Exploring teacher beliefs with mixed methods

The theoretical concept teacher beliefs is used to describe a wide range of notions, including attitudes, values, opinions, and emotions (Levin, 2015). These terms, as well as views, ideas, thoughts, perceptions, and feelings are used to describe teachers’ beliefs in the chapters that follow. They relate to Sylvi Penne’s notions of “everyday theories” – things that teachers “think”, “feel”, and “believe” (2012, p. 32, my translation) – as well as to their knowledge and competence through their education and experience as literature teachers.

Due to the complexity of the concept teacher beliefs, anyone conducting research in this field has to consider carefully which types of beliefs to investigate, and how to best gain access to these beliefs. If the main purpose of a study is to find out how many teachers share the same conscious beliefs about a given issue, then using a survey or another quantitative tool would in most cases be the right approach. If the aim is to explore the complexity of individual teachers’ beliefs, various qualitative approaches would be best suited. If the researcher wants to examine to what extent teachers’ beliefs correspond to their practices, a combination of interviews and observations would be suitable. However, if one wants to examine different types of beliefs in the same study, a mixed methods approach is most beneficial as it allows the researcher to access different perspectives at the same time.

The term mixed methods is used to describe studies that include both a quantitative and a qualitative component (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011, pp. 2-3; M. L. Smith, 2006, pp. 458-459). The research strategy builds on the view that “the world is not exclusively quantitative or qualitative; it is not an either/or world, but a mixed world” (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011, p. 22). Therefore, mixed methods studies are concerned with “thoughtful consideration of mixing not just methods or forms of data but also different ways of seeing, interpreting, and knowing” (J. C. Greene, 2007, p. xi). Employing mixed methods in educational research has become more widespread in recent years, and it is now considered a useful methodological approach since it “attempts to consider multiple viewpoints, perspectives, positions, and standpoints” (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007, p. 113) and as a result can “provide insights not possible when only qualitative and quantitative data are collected” (Harwell, 2011, p. 151). This development has also taken place in Norway, as the majority of empirically oriented PhD dissertations in the field of English didactics after 1989 comprise mixed methods research (Rindal & Brevik, 2019a).

The disadvantages of using mixed methods include that it requires more time and resources because of the more extensive data collection and the increased complexity of the results and conclusions, as well as the risk of superficial use of the methods (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). I agree that a mixed methods research design is demanding and time-consuming. I attempted to limit this drawback by not including observation in the qualitative part of the study; although observation could have provided useful information regarding teachers’ choices and beliefs, I decided that it would not be realistic to do within the given time frame of this project. Given the time I have spent designing the research instruments and collecting and analyzing data, I think this was a correct decision. The second concern, that both methods may be used superficially, is something I have tried to counter by being rigorous in my treatment of the quantitative and qualitative results. This is discussed further in sections 6.2 and 6.3.

6.1.1 The current study

This study examines English teachers’ choices and beliefs about literature in upper secondary school in Norway. Since this topic has not been examined in the context of the current curriculum before, the study is to a large extent exploratory. Mixed methods are used to examine the topic, and the nature of my research questions underline the need for a mixed design. The questions are as follows:

1. Which literary texts and genres are seen as suitable and/or used by teachers? 2. Why do teachers choose the texts they do?

3. How do teachers choose texts for classroom use?

4. How do teachers assess a specific contemporary dystopian young adult novel for classroom use?

The first question is descriptive and requires quantification, which means that it is best answered using a quantitative method – in this case, a survey. The other questions are both descriptive and interpretative, and are best answered using a qualitative method – in this case, interviews. Note, though, that questions 1-3 are addressed in both the quantitative and qualitative phases of the study, but the research instruments differ in how they emphasize the questions; question 4, however, is only addressed in the interviews. Because of the importance of having answers to the which-question before beginning to answer the how- and why-questions, the survey was conducted first. Therefore, the design of this study is nested sequential (Johnson & Christensen, 2012, p. 238), which means that the first phase of the study was carried out and completed before the second phase, and that the participants in the second phase of the study are a subset of the participants in the first phase. In addition to the main quantitative and qualitative components, a small-scale qualitative pilot study was conducted before the main investigation; this is described in more detail in section 6.2.

Studies employing mixed methods may give the quantitative and qualitative components different emphasis (J. C. Greene, 2007). In this study, the qualitative data have been emphasized in the presentation and discussion of results because this material is the most varied, rich and complex. The quantitative data are used to describe

broad tendencies among the survey respondents, mostly regarding research question 1, but also to provide a broader context whenever appropriate when discussing the other research questions. The qualitative data are used to examine eight teachers’ choices and beliefs about literature and literature teaching in response to all four research questions, and are especially emphasized in the discussion of research questions 2-4. Table 4 provides an overview of the study; the elements introduced here are discussed in more detail in the rest of the chapter.

Table 4: Overview of research design

Phase 1: Quantitative Phase 2: Qualitative

Participants 110 teachers 8 teachers

Research

instrument 54-item questionnaire Interview guides 1 and 2 Data material for

analysis

Questionnaire responses Teachers’ year plans (preparation for interview 1)

Textbooks and other resources used by teachers (preparation for interview 1) Four novels with supporting material (preparation for interview 2)

Interview transcripts

6.1.2 Population and sample

The population examined in this study is English teachers in upper secondary school in Norway. The sample in both the quantitative and the qualitative components is drawn from teachers working in five counties: Møre og Romsdal, Nord-Trøndelag, Oppland, Sogn og Fjordane, and Sør-Trøndelag.43 These counties were selected because they include small and medium-sized towns as well as one city, there is a wide range of school sizes, all educational programs are represented more than once, and they represent different Norwegian regions (Inland Norway, Trøndelag, and

Western/Northwestern Norway). However, as the schools and teachers in these counties were not obligated to participate in the study, the responses in both the quantitative and qualitative components relied on volunteers. This means that the sample does not represent the wider population (Cohen et al., 2011, p. 160), as the teachers that participated may have had particular motivations to do so, and the teachers who did not participate may have had their reasons for not doing so. Reasons for not participating in this study may be related to time constraints, lack of interest in the subject matter, lack of knowledge about the subject matter, and/or not wanting to contribute to this type of study (Jacobsen, 2015, pp. 307-308). Issues related to the sample and the reliability of the study are discussed further in sections 6.2 and 6.3.