Research Design & Methods
After close consideration of the research problem, needs assessment, review of literature, and research questions, I determined that a mixed-methods research design was the most comprehensive way to answer the questions put forth. The ultimate reason why I chose this research design, instead of a purely qualitative or quantitative study, was due to the strength that a mixed-methods study offered. The combination of methods was used to support one another and provided a comprehensive study. Creswell (2009) offers this definition of a mixed-methods study, “It involves philosophical assumptions, the use of qualitative and quantitative approaches, and the mixing of both approaches in a study” (p. 4). My research problem was complex, therefore I predicted a combination of methods to be the most beneficial to my study.
Philosophical Worldview
The philosophical worldview that guided my action research project was pragmatism. The pragmatic worldview supports the notion that researchers have the freedom to choose the “methods, techniques, and procedures of research to best meet their needs and purposes” (Creswell, 2009, p. 11). This coincided with my mixed-methods research design, as I pulled from both qualitative and quantitative methods as I conducted my research. It is from the combined forms that my study drew its greatest strength, rather than solely relying on one form or the other. I believe I gained the most insight form adhering to this worldview.
I conducted this research to look for answers to the questions I posed, but also to gain a furthered understanding of EIL and the theories surrounding it. I hoped to progress as a student, educator, and researcher as I carried out my action research. I was determined to delve into the whats – what can be gained from this research, what affect will this have on educators and students, and what will this mean for EIL? At the same time I wanted to look at the hows – how should I phrase the language I use in my research, how should I interact with my participants in the most beneficial way, how do my actions affect the outcome of my research, and how do I conduct unbiased research successfully? I understood that I was performing research in a unique context: where the shift to EIL was gaining momentum, however there continued to be significant resistance towards it. While I framed my research, I kept in mind the current socially, historically, and politically diverse world that we live in. My awareness of these contexts helped shed light on the questions at hand.
Strategies of Inquiry
In line with my research design method, philosophical worldview, and decision to conduct an action research project, I decided to use sequential exploratory mixed-methods procedures as my strategy of inquiry. As a researcher, I believe that triangulating data sources provide the most inclusive set of data to allow for thorough analysis. Creswell (2009) states, “Recognizing that all methods have limitations, researchers felt that biases inherent in any single method could neutralize or cancel the biases of other methods” (p. 14). Additionally, he goes on to say, “The qualitative and quantitative data can be merged into one large database or the results used side by side to reinforce each other” (p. 14). When I considered my research, I felt it of paramount importance to rid my study of biases and to have the ability to view my data results collectively, supported by a variety of methods. Just as I knew how unreliable one form of assessment is to determine a student’s ability, I knew that the more methods I used to support my data analysis the stronger my study would be.
Particular to action research are the interventions researchers create within their studies as a reaction to the interpretation of data and for the evaluation of further results. Using sequential mixed-methods procedures within my study allowed me to investigate my questions, explore the data, and evaluate the findings in a pragmatic matter. Having the freedom to “elaborate on or expand on the findings of one method with other” supported my desire for triangulation and, purposeful results (Creswell, 2009, p. 14). The ability to gain both a general sense of the findings as well as a detailed understanding sequentially was valuable, and I tried to utilize this to the best of my ability.
Research Methods
Adding onto my research design, philosophical worldview, choice of action research, and strategies of inquiry are the mixed-methods of research I conducted. For my study, it was important to use open- and closed-ended questions within my activities, questionnaires, and interviews. By using both types of questions I was able to identify overarching themes within the research as well as the details that were used as supporting evidence. I also employed the use of both emerging and predetermined approaches to give a necessary variety to the study that was representative in the data findings. Being able to replicate this research was important to me, and utilizing recent questions and procedures made the study innovative and relevant. Finally, it was the combined use of qualitative and quantitative research designs that rendered the most comprehensive data that led to thorough analysis and interpretation. Mixing these research designs was necessary to provide the interpretation of the underlying themes and theories within this study as well as the data that was empirically measured and used to support the interpretations. Throughout this study, I gave priority to qualitative research with the support of quantitative research. This was due to much of the research being used to inductively generate themes and then further test theories based on those themes deductively.
