Research Approach Decision: Case Study and Action Research (AR) Elements

Thus, after careful consideration of the possible methodological approaches, and determining that no single methodology perfectly suited an investigation into the research questions or supported an effort to achieve the research aims, it was determined that a methodological framework that included a combination of case studies, along with some elements of action research, was most appropriate. This decision also aligns with the pragmatist paradigm, within which the researcher position herself (1.4.2), which both is practical and supports collecting and analysing data in combinations that are most effective and efficient in answering the research questions (Cohen et al., 2011, p. 23).

Figure 4.3: Author’s depiction of the combination of case studies and an AR Cycle (McNiff, 2002), utilised in this research

4.3.2 Research Design

Given the overarching aims of the research, a design of three phases – each with a case study consisting of multiple embedded units – was utilised. Because this research involved a relatively new area of investigation, with a lack of detailed preliminary data, the first phase of the research involved an exploratory case study with students (Figure 4.4). It was used to

105

refine hypotheses and research questions – which is a typical initial step of an overall research design in these circumstances (Mills et al., 2009). The Exploratory Case Study: Students aimed to: (1) refine the learning activities and projects; (2) develop and refine the data collection materials and analysis procedures; and (3) preliminarily examine how the author’s adaptation of the Bridge21 model was impacting students’ attitudes toward English.

The Exploratory Case Study: Students consisted of several sub-units (Yin, 2009), or pilot learning interventions, which were utilised to refine the design of the activities and data collection instruments. (The Exploratory Case Study: Students occurred in the “try it out” and “monitor and reflect on what happens” stages in McNiff’s (2002) cycle.) The location and participants of these studies were determined opportunistically – through pre-existing relationships between members of the Bridge21 team and interested English teachers. Because the sub-units varied somewhat in context and data collection, and analysis procedures were being developed, the researcher used a variety of instruments, which would be typical in this approach (Cohen et al., 2011; Yin, 2009). In total, the Exploratory Case Study: Students contained 6 learning interventions, which took place in 2 different locations. The data gathered from these 6 embedded units were pooled, so that the various students and their schools formed one large main unit of analysis, one case study, exploratory in nature (Yin, 2013). The results of the Exploratory Case Study: Students provided important insights regarding activity design, data collection tools, and the research questions themselves. These findings were then integrated into the design of the learning interventions and research methods to be used in an explanatory case study with students (Figure 4.4). [Chapter 5 describes the details of the Exploratory Case Study: Students.] After meeting the aims of the Exploratory Case Study: Students, the second phase of the research – the Explanatory Case Study: Students – was conducted. This case study aimed to answer the main research questions related to students and thereby evaluate the effectiveness of the Bridge21 model for teaching new literacies. Explanatory case studies are typically used to describe phenomena, explain cause and effect, and/or advance theory (Mills et al., 2009). Aiming to examine and explain how and why conditions are achieved, greater depth of understanding about phenomena under investigation is achieved (Yin,

106

2014). The Explanatory Case Study: Students also involved sub-units: 4 identically-designed learning interventions, conducted with 4 different groups of students (total n=73 students). With the aid of a refined learning intervention, data collection materials and data analysis procedures, the explanatory case study was used to look more closely at individual students or groups of students to determine the impact of the Bridge21 model on their attitudes – i.e. answer the first two research questions. As in the Exploratory Case Study: Students, the data gathered from these 4 embedded units were pooled, so that the various students and their schools formed one large main unit of analysis (Yin, 2013), and participants were viewed and analysed collectively. However, the Explanatory Case Study: Students involved more detailed analysis of the individual student participants, categorising and analysing impact on students based on their pre-existing attitudes in English. [The detailed descriptions of the learning activities, context, and results from the Explanatory Case Study: Students are described in Chapter 6.]

After analysing the data and reviewing what was learned from the first two main case studies with the students in terms of development of the approach, the use of the resources in teaching English, and the impact on the students (answering RQs 1 and 2), the research study was moved into the third phase. This phase – the Exploratory Case Study: Teachers – focused on moving the research from the development of the individual teacher/researcher to the development of other educators by sharing the findings with teachers, helping them to implement the approach and resources in their own classrooms, and collecting and analysing data based on their experiences of and beliefs about using the Bridge21 approach for teaching new literacies in English. The Exploratory Case Study: Teachers included conducting continuous professional development sessions in six schools (six embedded units) with a total of 33 teachers; some of whom subsequently integrated and reported on their experience of integrating what they learned in the CPD into their teaching. This investigation was exploratory in nature and preliminary data was collected and analysed to begin to address RQ3; however, it was an important aspect of the PhD study in that through this process, the researcher’s aims of helping other teachers improve their practice in order to continue to meet the needs of today’s students has begun to be met.

107

Figure 4.4: Progression of the Phases of the Research and Case Studies

•Activities developed •ETAS scale modified • Open-ended questions developed Research Design Development • 6 learning interventions (n=241 students) •ETAS piloted and validated Pilot Learning Interventions &

Data Tools _{•ETAS (n=125)}

analysed •Content analysis performed: RQs and emerging themes Analyse Data •Activites modified • Intervention finalised •ETAS tools finalised Refinement • 4 Learning Interventions (n = 73 students) • Final ETAS questionnaires used Conduct Learning Interventions •ETAS (n=73) analysed •Content analysis performed: RQs and emerging themes Analyse Data, triangulate

• Impact of the Bridge21 approach on student engagement & confidence in English evaluated RQs 1&2 Answered •CPD sessions conducted in schools •Approach & resources shared Conduct CPD Sessions •English teachers utilised resources & approach in their classes Implement approach &

resources • Data collected via

questionnaire •Content analysis performed: RQs and emerging themes Collect & Analyse Data •Teachers' reflections on their successes, challenges & beliefs RQ3 Answered 1. Exploratory Case Study: Students

2. Explanatory Case Study: Students

108

The three-phase case study design also served the purpose of limiting the temporal frame of the research. As Cohen et al. (2011) suggest, action research has the potential to endlessly cycle, as one can repeat the work/the cycle until satisfaction with the particular aspect (p. 353). Through the use of three contained case studies and evaluable aims (McNiff, 2002), the author could evaluate the results of the interventions, make changes, and then evaluate the results of the modified approach. The first two phases helped answer the research questions related to students, and the third phase helped answer the research question related to teachers.

Figure 4.5: Case Studies, in numbers