Common use of Data Collection Procedures Clause in Contracts

Data Collection Procedures. Data collection procedures started with the process of ethics application submission, and then, in a month continued with getting ethics approval (see Appendix B for timeline of the study). After getting the approval to conduct the research on November 7, 2018, an introductory letter was sent from NUGSE to a gatekeeper (a school principal of the selected NIS school) on asking a permission to conduct a research in the selected research site. The letter mentioned the details concerning the research purpose, the role of participants, possible risks and benefits of the present research. Then, I met the principal of this NIS school to introduce the details of the research questions. The next, after receiving the permission from a gatekeeper I started recruiting the participants according to the criteria which were developed in advance. Thus, I selected the participants who met the criteria and invited teachers for individual interviews and focus group discussions. The participants were informed about their voluntary participation and all details, rules and procedures of the research through the informed consent letter. The time and place for both individual and focus group interviews were negotiated in advance. In addition, the interviews were conducted when it was comfortable for participants for the sake of creating the atmosphere of trust and relieve stress. Finally, the interviews were recorded and transcribed manually in order not to lose or confuse any details of collected data. Lesson observations were conducted after interviews with the main participants in order to get accustomed to participate in this research and feel comfortable with the researcher. Moreover, I got permission from the main participants in advance to observe their lessons in compliance with their availability, and when it was comfortable for them. Thus, I have conducted one lesson observation of each main participant’s lessons. I was a non-participant observer and sat at the end of the classroom in order not to distract both teacher and students. During both lessons I observed what approaches to assessment newly hired teachers apply in their assessment practices, and whether the information from the interviews correspond with what I saw on practice.

Data Collection Procedures. Data The data collection procedures started process was a set of steps, outlined by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2014) that should be followed to collect data seamlessly and efficiently. Before beginning my data collection, I developed all the necessary design protocols and instruments (interview questions, an observation form and invitation and informed consent letters). The first step was to identify the influential gatekeepers who would allow me access to the research sites and interaction with potential participants (Hay, 2000). They usually were principals and vice-principals at the process of ethics application submissionschools. I contacted them by telephone to arrange for a meeting to discuss my research and answer their questions. Showing them key research information (e.g., the letter to gatekeepers and then, in a month continued with getting ethics approval (see Appendix B for timeline informed consent form) on paper helped them understand an overview of the study). After getting Although most people in Malaysia can read, speak and write in English, I had all the approval letters translated into Chinese: the letter to conduct the research on November 7, 2018, an introductory letter was sent from NUGSE to a gatekeeper (a school principal of the selected NIS school) on asking a permission to conduct a research in the selected research site. The letter mentioned the details concerning the research purposegatekeepers, the role letter of participants, possible risks invitation and benefits of the present research. Then, I met the principal of this NIS school to introduce the details of the research questions. The next, after receiving the permission from a gatekeeper I started recruiting the participants according to the criteria which were developed in advance. Thus, I selected the participants who met the criteria and invited teachers for individual interviews and focus group discussions. The participants were informed about their voluntary participation and all details, rules and procedures of the research through the informed consent letter. The time and place for both individual and focus group interviews were negotiated in advance. In additionOnce I received the gatekeeprs’ permission (Appendix A) to conduct my research at their schools, the interviews were conducted when it second step was comfortable to have an informal face-to-face dialogue with several teachers to identify the most suitable candidates for participants for participating in my research. Having given them all the sake important information about my research, I explained some parts and answered their questions during the preliminary informal meeting. I then requested the most suitable teachers, who met the criteria, by the letter of creating the atmosphere of trust and relieve stress. Finallyinvitation (Appendix B), the interviews were recorded and transcribed manually in order not to lose or confuse any details of collected data. Lesson observations were conducted after interviews with the main participants in order to get accustomed to participate in this my research voluntarily. According to ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and feel comfortable ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇ (2003) it is called ‘‘individualized communication’’ (p. 8). After they agreed to participate in my study, they were asked to sign the informed consent form (Appendix C). The third step was conducting a semi-structured interview with the researcherteachers. MoreoverEach interview lasted about 40 minutes in a quiet place, I got permission from chosen by the main participants in advance to observe their lessons in compliance with their availabilityteachers, and when it was comfortable for them. Thus, I have conducted one lesson observation of each main participanton the school’s lessonspremises. I was aware that their timetables were full, so I asked them for the most convenient day and time to meet. I also recorded the teachers’ interviews using a non-participant observer voice recording application on my telephone or iPad after asking for their permission. The next step was document analysis; the documents were related to collaborative projects and sat at were in the end form of meeting minutes. They were studied and evaluated (▇▇▇▇▇, 2009) after the classroom in order interviews to compare the teachers’ answers against the documented information. The fifth step involved observing collaborative meetings on a project of five participants; for some unknown reason, one did not respond to distract both teacher and studentsmy observation request. During both lessons I observed what approaches each teacher once for about 15-30 minutes. The final step involved contacting several teachers by WhatsApp to assessment newly hired teachers apply clarify their answers or ask additional questions. It was useful to contact them again because I obtained ▇▇▇▇▇▇ answers which made my data analysis process smoother. The data collection process took two months, from December 2021 to January 2022. I only had one delay with School B; the vice-principal contacted me a week later, although I was promised that the meeting would occur earlier. In return, the participants learned more, by reading the research results first- hand, about the investigated phenomenon. I also explained that this study would add to the body of academic knowledge for Sabah and may attract the attention of policy-makers who in their assessment practicesthe future, and whether could consider the information from the interviews correspond with what I saw on practicestudy findings when, for example, designing professional development courses.

