CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter represents the methodology used in this study. The purpose of this study is to
identify the level of creativity fostering behaviors and self efficacy beliefs among primary school
teacher in Klang District regards gender and teaching experiences. It also examines the influence of
self efficacy beliefs on creativity fostering behaviors of teachers in classroom setting while teaching
creatively. This chapter presents a description of research design, population and sample and
research procedures that include instruments, data collection techniques and data analysis
procedures.

Research design

This study used survey questionnaire (refer to Appendix B) and semi-structured interviews

(refer to Appendix C). The data collected by means of the questionnaire and interviews were used for

identifying high proficiency and low proficiency of ESL secondary school learners’ perspectives on

corrective feedback in oral communication classes. Participants were asked to respond to a set of

questions about demographic background, perspectives among types of corrective feedback, choices

for corrector providers and timings of corrective feedback. Creswell (2007) suggested that surveys

helped to identify important beliefs and attitudes of individuals about particular aspects that the

researcher aimed to investigate. The questions in the survey were related to learners’ perspectives on

corrective feedback in oral communication classes, and they were adapted from Corrective Feedback

Beliefs Scale (CBFS) used by Zhang and Rahimi (2014), Park (2010), and Fukuda (2004). In this

study, some question items were omitted from the original instrument because they were not relevant

to the present study.

In addition, qualitative, semi structured interviews informed the researcher of some further

understandings of the learners’ perspectives that the data from the survey questionnaire firstly

revealed (Creswell, 2007). According to Strauss & Cobbin (1998), qualitative methods could be used

to obtain the intricate details about phenomena such as feelings, thought processes, and emotions that

were difficult to extract and learn through quantitative methods. The semi-structured interview
questions were adapted from Kennedy (2003) and were formed based on the questions in the survey

questionnaire. Since the interview participants already had responded to the questions in the survey,

they understood interview questions relatively easily. Semi-structured questions were used rather

than open ended questions in Lee’s (2013) study because this study involved participants who had

low proficiency in English. Thus, the semi-structured interview questions functioned as guidance for

them in giving their opinions. The information obtained in the data collection instruments of the

study were primarily used to comprehend low proficiency and high proficiency of ESL learners’

perspectives on corrective feedback in oral communication classes.

Population and participants

The population of this study consisted of ESL students from a Chinese independent

secondary school in Kuala Lumpur. The selected participants were chosen from 790 students of

Senior 1 (Form 4). There were more than 4000 students in this secondary school. All the participants

were learning English Language as a second language since primary school. One secondary school

had been chosen to involve in this particular study due to time constraint.

The participants of this study were 40 low proficiency ESL students and 40 high proficiency

ESL students, respectively. The participants consisted of male and female aged between 16 to 17. All

the students were ensured that they had been learning English Language as a school subject since

primary school and had more than five-year experience in learning English Language. Both low and

high proficiency ESL students were currently learning English for three hours every week. For the

purpose of determining low proficiency and high proficiency ESL students, students from Sr1ScA

(High proficiency class) and Sr1D (Low proficiency class) were required to sit for an English

Language Oral Proficiency Test (refer to Appendix D). Students who achieved more than 20 marks

were considered as high proficiency students while students who achieved below 15 marks were

considered as low proficiency students. Students’ English Language Test result in school which was

a combination of formative and summative was taken into consideration as well. 40 low proficiency

ESL students and 40 high proficiency ESL students were selected randomly based on both English

Language Tests result.

Instruments

This study used two types of data collection instruments, which were survey questionnaire

(refer to Appendix B) and semi-structured interviews (refer to Appendix C).

