IELTS Research Reports

Gaynor Lloyd-Jones, Charles Neame and Simon Medaney7.1.2 Interview schedulesThe interview schedule (Appendix 1) was drafted to explore Course Directors’ practices of admissionand selection in relation to English language proficiency and, particularly, the ways in which theyemploy English language test scores in selection decisions. The schedule was divided into threesections which covered the following topics:■■■■■■factual information about the MSc programme and the interviewee’s experience ofCourse Directorship,selection and admission practices of non-native English speaking students on theprogramme andthe relationship between international classes, pedagogy and academic progress ofNNES studentsThe reason for pursuing the third topic was to illuminate Course Directors’ views on the NNESacademic and linguistic progress and to explore the practical means at a teacher’s disposal toencourage learning in the international postgraduate classroom. An example of the latter is theextensive use of group projects in Cranfield MSc programmes where problems arising in classeswith multilingual students may become evident. How teachers manage, moderate and overcome theproblems arising might help to illuminate some issues in the literature about cultural difference andsecond language acquisition.At the time of the study, the institution was engaging in a controversial debate about the publication ofall Masters theses on the web and its topicality led to the inclusion of a question inviting participants’views. Finally, the choice of semi-structured interview method favoured an open and discursiveapproach towards questioning that allowed the interviewer to pursue and probe novel and emergentideas, examples and concepts as they arose.Course Director SOE1 (in Table 5) was chosen as the pilot interviewee for the interview schedulebecause of his openly expressed and considered views on the topic. It was anticipated, correctly, thathis engagement would lead to a productive interview and provide a good test of the listed questions.Existing questions were satisfactory but additional questions were added about the programme’shistory, status within the UK HEI sector and the programme structure and assessment format,especially in relation to group project work. The latter was a fertile topic for discussing language andcultural issues.The focus group guide (Appendix 2) was modelled on the interview schedule but with fewer questionsand prompts to accommodate more open discussion and the emergence of relevant topics of interest tothe participants. The single use of focus group method did not allow piloting of the focus group guidebut, as the guide was a modified extension of the interview schedule which had been employed severaltimes already, this was not seen as a major handicap. In practice, discussion and interaction in thefocus group flowed well.The duration of interviews and the focus group varied from 45-60 minutes and all were conducted byGL-J. Apart from two interviews and the focus group, they took place in her office between Marchand December 2008. The interviews with SAS2 and SOM3 took place, at their request, in their ownoffices and SAS2 declined to be audio-recorded. Notes were taken throughout this interview but all theremaining interviews were audio-recorded for later transcription by GL-J.150 www.ielts.org