Data Collection Procedures. Data The procedure of data collection procedures started from obtaining permission for research from NUGSE Research Committee. In the beginning, it was planned to send an official letter to Astana universities’ rectors to draw participants for the study. In that case, participants’ supervisors would need to provide their permission to access participants, and it would not guarantee anonymity and confidentiality for interviewees. Therefore, when the study obtained approval for research, an advertisement for potential participants’ was sent via What’s App (see Appendix E). After two participants were found via social networks, I asked them if they know somebody who can contribute to the study. Overall, eight participants were recruited by snowball sampling method. It was planned to conduct face-to-face interviews with participants since it is considered as the best way to gather detailed data because it allows interpreting verbal and non-verbal cues (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2003). However, most of the respondents insisted on telephone interviews due to their busy schedules. According to ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2014), a telephone interview is the best way to contact participants when they are not available face-to-face. Telephone-based communication made it easier for participants to share their perception because there was no strong trust between an interviewee and interviewer. The drawback is that I could not see their facial expression; however, I could interpret perceptions from a participant’s tone and tenor of the ongoing interview. I also developed an interview protocol that helped in the process of ethics application submissiondata collection. Interview protocol consisted of two parts, where perceptions of young female faculty members on relationships at the workplace, the difference due to age and thengender, in a month continued with getting ethics approval informal mentorship was discussed (see Appendix B for timeline A). Before conducting an interview, I explained the purpose of the studystudy again and asked participants to sign a consent form without writing their names if they agreed (see Appendix B). After getting the approval to conduct the research on November 7informed consent forms were signed, 2018, an introductory letter was sent from NUGSE to a gatekeeper (a school principal of the selected NIS school) on asking a I asked for permission to conduct a research in record the selected research siteinterview. The letter mentioned the details concerning the research purpose, the role of participants, possible risks and benefits of the present research. Then, I met the principal of this NIS school to introduce the details of the research questions. The next, after receiving the permission from a gatekeeper I started recruiting the participants according to the criteria which were developed in advance. Thus, I selected the participants who met the criteria and invited teachers for individual interviews and focus group discussions. The participants were informed about their voluntary participation and all details, rules and procedures of the research through the informed consent letter. The time and place for both individual and focus group interviews were negotiated in advance. In addition, the Eight interviews were conducted when it was comfortable for participants for by telephone, while two of the sake of creating the atmosphere of trust and relieve stressrespondents agreed to meet in person. FinallyEight interviews were conducted in Russian, the two in Kazakh. Nine interviews were recorded with participants’ permission on the cellphone using a particular application which allowed to record telephone and transcribed manually in order regular dialogues. Recordings were transferred under pseudonyms on the laptop and protected with a password. One participant did not want to lose or confuse any details of collected data. Lesson observations were conducted after interviews with the main participants in order to get accustomed to participate in this research and feel comfortable with the researcher. Moreover, I got permission from the main participants in advance to observe their lessons in compliance with their availabilitybe recorded, and when it was comfortable for them. Thustherefore, I have conducted one lesson observation of each main participant’s lessons. I was a non-participant observer and sat at notes using pseudonyms were taken during the end of the classroom in order not to distract both teacher and students. During both lessons I observed what approaches to assessment newly hired teachers apply in their assessment practices, and whether the information from the interviews correspond with what I saw on practiceinterview process.