Questionnaire The quantitative method of data collection was through the use of a survey

questionnaire. The survey questions were based on a 5-point Likert Scale. ‘Very Effective’,

‘Effective’, ‘Partially Effective/ Partially Ineffective’, ‘Ineffective’ and ‘Very Ineffective’ were the

5-point Likert Scale for questions about the participants’ perspectives on types of corrective

feedback. Meanwhile, ‘Strongly Agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Partially Agree/ Partially Disagree’, ‘Disagree’

and ‘Strongly Disagree’ were the 5-point Likert Scale for questions about choices of corrector

provider and timing for corrective feedback. The respondents were required to tick only one column

for each statement. The survey questionnaire carried a total of 25 items and set in English Language

(refer to Appendix B). These items were adapted from Zhang and Rahimi (2014), Park (2010),

Fukuda (2004) and modified according to the needs of this study. The survey questionnaire was

divided into three categories based on themes to discuss ESL students’ perspective.

i) Types of oral corrective feedback:

Repetition (item: 1)

Clarification request (item 2)

Recast (item 3)

Explicit feedback (item: 4)

Elicitation (item: 5)

Metalinguistic feedback (item: 6)

ii) Choices of corrector provider:

Peers (items: 7, 9, 11)

Teachers (items: 8, 13, 15)

Self-correction (items: 10, 12, 14)

iii) Timing of corrective feedback

Immediate (item: 16, 19)

Delayed (item: 17, 18, 20)

 Interviews One-to-one interviews were conducted and ranged in length from 10 to 15

minutes to supplement the findings from the survey data. The interview was conducted in English

Language for both proficiency levels of ESL students. This interview involved five respondents each

from low proficiency and high proficiency ESL students. Each participant was purposively chosen

according to their feedback in the survey questionnaire. Hence, a thorough study was conducted to

comprehend their perspectives towards certain corrective feedback. The interviews were videotaped

for data analysis.

According to Dörnyei (2001), quantitative methods were generally less sensitive for

uncovering the motivational dynamics involved in language learning than qualitative techniques.

Fontana and Frey (2000) also stated that, collecting data via interviews is one of the most powerful

ways to understand human psychology. Hence, it is crucial to integrate the qualitative data to make

the findings of the study more trustworthy. Interviews would produce the qualitative data that

triangulates the findings from the quantitative data. It then eventually increases the validity of the

data collected and provides greater confidence in the generalization of the results. A set of six

interview questions was designed based on the research objectives to find out if the information

provided by the respondents’ in the questionnaire corresponded with information provided in the

interview (refer to Appendix C). In addition, through interviews, the researcher found out additional

information which had not been identified by the survey.

Validity and reliability of instrument The content validity of the questionnaire used in this

research was based on samples from previous research done in this field (Fukuda, 2004; Kennedy,

2003; Park, 2010; Zhang & Rahimi, 2014). The questionnaires from previous researches were

adjusted to suit the criteria and need of the research questions and the scope of the study. In order to

ensure the face validity of the instrument used, the set of questionnaire had been checked by two

experts in SLA. The two experts were both lecturers from the English Language Department from

the Faculty of Education at the University of Malaya. Their suggestions and corrections had been

taken into consideration in improving the survey.

Procedure of data collection

Actual research procedure Before data collection, the researcher discussed with, and

sought approval from the school principal in order for the students to be participants in this research

(refer to Appendix A for the consent letter to the school principal). Students who were involved in

this study were from the same level, Senior 1 equals to Form 4. Two classes were chosen. Each

student was required to sit for an English Language Oral Proficiency Test which based on five

aspects (refer to Appendix D). As mentioned in the previous studies, students who achieved more

than 20 marks were considered as high proficiency students while students who achieved below 15

marks were considered as low proficiency students. 40 high proficiency ESL students and 40 low

proficiency ESL students were selected randomly as the participants of this study based on the

English Language Oral Proficiency test. The researcher also ensured that the students agreed to

participate without any reluctance. Participants were given a consent letter regarding to this research

so that their information could be used as part of this research only. Students’ English Language Test

result in school which was a combination of formative and summative was taken into consideration

as well.

Data collection was conducted at the after-school extra curriculum program over one month.