Integration into My Study
Within my mixed-methods approach to research within this study, I focused on sequential strategies of inquiry “to elaborate on or expand on the findings of one method with another method” (Creswell, 2009, p. 14). Due to my limited experience as a researcher, I believed this method would require me to be proactive in my procedure choice and design. Through frequent analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the procedures I employed, I altered the subsequent procedures to include areas necessary to gain sought after results. This strategy was appropriate for my research problem and research questions as it established a way to include a detailed exploration of the participants. There was more insight to be gained by utilizing the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative research instead of one method over the other. From this, I gained further insight into the problem at hand and had a better means to answer the questions.
Interviews. The first step in conducting this study was to understand, as completely as possible, the context and the personal histories behind each of my participants. Although, from the needs assessment, I had some insight into why the participants desired native-like speech, it is necessary to dig deeper. For this, I conducted interviews that resulted in gaining in-depth data that I needed for the framework of my study. Seidman (2013) states, “In this approach interviewers use, primarily, but not exclusively, open-ended questions. Their major task is to build upon and explore their participants’ responses to those questions” (p. 14). After the first phase of my study, I asked participants to volunteer to partake in a ten-minute interview where I was able to go deeper into the information they had provided me on the Post-Intervention Questionnaire. After my first second phase, I asked additional participants to volunteer to do ten-minute interviews that were centered around their answers from their second Post-Intervention Questionnaire. I felt strongly about conducting these interviews because as Seidman (2013) explained, “Phenomenological theory leads to an emphasis on exploring the meaning of peoples’ experiences in the context of their lives” (p. 20). Before conducting these interviews, I created a guide appropriate to the topic of research and the professional relationship I had with my interviewees. My interviews were created solely with open-ended questions allowed to gain maximum insight into the research questions (Hancock & Algozzine, 2011). The interviews were held at a neutral setting, the school's cafe, and the interviewers were audiotaped. Additionally, my students were given pseudonyms to protect their privacy.
Observations. A large part of my study was done through my personal observations of the participants within classes. This was the setting where the participants were most natural, they were not feeling pressure from being interviewed and they were focused on fulfilling their roles as students more so than their roles as participants. Hancock and Algozzine (2011) explain that, “Observations of the setting by a case study researcher may provide more objective information related to the research topic” (p. 51). I focused on questions such as: How are students reacting to the activities within the phases? What questions were they asking about the information? What information did they already know? How are they reflecting on the information given to them? I believe these kinds of questions led me to observe actions that helped shed light on my research problem overall and my specific research subquestions. I also video-taped my classes so that I was able to refer back to the videos to clarify information or to re-watch for a comprehensive understanding. My concern for this portion of my research was that being the sole instructor in the classroom, with constant interaction with the participants, had the potential to create biases within this portion of my study. Hancock and Algozzine (2011) state clearly, “Researchers’ inherent biases and predispositions may prejudice their activities and interpretations of the study’s findings” (p. 52). I was aware of this fact, and consistently tried to avoid any potential negative ramifications of my role as both teacher and researcher.
Documents. While interviews and observations were the qualitative measures, I included multiple forms of documents from which to draw my quantitative data. From this form of numerical data I identified trends, attitudes, and opinions from my participants. This was a set of data on which I tested theories to support generalizations I made in reference to my research problem and questions. It was my belief that through personally constructed surveys, questionnaires, and examinations I would gain insight into the phenomena being studied. An issue with documents of this nature is that they are self-reported procedures that need to be evaluated with caution, as at times participants are unwilling to be completely truthful (Dawson & Algozzine, 2011). While analyzing these documents, I was meticulous and kept in mind various questions such as: What types of answers will be available if the documents are used? How will information be selected from all that is available? How will documents be represented as answers to research questions? Although the surveys, questionnaires, and examinations that I administered were used throughout the study, the initial documents were evaluated in particular to assess their strengths and weaknesses. From this evaluation, I made adjustments accordingly in order to regulate the data I was receiving to my particular needs.