Data Collection Procedures. Data collection procedures started with After obtaining approval from the process of ethics application submission, and then, in a month continued with getting ethics approval (see Appendix B for timeline of the study). After getting the approval NUGSE Research Committee to conduct the research on study, the researcher started the data collection process. At first, “gatekeepers,” people who can help the researcher to approach the target (▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2011), were contacted by mid-November 7, 2018, an introductory letter was sent from NUGSE to a gatekeeper (a school principal discuss the purpose of the selected NIS school) on asking a study and the rationale of the researcher to conduct the study in non- academic language. The researcher refers to the gatekeeper in the plural since three research sites require gatekeeper at each of these sites. After obtaining permission to conduct a research visit the sites, in order to recruit participants, the researcher asked for permission to post recruitment letters (See Appendix A) at schools’ entrances and teachers’ rooms with the researcher’s contact information. Additionally, the researcher posted the recruitment letter to her Instagram page too. After receiving voluntary involvement from teachers that meet the study criteria to participate in the selected research site. The letter mentioned the details concerning the research purposestudy, the role of participants, possible risks and benefits of the present research. Then, I met the principal of this NIS school to introduce the details of the research questions. The next, after receiving the permission from a gatekeeper I started recruiting the participants according to the criteria which were developed in advance. Thus, I selected the participants who met the criteria and invited teachers for individual interviews and focus group discussions. The participants were informed about their voluntary participation and all details, rules and procedures of the research through researcher sent the informed consent letterforms (See Appendix B) via email and messenger (WhatsApp, Telegram) to ensure that the participants were aware of the aim of the project, the possible risks, the ways to minimize their risks, and their right to withdraw from the study at any point. Consent forms were provided in three languages (Kazakh, Russian, and English) to ensure that the study participants fully understand what is expected of them during the interview in convenient language to them. The time interview questions were also shared with the participants beforehand in three languages to let them know what questions to expect from the interview and make their responses more meaningful (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2012). The interview process was conducted face-to-face in a quiet public place for both individual and focus group of the participants’ choices, except the school. Every interview took about 30-50 minutes. As the interviews were negotiated in advanceconducted only once, the researcher could benefit by receiving rich answers within a minimum of 30 minutes (DiCicco-Bloom & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2006). On the agreed interview day with each of the participant, the researcher asked them to reread and sign two copies of the consent forms, one for the researcher and the other to be kept by the interviewee. In addition, the researcher orally introduced the consent form to ensure that the participants know about their rights not to answer questions if they find them sensitive and withdraw from the study at any stage without loss of benefits, also about the issues of confidentiality and anonymity. The interviews were conducted when it in one of the three languages (Kazakh, Russian or English) that the respondents were comfortable with, while code-switching was comfortable for participants for the sake of creating the atmosphere of trust also welcomed. Overall, eight interviews were conducted in Kazakh, and relieve stresstwo in Russian languages. Finally, the The interviews were recorded and transcribed manually in order not to lose or confuse any details of collected data. Lesson observations were conducted after interviews with the main participants in order to get accustomed to participate in this research and feel comfortable with permission of the researcher. Moreoverparticipants, I got permission from the main participants in advance to observe their lessons in compliance with their availabilitytranscribed, and when it analyzed further. During the interview, some notes were taken to highlight important issues. Snowball sampling was comfortable for themalso used to involve more teachers with experience of teaching returnee students. Thus, I have conducted one lesson observation the researcher asked the participants to pass along photocopy of each main participant’s lessons. I was a non-participant observer and sat the recruitment letter with the researchers’ contact information to potential candidates for participation in the study at the end of the classroom interview to prevent invasion of privacy and breach in order not confidentiality. The data collection process started by the beginning of December and finished by mid-December. Once the data were collected, the researcher followed six steps of analyzing and interpreting the data (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2012). Before transcription, the recorded data was stored in researcher’s personal laptop protected with a strong password and touch ID. Firstly, the audio- ▇▇▇▇▇ interviews were transcribed manually, afterwards the audios were immediately deleted from researcher’s laptop. The transcripts appeared to distract both teacher be 56 pages long. After the transcription process, the researcher read transcripts for several times to highlighted key ideas (See Appendix D) and students. During both lessons I observed what approaches to assessment newly hired teachers apply take some notes, because then the transcripts were organized in a table with codes and quotes, as it was described “read the transcripts in their assessment practicesentirety several times. Immerse yourself in the details, trying to get a sense of the interview as a whole before breaking it into parts” (Agar, 1980, p. 103, as cited in ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2012). As a result, the researcher produced a total of 70 codes, which are codes in participants’ own words (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2012), that helped to arrange descriptions and themes. These codes were synthesised and the researcher identified three main themes that corresponds with the research questions. For example, language barriers of the teachers were identified, as well as their effect on their teaching practices and coping strategies were provided. Meanwhile, 11 subthemes derived from initial codes were subthemes that were supporting major themes. For instance, the coping strategies with language barriers, which is the main theme was revealed from three subthemes: using dictionaries, offering additional classes, and whether building positive relationships with returnee students and their family members. A transcribed data then was stored in a strong password-protected folder in Google Drive so that no one except the information researcher will have access to the data. The researcher uses Google Drive because a personal computer (PC) might be attacked by hackers or broken. Thus, data in the laptop would be inaccessible, while Google Drive might be accessed from any device with an Internet connection and could be reached only by the interviews correspond with what I saw on practiceuser’s password. In addition, the Google Doc’s name in Google Drive was named indirectly (e.g., party, cuisine, etc.).