All the selected students were required to attend oral communication classes which were carried out

by the researcher. Before the oral communication classes were conducted, students were being

explained about the types of corrective feedback in this study thoroughly. As this study focused on

speaking skill, all the activities involved student interactions in the form of role play, story creation,

picture description and spot the differences between pictures. Over a period of eight days oral

communication classes were conducted for both HP and LP ESL students. Each session of oral

communication class was carried out for 20 minutes (refer to Appendix E for sample study

materials). Corrective feedbacks were given during the activities.

Lesson 1

The first lesson was a picture story. Six pictures were included in this lesson to form a picture

story. Students were divided randomly into groups of four. Two minutes were given to all the groups

to discuss about the picture shown. Each group was required to send a member to construct a
sentence based on the picture shown. Teacher corrected students’ mistakes using any suitable types

of CF and put a tick at the table of CF (refer to Appendix F). Teacher chose a student from another

group to continue the story and CF was only given when necessary. Also, peers were encouraged to

correct one another’s mistakes. Self-correction was encouraged in oral communication classes.

Certain mistakes were only corrected at the end of the lesson. Prompting was included if unavoided

pauses occurred during the activity.

Lesson 2

The second lesson was a comparison between two pictures. Students were required to spot

the differences between picture A and picture B individually. Two minutes were given to all the

students. Teacher demonstrated by stating a difference between the pictures. Then, a student was

required to state a difference between picture A and picture B. All the students were encouraged to

give a detailed description of the difference. Teacher corrected the student’s mistakes if there are any

with suitable type of CF and put a tick at the table of CF (refer to Appendix F). Certain mistakes

were only corrected at the end of the lesson. Students who had stated the difference would have to

choose another student to identify other differences of the pictures. This step continued until all the

differences were mentioned. Peers were encouraged to correct one another’s mistakes. Also, teacher

prompted students to correct their own mistakes.

Lesson 3

The third lesson was a role play which involved pair work. Students were explained about a

scenario whereby a policeman was interviewing a witness of a bank robbery. Three minutes were

given for students to discuss the role play with their partners. Teacher chose a pair of students to

perform the role play. One of the students was required to form questions as the role of a policeman

while another student had to answer the questions by describing the bank robbery. Teacher corrected

students’ mistakes using any types of CF and put a tick at the table of CF (refer to Appendix F).

Some mistakes were corrected at the end of the lesson. Peers were encouraged to correct the pair’s

mistakes. The pair was encouraged to correct their own mistakes as well. The role play continued

with other pairs. Detailed descriptions of the bank robbery were required. Prompting was included if

students had difficulties in performing the role play.

Lesson 4

The fourth lesson was a picture story. It consisted of five pictures and three others with

exclamation marks. All the students were given two minutes to construct a sentence based on a

picture shown individually. A student was chosen to share the constructed sentence with the class.

Teacher corrected the student’s mistakes using any suitable types of CF. Certain mistakes were only

corrected at the end of the lesson. Peers were encouraged to correct one another’s mistakes. Also,

students were allowed to correct their own mistakes. Next, the particular student could choose any

peers to continue the story. Prompting was included if there are any unnecessary pauses during the

activity. Students were required to predict the story if they encountered any slide with an

exclamation mark. All these steps continued until the students completed the picture story.

Lesson 5

The fifth lesson was a story creation task. Students were divided randomly into groups of

four. Students were required to create a story with 10 out of 16 items. Two minutes were given to all

the groups to discuss their stories. Each group was required to send a member to present the story. If

there are any pauses during presentation, members of the group were encouraged to continue the

story. Students’ mistakes were corrected by teacher using any suitable type of CF and recorded in the

table of CF (refer to Appendix F). Students were given chances to do self-correction. Also, peers

were encouraged to correct one another’s mistakes. Certain mistakes were only amended at the end

of the lesson. Creativity and originality of the story were important aspects in the presentation.

Lesson 6

The sixth lesson focused on a picture description task. Students were required to continue a

sentence provided by relating to a picture shown individually. Chronological pictures of the two

different characters were shown in this activity. Students were encouraged to point out the

similarities and differences between two characters in the story. Teacher chose a student to begin the

story and only correct selected mistakes. Certain mistakes were corrected at the end of the lesson.