Philosophical Worldview
The philosophical worldview that guided my action research project was pragmatism. The pragmatic worldview supports the notion that researchers have the freedom to choose the “methods, techniques, and procedures of research to best meet their needs and purposes” (Creswell, 2009, p. 11). This coincided with my mixed-methods research design, as I pulled from both qualitative and quantitative methods as I conducted my research. It is from the combined forms that my study drew its greatest strength, rather than solely relying on one form or the other. I believe I gained the most insight form adhering to this worldview.
I conducted this research to look for answers to the questions I posed, but also to gain a furthered understanding of EIL and the theories surrounding it. I hoped to progress as a student, educator, and researcher as I carried out my action research. I was determined to delve into the whats – what can be gained from this research, what affect will this have on educators and students, and what will this mean for EIL? At the same time I wanted to look at the hows – how should I phrase the language I use in my research, how should I interact with my participants in the most beneficial way, how do my actions affect the outcome of my research, and how do I conduct unbiased research successfully? I understood that I was performing research in a unique context: where the shift to EIL was gaining momentum, however there continued to be significant resistance towards it. While I framed my research, I kept in mind the current socially, historically, and politically diverse world that we live in. My awareness of these contexts helped shed light on the questions at hand.
Strategies of Inquiry
In line with my research design method, philosophical worldview, and decision to conduct an action research project, I decided to use sequential exploratory mixed-methods procedures as my strategy of inquiry. As a researcher, I believe that triangulating data sources provide the most inclusive set of data to allow for thorough analysis. Creswell (2009) states, “Recognizing that all methods have limitations, researchers felt that biases inherent in any single method could neutralize or cancel the biases of other methods” (p. 14). Additionally, he goes on to say, “The qualitative and quantitative data can be merged into one large database or the results used side by side to reinforce each other” (p. 14). When I considered my research, I felt it of paramount importance to rid my study of biases and to have the ability to view my data results collectively, supported by a variety of methods. Just as I knew how unreliable one form of assessment is to determine a student’s ability, I knew that the more methods I used to support my data analysis the stronger my study would be.
Particular to action research are the interventions researchers create within their studies as a reaction to the interpretation of data and for the evaluation of further results. Using sequential mixed-methods procedures within my study allowed me to investigate my questions, explore the data, and evaluate the findings in a pragmatic matter. Having the freedom to “elaborate on or expand on the findings of one method with other” supported my desire for triangulation and, purposeful results (Creswell, 2009, p. 14). The ability to gain both a general sense of the findings as well as a detailed understanding sequentially was valuable, and I tried to utilize this to the best of my ability.
Research Methods
Adding onto my research design, philosophical worldview, choice of action research, and strategies of inquiry are the mixed-methods of research I conducted. For my study, it was important to use open- and closed-ended questions within my activities, questionnaires, and interviews. By using both types of questions I was able to identify overarching themes within the research as well as the details that were used as supporting evidence. I also employed the use of both emerging and predetermined approaches to give a necessary variety to the study that was representative in the data findings. Being able to replicate this research was important to me, and utilizing recent questions and procedures made the study innovative and relevant. Finally, it was the combined use of qualitative and quantitative research designs that rendered the most comprehensive data that led to thorough analysis and interpretation. Mixing these research designs was necessary to provide the interpretation of the underlying themes and theories within this study as well as the data that was empirically measured and used to support the interpretations. Throughout this study, I gave priority to qualitative research with the support of quantitative research. This was due to much of the research being used to inductively generate themes and then further test theories based on those themes deductively.
