Data Collection Methods

For this study, two types of data were collected by the researcher (the writer of this paper).

Firstly, the parents, whose children study in the bilingual primary school, answered questionnaires. Secondly, six parents and six teachers working in the same school were interviewed by using the qualitative semi-structured interview method.

6.2.1 Questionnaires as Quantitative Data Collection Method

Questionnaires are a versatile method for both “to obtain subjective information about participants and to document objective, measurable impact--“ (Phillips & Stawarski 2008, 1), which also can be used together with other data collection methods. They are a useful tool to collect large amounts of factual data. (Gurthie 2010, 129.) For this study, the questionnaires were provided by the research project Developing Multilingualism and Multiculturalism in the Context of Early Language Education: Parents’ Views, led by professors Ritva Kantelinen (University of Eastern Finland) and Victoria Pogosian (Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia) and hence, have been used to conduct studies in various countries and contexts and in several different languages. The questionnaires have translated from English into Spanish by native Spanish speakers thus, they have been piloted.

The questionnaire used in this research (appendix 5) contained two types of questions; close-response and open-close-response questions. Open-close-response questions allow the participants to answer in their own words, for example by filling in, which then can be then categorized and coded. Close-response questions have limited answering options, making the research easier to replicate. One example of close-response questions are Likert scales which measure attitudes and perceptions. The scale has points from low to high and the participants choose an option that best corresponds their opinion. (Gurthie 2010, 129–133.) In the questionnaire there were four close-response questions. Also, a five-point scale was used, and the participants chose an option between “strongly agree” > “somewhat agree” > “not agree or disagree” > “somewhat disagree” > “strongly disagree”.

Qualitative sampling often follows a random selection of population (Flick 2007, 27–28).

Cluster sampling takes place when a whole group of people, such as all the households in a certain area, is sampled (Chantler & Durant 2014, 124), which is also the method used in this study.

All the parents whose children studied in the bilingual school were asked to participate. In the beginning of July, after a month’s stay in Honduras, the parents were introduced the research in a parents’ meeting at the school with the help of an interpreter. It was emphasized that the questionnaire would be anonymous. All 60 questionnaires that were brought from Finland were distributed, one per household, and asked to be brought or be sent back with their children within a week. However, only six were returned within the next month so the research was

introduced again in the parents’ meeting in August, and 15 more questionnaires were printed and delivered. Later, a reminder was sent to each home (appendix 3) and eventually out of the 75 questionnaires 23 were returned, the respond rate being 30,7% (N=23). It should be noted, however, that some households may have received more than one questionnaire though it is certain that none answered twice.

Nonresponse can cause bias and in most cases it “is not evenly spread across the sample units but is heavily concentrated among subgroups” (Bonda 2003, 8). In this case, it could mean that the families that were most active, motivated and involved in their children’s schooling were the ones taking part in the questionnaire, leaving the uninvolved or other subgroups out and underrepresented. Nonresponse could take place e.g. due to disinterest, lack of time, or being incapacitated to answer the questions. In order to get a more reliable representation of the population and assess this non-sampling error, it was considered that questionnaires would be distributed again among the nonrespondents. However, it proved to be impossible since it would have required the participants to fill in identifiable information so that one could keep track on who has responded and who has not—and the questionnaire would no longer have been anonymous.

6.2.2 Semistructured Interview as Qualitative Data Collection Method

Interviews are an interactional way of acquiring knowledge from another person and understanding different phenomena in our world (Brinkmann 2014, 278). In this study, semi-structured format was used because of its suitability. The strength of the semi-semi-structured interview is in giving space for the interviewees to express themselves as knowledge-producing participants while affording adequate structure to address the topic of the study. The interviewer’s task is to negotiate and understand the meaning of what is being said. The interviewer is an active listener, guiding the situation with questions which may range from theoretically oriented to more open-ended questions. This way, the interviewer has a better chance to focus on issues that are relevant for the research as opposed to structured interviews.

(Brinkmann 2014, 286–287; Galletta 2012, 24;78–89.) The semistructured interview method was chosen for its flexibility and ability to generate in-depth information that lets the interviewee’s voice be heard.

The interview questions were carefully developed to answer the research problem. The parents’

interview questions (appendix 1) were loosely derived from the open-response questions found in the questionnaires (appendix 5), because they provided a glimpse into the parents’

experiences and helped to design questions that were meaningful and in context. In the beginning of every interview the purpose of the study was yet again described, and the participants were reminded of their rights. It also seemed necessary to explain the main concepts and terms so that everyone involved would be on the same page. To allow the interview to be discussive, natural and flowing, the interviewer (the writer of this paper) had several support questions, even though they did not follow in any strict order, which helped her to negotiate meaning, steer the course of the discussion, and rephrase the primary questions if needed.

By carefully selecting the subjects, it is possible to make use of the full potential of semi-structured interviews. In qualitative research, the sample may be purposefully defined in the beginning of or even during the process by the researcher. The sample may be selected in a way that best provides understanding of the phenomenon, which also allows managing the diversity of the participants’ perspectives. This means that the participants can be recruited based on their likelihood to contribute valuable information for the study. (Flick 2007, 27–28; Galletta 2012, 33–34.) This was particularly convenient and affected the choice of the method and for this study, the interviewees were expressly chosen according to specific criteria. Before the actual interviews, however, pilot interviews were conducted by the researcher, after which the questions were slightly modified. Eventually, six teachers and six parents participated.

The teachers were personally asked to participate. They taught seven different grades in the bilingual primary school and had experience with English language education, which provided both diversity and relevance to this study. The interviews (appendix 2) were conducted in English and they took place at the school or in one case, in the interviewer’s house. The average duration of the interviews was 35 minutes, the shortest lasting 21 and the longest 46 minutes.

The parents, in the other hand, were selected based on accessibility and willingness. As not all parents were actively involved in their children’s language education, the aim was to interview parents who were more aware of the phenomenon and felt that they had something to contribute.

It was important that the participants were open to discuss their expectations and experiences we well as sharing ideas on how to develop parent–teacher partnership. This way acquiring adequate and purposeful information was ensured.

Thus, the interviewees were chosen among those who had answered the questionnaire and wished to be interviewed. Attached to the questionnaire was a note (see appendix 4) where the parents could tick a box whether they were interested in taking part in an interview and leave their name in order to be contacted later. In the end, several parents were willing to be interviewed but only six left their contact information. All six of them were interviewed, but one of the recordings was lost and eventually another parent was personally asked to be interviewed. Parents were either interviewed during the school day or invited to the school afterwards. On average, one interview lasted 34 minutes, the shortest being 20 minutes and the longest 54 minutes. In all but one case an interpreter was used.