that reason, there were no relevant theories to address when making assumptions regarding possible outcomes of student-negotiated speaking classes. This was one of the reasons why grounded theory was implemented in this research, in that grounded theory is useful in contexts where little is known about a particular topic (Holloway & Wheeler, 2002). This study therefore did not rely on an existing theory but aimed to develop a theoretical hypothesis on an under-researched area – the implementation of student-negotiated speaking classes in an EFL setting.
Context
In Turkey, most people are monolingual in that they hear and use spoken English in formal English education, but rarely in any other settings. Kouraogo (1993) terms these contexts as “input-poor environments” since they do not offer ample input opportunities. Being exposed to limited input also delays producing output. Research studies show that EFL instruction is problematic in such contexts, because it is grammar-based (Aloreibi & Carey, 2017; Pan & Block, 2011), relies on translation and memorization (Gorsuch, 2000), and places little emphasis on teaching listening and speaking (Gürsoy et al., 2013). Although I was familiar with the context and able to anticipate possible problems, as suggested by Holliday (2007), I wanted to avoid a taken-for-granted attitude and took on “the discipline of making the familiar strange” (p. 12). This would prevent me from being biased against the problems encountered in that specific class and, hence, enable me to develop an objective researcher point of view.
Considering the lack of input and output opportunities that are available outside the classroom, it becomes critical to offer effective in-class ELT, especially the teaching of communication skills (e.g., listening, speaking, and writing) because the effectiveness of an individual’s EFL learning depends heavily on the quality of ELT provided in schools. To ensure this, research studies should be conducted to provide empirical evidence on how to design effective EFL classes and teachers must be knowledgeable about these matters. The recommendations of research studies could make it possible to combat the challenges of teaching EFL in monolingual contexts. This was my main impetus in selecting EFL speaking as the research topic of my dissertation. In doing so, I attempted to provide a model for designing an EFL speaking class that could be effective for increasing students’ engagement in their learning process.
To achieve the objectives of this research, I engaged in “thick description” (Geertz, 1973); this allowed me to select, organize, and present “interconnected data” (Holliday, 2002) that were collected using different data sources in different stages of the research. To do so, I recorded analytical memos and made notes about the context and other important issues throughout the research. These enabled me to remember the contexts and significant events that were significant to draw conclusions (Heigham & Croker, 2009). Thick description was also important for the credibility and replicability of my research. To ensure this, I reported my research context and research procedure in detail, so that the readers can understand my interpretations and construct their own interpretations (Heigham & Croker, 2009).
Critical Review of the Literature: Identifying a Space for Exploration
The aim of educational research is to contribute to our knowledge of how to improve the effectiveness of education and studies should therefore promote the generation of practical implications that are likely to improve the quality of learning and teaching. However, there are many studies that fail to do so since their findings are limited to describing a situation, diagnosing a problem, and/or revealing relationships between different constructs. This indicates that some researchers ignore actual practical classroom problems.
As discussed in my dissertation (Uztosun, 2013), although teaching speaking was a major issue in ELT in Turkey, to the best of my knowledge no study had been conducted to investigate teaching EFL speaking through a research methodology that could generate practical implications. My study addressed this gap; within Turkey it was the first study based on action research methodology in an EFL speaking class. These preoccupations parallel the main purpose of grounded theory methodology, which is guiding researchers to develop theoretical understanding by focusing on their data rather than relying on existent theories (Perry, 2005). This perceptive was important for this study because theoretical assumptions were limited to the characteristics of effective EFL speaking classes and positive outcomes of student negotiation. For that reason, I needed to draw new theoretical knowledge from my data regarding the implementation of student negotiation in an EFL speaking classes. This knowledge allowed me to achieve my research objective, which was generating practical implications to foster student engagement in EFL speaking activities.
Making Methodological Choices
When I informed my supervisors about my concerns regarding the situation in ELT in Turkey, they suggested conducting an action research study since my concern was in line with the general objective of action research – to improve classroom practice (Kemmis, 2009; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; McKay, 2006). Action research is defined as “the study of a social situation with a view to improving the quality of action within it” (Elliott, 1991, p. 69). Echoing this, Kemmis (2009) terms action research as “practice-changing practice” ( p. 464). It allows the researcher to carry out a systematic study to act and reflect on a problem that impedes the effectiveness of classroom teaching (Burns, 2010a; Ebbutt, 1985). The problem in my context was obviously a lack of effective speaking classes at different times that promoted students’ EFL engagement in speaking activities. Action research made it possible to take systematic steps to understand, evaluate and improve classroom practice in an EFL speaking setting (Bassey, 1998; Frost, 2002; McKay, 2006).
Considering that external agents may not know the situation of the class, action research studies are carried out with the involvement and collaboration of the teacher (Hammersley, 2004; Nunan, 1992). I was fortunate in that one of my colleagues in the ELT department at a university agreed to take part in my study. She was the lecturer of the Oral Communication Skills course that is offered to first-year university students at the department. This therefore made it possible for me to conduct the study in a real EFL speaking class.
After reaching a consensus on implementing action research methodology, my supervisors and I discussed which action research model to follow. In doing so, we considered whether the model would allow for the implementation of grounded theory and decided to adapt Elliott’s (1991) and Kemmis and McTaggart’s (1988) models. The reconnaissance phases (i.e., fact finding) included in Elliott’s model seemed an appropriate step to develop theoretical understanding of classroom context and uncover instructional problems before taking actions. Therefore, we decided to include a 4-week reconnaissance phase, in which I would observe classes and collect data from the teacher and students to become familiar with the research context.
We used Kemmis and McTaggart’s (1988) model in our weekly based interventions, because the model paralleled the principles of grounded theory in terms of designing research interventions based on the interpretations of the data. I conducted eight interventions, in which student negotiation was implemented by following planning, acting, observing, and reflecting stages of the model.
The final week of the research was critical, because it generated the outcomes of grounded theory by means of drawing conclusions and developing a new theoretical hypothesis based on the data collected throughout the term. To do this, I collected data from the teacher and students using different data collection methods in order to understand their perspectives of the effectiveness of implementing student negotiation in EFL speaking classes, and this allowed me to develop a new idea about the effectiveness of student negotiation in increasing student engagement in EFL speaking activities. These procedures led to a three-stage action research approach: reconnaissance phase (Stage 1), student negotiation (Stage 2), and developing a new idea (Stage 3).
Research Framework
Research Questions
Qualitative research design provides researchers with the flexibility to make changes in their research procedures: they can change the scope of their research when it is necessary to