Integration into My Study
Within my mixed-methods approach to research within this study, I focused on sequential strategies of inquiry “to elaborate on or expand on the findings of one method with another method” (Creswell, 2009, p. 14). Due to my limited experience as a researcher, I believed this method would require me to be proactive in my procedure choice and design. Through frequent analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the procedures I employed, I altered the subsequent procedures to include areas necessary to gain sought after results. This strategy was appropriate for my research problem and research questions as it established a way to include a detailed exploration of the participants. There was more insight to be gained by utilizing the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative research instead of one method over the other. From this, I gained further insight into the problem at hand and had a better means to answer the questions.
Interviews. The first step in conducting this study was to understand, as completely as possible, the context and the personal histories behind each of my participants. Although, from the needs assessment, I had some insight into why the participants desired native-like speech, it is necessary to dig deeper. For this, I conducted interviews that resulted in gaining in-depth data that I needed for the framework of my study. Seidman (2013) states, “In this approach interviewers use, primarily, but not exclusively, open-ended questions. Their major task is to build upon and explore their participants’ responses to those questions” (p. 14). After the first phase of my study, I asked participants to volunteer to partake in a ten-minute interview where I was able to go deeper into the information they had provided me on the Post-Intervention Questionnaire. After my first second phase, I asked additional participants to volunteer to do ten-minute interviews that were centered around their answers from their second Post-Intervention Questionnaire. I felt strongly about conducting these interviews because as Seidman (2013) explained, “Phenomenological theory leads to an emphasis on exploring the meaning of peoples’ experiences in the context of their lives” (p. 20). Before conducting these interviews, I created a guide appropriate to the topic of research and the professional relationship I had with my interviewees. My interviews were created solely with open-ended questions allowed to gain maximum insight into the research questions (Hancock & Algozzine, 2011). The interviews were held at a neutral setting, the school's cafe, and the interviewers were audiotaped. Additionally, my students were given pseudonyms to protect their privacy.
Observations. A large part of my study was done through my personal observations of the participants within classes. This was the setting where the participants were most natural, they were not feeling pressure from being interviewed and they were focused on fulfilling their roles as students more so than their roles as participants. Hancock and Algozzine (2011) explain that, “Observations of the setting by a case study researcher may provide more objective information related to the research topic” (p. 51). I focused on questions such as: How are students reacting to the activities within the phases? What questions were they asking about the information? What information did they already know? How are they reflecting on the information given to them? I believe these kinds of questions led me to observe actions that helped shed light on my research problem overall and my specific research subquestions. I also video-taped my classes so that I was able to refer back to the videos to clarify information or to re-watch for a comprehensive understanding. My concern for this portion of my research was that being the sole instructor in the classroom, with constant interaction with the participants, had the potential to create biases within this portion of my study. Hancock and Algozzine (2011) state clearly, “Researchers’ inherent biases and predispositions may prejudice their activities and interpretations of the study’s findings” (p. 52). I was aware of this fact, and consistently tried to avoid any potential negative ramifications of my role as both teacher and researcher.
Documents. While interviews and observations were the qualitative measures, I included multiple forms of documents from which to draw my quantitative data. From this form of numerical data I identified trends, attitudes, and opinions from my participants. This was a set of data on which I tested theories to support generalizations I made in reference to my research problem and questions. It was my belief that through personally constructed surveys, questionnaires, and examinations I would gain insight into the phenomena being studied. An issue with documents of this nature is that they are self-reported procedures that need to be evaluated with caution, as at times participants are unwilling to be completely truthful (Dawson & Algozzine, 2011). While analyzing these documents, I was meticulous and kept in mind various questions such as: What types of answers will be available if the documents are used? How will information be selected from all that is available? How will documents be represented as answers to research questions? Although the surveys, questionnaires, and examinations that I administered were used throughout the study, the initial documents were evaluated in particular to assess their strengths and weaknesses. From this evaluation, I made adjustments accordingly in order to regulate the data I was receiving to my particular needs.