Qualitative Research Methods-Weekend 4 Dr. Doris Correa Master’s in Foreign Language Teaching and Learning Universidad de Antioquia Fall 2014

Agenda, Friday, October 31 1.Finish report on methods 2.Some points about memos: Punctuation, citation, intros 3.Differences between case studies and action research (90mins)

Agenda, Saturday, November 1 4. Presentations : analysis of 4 articles based on differences studied

Differences between CS & AR in terms of : 1.Aims 2.Starting point (group 1) 3.Role of researcher and participants 4.Relationship with theory (group 2) 5.Types of questions 6.Methods (ways of collecting and analyzing data) (group 3) 7.Designs (Types) --(group 4) 8.Generalizations 9.The report (group 5)

Some points about memos  Framework to state that “...we are concerned with the extent to which, and the way in which, actual possible social practices and conceptions of reading and writing enable human subjects to understand and engage the politics of daily life in the quest of a more truly democratic social order…” (p. 12) likewise she points out that “...a personal critique of all those issues which surround us as we live, learn and work-to help us understand, comment on and ultimately control the direction of ou r lives.” (Green and Fehring, 2001, as cited in Mojica, 2007, p. 12).  She takes into consideration students’ perceptions and particular ways to interpret aspects of culture when she argues that: “... their individual and particular experiences in their interaction with the world helped them” (p. 20).

 The author elicits that “... different means such as the school, the media, the T.V programs, the Internet (...) help us inform ourselves and thus, shape our view, readings, opinions and perspectives about the world that surround our lives.” (p.16), that is to say, students’ beliefs, opinions, feelings, and representations are socially constructed through their interaction within their contexts.  Every paradigm has its own specific characteristics; in Richards’ words: “they will see and interpret the world in different ways.” (2003, p.32) Analysing each part of this written report, we agreed that this action research belongs mainly to the interpretivist paradigm.

 Furthermore, the emphasis of an interpretivist paradigm is to understand social contextual situations eliciting different perspectives of participants; additionally, this paradigm sees research as a means to improve practices, in fact, this is one of the goals of this study: improving students’ writing skills and finding instructional techniques. One of the questions does not fit this description  Lastly, in the implications, the suggestion is to see the effects and seek for understanding of another research; thus, the investigator is proposing another study from an interpretivist paradigm. If they had a pre and post-test, they were looking for specific categories and that is not grounded theory. Maybe only part of the analysis was done this way, but not all

 The author tries to unveil these realities based on teachers’ beliefs and assumptions about EFL teaching and learning and the role that factors such as communicative competence, linguistic ego and teaching strategies play within their practices (Abad, 2003, p )  In relation to “The world of lived reality and situation- specific meanings that constitute the general object of investigation” (Schwandt 1994a:118 as cited by Richards 2003 ).

 “The data analysis led to the identification of various factors, such as teachers’ linguistic ego, view of their teaching role, and attitude towards English, which shape English teaching and are tied to teachers’ education”. (Abad, 2013)  He draws on authors like De Mejía (2006) and Usma (2009) to state how implementing a “ plan based on imported policies […] accentuates the disparities between private and public education, and thus perpetuates existing conditions of inequality.” (p. 98).