3.4.1 Sample methods
In this research, determining the appropriate sample size for quantitative and qualitative data collection has been taken into great consideration. A sample is defined as a small selection from a population that will be scored on a variable (Howitt &
Cramer, 2000). To make it clearer, "sampling" refers to selecting people to take part in the study.
There are two types of samples used in survey research: probability sampling and non- probability sampling. The big inequity is that probability sampling involves random selection; every member of the population has a chance of being selected, and results are more likely to accurately reflect the entire population. While in non-probability sampling, as stated by Creswell (2011), it is wonderful for researchers to select individuals because they are available, convenient, and represent some characteristics the investigator seeks to study. However, he wonders about the availability of non- probability sampling (i.e., some limitations need to be concerned with cost, time, and what you want to say about the results).
As presented in the previous part, random assignment was eliminated because it is undesirable and unethical in most social research, particularly in this study. As a result, the researcher used non-probability sampling to maintain the status quo. The most common technique used in the study was convenient sampling. That is because, like its name suggests, it is easily accessible for the researcher to collect members for the samples. In fact, the available samples allow the researcher to collect data quickly, so she does not have to move around too much for data collection. In conclusion, in order to draw a sample from the target population, convenient sampling was employed in this study.
3.4.2 Selection of participants for the quasi-experimental
As said above, in this study, a quasi-experimental design is adopted without randomness, so both groups are selected without random allocation. All of the
46
participants are non-English majors in the center at the pre-intermediate level, which is equivalent to A2 in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) depending on the result of the entrance tests.
Initially, 60 raw participants from both mentioned intact classes were available and accessible, including 22 students from the experimental group and 38 students from the control group. The researcher could not split students in the control group to have the same number of students as the experimental group because that would violate the regulations of the center and ethical training. As such, the training was equal for all students in these intact classes. The researcher collected data from two groups separately for both the pretest and the posttest in the data collection and processing.
The details of the participants are depicted in the table below.
The researcher gave demographic questions to student participants to find out about background information, including their genders, ages, majors, years of English learning experience, and expectations of the whole course. According to the findings, a total of 60 research participants were composed of 41 female students and 19 male students. They are aged from 19 to 21 years old, have different majors, and all have at least 7 years of English learning experience. The demographic data of student participants can be found in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 The background of the participants in the research
This study targeted student participants at the research site for two cogent reasons:
First, mature students are regarded as a contributing factor in choosing these participants. In terms of their age, they are all mature enough in thought to be aware of the importance of English as a compulsory course as well as a chance in their future careers.
Second, the participants are all English non-major students. They usually get into difficulties and struggle with oral communication in English. Accordingly, the need for a new strategy might help them get better English oral communication.
3.4.3 The control group (CG) and the experiment group
The presented figure on the table describes the data on participant volumes in this research. As can be seen, the sum of males in these two groups accounted for just a small portion, accounting for 23% and 37% in the experimental group and the control group, respectively. In contrast, the proportion of females in both the experimental and control groups is nearly twice that of males, at 77% and 63%, respectively. The
48
number of females and males in the two groups is not similar because there is a big difference in the total amount in both groups. The details of the participants are depicted in the table below. (Table 3.2)
Table 3.2: The number of student participants in two groups
Gender Experimental group (N=22) Control Group (N=38 ) Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
22 100% 38 100%
Male 5 23% 14 37%
Female 17 77% 24 63%
The participants in this study consisted of two different classes. To avoid confusion over the long names of two classes, these classes were coded TO1 and TO2. In particular, TO1 was assigned to be the control group and denied access to a potentially better treatment, whereas TO2 was chosen to be the experimental group (also called a treatment group) and received the treatment whose effect the researcher is interested in.
In the quantitative phrase, two groups took pre-tests (before the treatment) and post- tests (after the treatment) to verify whether metacognitive strategy training is effective or not. Simultaneously, the experiment group completed a questionnaire involving five phrases of metacognitive strategy training to support the data of the first research question.
In the qualitative phrase, the study aims to see the effect of students on metacognitive strategy training on the students’ English oral communication performance. The eight student participants were purposefully chosen in the experiment group to participate in semi-structured interviews. The eight students’ names were coded from S1 to S8.
After obtaining permission from the eight chosen students, the semi-interviews were conducted.