Peers were encouraged to correct one another’s mistakes. Self-correction among students was

included in this activity. All the students were encouraged to give a detailed description of the

picture shown. All these steps continued until all the pictures were presented.
Lesson 7

The seventh lesson included a picture story which consisted of six pictures. It focused on an

individual work whereby teacher appointed a student to begin the story by referring to the first

picture. All the students were given two minutes to form a sentence. Teacher involved students by

asking them to share different solutions for the story. Other students were asked to comment about

the suggested solutions. Creativity; an important aspect was encouraged in this activity. Students’

mistakes were corrected with any suitable type of CF. Certain mistakes were amended at the end of

the lesson. Besides, peer CF and self-correction were included in this activity. All the steps

continued until it formed a complete picture story.

Lesson 8

The eighth lesson was a comparison between two pictures. Two sets of pictures; Set 1 and set

2 were included in this activity. Students were required to spot the differences between picture A and

picture B for both sets in pairs. Two minutes were given to all the pairs. Teacher demonstrated by

stating a difference between the pictures of Set 1. Then, a pair of students was assigned to state a

difference between picture A and picture B in Set 1. All the pairs were encouraged to give a detailed

description of the differences. Teacher corrected students’ mistakes if there are any with the suitable

type of CF. Certain mistakes were only corrected at the end of the lesson. Peer CF and self-

correction were included in this activity. The pair of students who had stated a difference between

the pictures would choose another pair of students to identify other differences in Set 1. Teacher

continued with Set 2 when Set 1 had been completed. Prompting was needed if any unnecessary

pauses occurred during the activity.

After eight sessions of oral communication classes, students were required to answer a set of

survey questionnaire which consisted of 25 items with the researcher’s guidance if there was any

clarification required. The survey questionnaire was set in English. The questionnaire required them

to provide names as it allowed the researcher to select participants to conduct a purposive semi-

structured interview.
 As the next step, five participants each from low proficiency and high proficiency in English

Language were chosen purposively based on their feedback on the survey questionnaire for the

interview. Participants were given the six semi-structured questions in English, three days before the

interview was conducted. Interviews were conducted based on the participants’ preferences in terms

of time and convenience. The interview was conducted in English Language for LP and HP ESL

students. Together, the interviews were videotaped providing information about the students’

perspectives on oral CF.

Data analysis

The survey data for this study was analysed through WRS2 Package (Wilcox & Schonbrodt,

2015). It is a program in which data was keyed in based on the variables and coding and does not

require a normal distribution data. The result from the survey was then tabulated by the software

itself and presented in a systematic form including the means and standard deviations indicating the

degree of students’ perceptions. Based on the data, learners’ perspectives were categorized into the

major themes, and interpreted based on percentage of responses given. Independent t-tests and

repeated-measures ANOVA were conducted to compare the responses from low proficiency ESL

learners with those from high proficiency ESL learners (answering the first research question) as

well as to make within group comparisons (answering the second research question). Meanwhile, the

videotaped interviews were transcribed verbatim to facilitate subsequent data to answer the research

questions. The obtained data was analysed and identified based on the major themes in this study.

The following table outlines the procedure of the field research (data collection and analysis)

of the study.

Table Error! No text of specified style in document..1

Data collection and analysis procedure
Dates Activities

1/4/2016  Get UM Consent Letter

3/5/2016  Approval from school principal to conduct a

research
10/5/2016  Select participants:
- English Language Oral Proficiency Test
- English Language Test result (Formative &
Summative)
23/5/2016-  Oral Communication Classes (8 sessions, each
27/5/2016 session: 30 minutes)
6/6/2016-
16/7/2016
17/6/2016  Distribute Survey Questionnaires
 Distribute Interviewed Questions to selected
participants
20/6/2016-  Conduct Interviews
25/6/2016 - 5 High Proficiency students and 5 Low
Proficiency students
1/7/206 –  Analyse data
30/7/2016 - SPSS (Survey)
- Transcribe verbatim (Interviews)