse more discussion during the interview.
On the other hand, the teachers in the study were interviewed individually since they were expected to have more confidence in talking about language
assessment as it is a part of their everyday work. Teachers also often have previous experience of interviews.
All interviews were recorded and the group interviews were also videotaped.
Videotaping is often recommended in group interviews because it helps later in transcribing and analysing process when the researcher needs to know who is talking at which point (Hirsijärvi and Hurme 2008: 63). The pupils were interviewed in pairs or in groups of three but one pupil was interviewed alone since the other pupil, who was also supposed to participate, did not show up for an unknown reason.
4.2.2 Participants
All teacher participants teach English currently or have taught it before and four of the teachers have taught or still teach also Swedish. Only one of the teachers teaches English and German and has never taught Swedish. All teachers have wide knowledge of the ELP and they have used it for many years. Nonetheless the teachers’ current practices in using the ELP varied. Some of the teachers had integrated the ELP in their everyday teaching whereas others were not presently using the ELP as much as they had in the past or as they were planning to in the future. For example a change of workplace had affected some teachers’ (3/5) use of the ELP, at least temporarily.
When reporting the results of the interviews in the following sections the teachers are referred to by pseudonyms. The teachers behind these pseudonyms are introduced in the following Table 1. All information in parenthesis refers to the teachers’ previous experience or current experience which only has a minor role in the teachers’ current work.
Table 1: The interviewed teachers
In addition to the teachers, ten pupils participated in the present study. The pupils were interviewed in five groups, although one group finally formed of only one pupil. Like the teachers, also the pupils will be referred to by pseudonyms in the following sections. The pupils of the five groups are introduced in Table 2. The reported amount of ELP experience is based on the pupils’ own responses and conceptions
Table 2: The interviewed pupils