Reliability concerns to what extent the methods that are used are consistent and credible. It further refers to whether the results are reproducible if the research was to be carried out again by other researchers using the same methods. Using two data collection methods at the same time like this, is as mentioned, also referred to as triangulation (Cohen et al., 2011),
strengthens the validity and reliability, as using both interviews and video observations
44
complement each other’s strengths and weaknesses, and thus provides a more accurate and comprehensive picture of grammar approaches than what the methods would have done separately (Maxwell, 2013). In addition, the dual focus on teachers’ and students’ grammar instruction and use strengthens research credibility.
To check if the chosen approaches are reliable, it is important to document one’s procedure, which I have attempted to do in section 3.6 concerning procedure. Also, when transcribing it is important to check if the transcriptions contain any obvious mistakes.
During the observation process, some elements proved to be more challenging for me than others. The challenge that stood out the most was the quality of the sound. At times, it was hard to hear what the students uttered. This may have been because the students did not wear their own microphones, as opposed to the teachers, whose sound was clear most of the times.
Other reasons could be explained as technical failures in a few classrooms, and noise either from students walking around in the classrooms or from other disruptions that are difficult to point out. At times, the students sat in groups discussing. It then became especially
challenging to pick up what each student uttered since the students talked simultaneously.
Sound was imperative for me to be able to take as precise transcriptions as possible, but since it was not possible to hear everything, not all transcriptions are complete. I marked the
unheard utterances “unclear”. To get as accurate results as possible, I listened several times to double check the words being uttered.
Another significant challenge was the placement of the cameras in the classrooms. It was not always easy to see what the teachers wrote on the board. This proved to be an inconvenience at S50 only, as the teacher took notes on the board during his grammar instructions. However, this turned out not to be a threat because fortunately, pictures of the board were added to the video material.
A third challenge was the use of Norwegian as L1 in the classrooms, which reduced the amount of student communication available for my analysis. Finally, long teacher
presentations, and presentations from audio files that did not concern grammar, also reduced the amount of student communication available for my analysis. An overview of these challenges is provided in Table 3F.
45 Table 3F. Overview of instrumental challenges across schools
School Challenge Explanation S02 Sound
Camera Angle
- A great deal of group and pair work in group lessons made it challenging to hear what the students uttered.
- The classroom layout made it, at times, difficult to see and hear who was speaking.
- For the first 20 minutes in the first lesson, the students spoke in Norwegian.
S07 Sound - The sound was of poor quality, making it challenging to hear when the students uttered something either individually or when working in groups or pairs.
- At times the students would answer in Norwegian when asked questions.
- There was a great deal of teacher presentation.
S09 Sound Camera angle
- There were many student presentations without a microphone on them making it challenging to hear what the students uttered.
- At times the students and teacher spoke in Norwegian.
- There were red students4 in the classroom that the camera did not show. It was, therefore, not always possible to know who was talking.
S13 Sound Camera angle
- A great deal of group work and student presentations without a
microphone on them made it challenging to hear what the students uttered.
- During one of the lessons, the rain outside was making tapping noises on the window interfering with the sound.
- There were red4 students in the classroom that the camera did not show. It was, therefore, not always possible to know who was talking.
S17 - The students spoke mostly in Norwegian when asked questions and discussing in groups or pairs.
- There was mostly teacher presentation where the teacher alternated between using Norwegian and English.
S50 Sound - There was low volume on the microphone placed in the classroom, making it difficult to hear what the students uttered.
- Teacher and students alternated using Norwegian and English.
S51 Sound - As there was mostly group work, it was challenging to hear what the students uttered as they would talk simultaneously.
- During one of the lessons, there were 20 minutes of technical issues which resulted in no sound on the teacher’s microphone.
- Some of the students would utter things in Norwegian.
- 16 minutes of presentation using an audio file.
4 Red students have not agreed to be part of the LISE study. They are therefore not filmed by the researcher.
46
When it comes to using codes, it is important to make the codes I have used usable for other researchers so they can use these codes when analyzing the same segments. I have addressed this transparency by presenting all my codes in section 3.5.1.