2 7 Implementing CLIL models constraints and issues It has been argued that intercultural teaching would benefit learners, teachers and
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction
3.2. The Research framework
3.2.1. Paradigm
This research followed a pragmatist paradigm in order to explore the perceived
importance that learners and teachers attribute to intercultural understanding and its
place in secondary foreign language instruction in the English educational context,
while investigating whether a CLIL approach and materials can serve to further
develop learners’ ICU. Pragmatism is ‘consequence-oriented, problem-centred and
pluralistic’ (Cresswell, 2003:18). As a result, this paradigm was deemed the most
appropriate for the study, as its aim was to explore the potential impact of a
pedagogical approach on developing learners’ ICU through a teaching intervention,
to question the place of intercultural understanding in existing practice and to
investigate the differing perceptions, beliefs and attitudes of secondary learners and
teachers about the importance of intercultural learning. The epistemological stance of
the study was that knowledge derives from ‘actions, situations and consequences’
(Cresswell, 2003:11) and the study was concerned with the practical application of a
particular teaching approach in a specific context, and aimed to provide a solution to
a perceived problem experienced by the researcher (Patton, 1990). The study was
principally driven by the research problems, and this in turn was the driver for the
processes and instruments employed (Rossman & Wilson, 1985). According to
Cresswell (2003:12), pragmatism provides researchers with the freedom to ‘choose
the methods, techniques, and procedures of research that best meet their needs and
purposes’. This paradigm was also selected because, where the focus of the study
was to investigate the place of (inter)cultural teaching and learning within second
language instruction in the context of English secondary curriculum and practice, the
highly contextual nature of both culture as a concept and of the specific context of
application of the study required a stance which would enable the representation and
interpretation of ‘different world views’ (Cresswell, 2003:12). The researcher’s
positioning that education is a cultural phenomenon mediated by participants’ own
culture and experiences is shared by others (Latorre, 2008; Pring, 2000) and was
central to the approach of the study, as ‘educational research into educational matters
should focus on multiple and complex social relationships that occur in school
settings to produce learning’ (Ponce & Pagán-Maldonado, 2015:112).
3.2.2. Approach
The importance of focusing the study on the stated problem and of employing a
variety of approaches is a stance favoured by many where social sciences are
concerned (Cresswell, 2003; Patton, 1990; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). As noted by
Ponce and Pagán-Maldonado (2015), educational research has been fraught with
controversy with regards to the best approaches which should be employed in order
to fully, effectively and reliably represent the complexity of the profession. There has
been growing acknowledgement in literature that, in order to reflect this complexity,
both qualitative and quantitative approaches have an important role to play
(Cresswell, 2003; Hammersley, 2007; Phillips, 2009; Pring, 2000). Quantitative
approaches can serve to clearly identify the variables of a study, to provide an
accurate and unbiased measure of experiments, and to employ statistical procedures
in order to observe, report and analyse information; on the other hand, qualitative
approaches reflect the context and individual perceptions and beliefs of participants,
can serve to interpret findings meaningfully and can ‘create an agenda for change or
reform’ (Cresswell, 2003: 19). For the purpose of this study and the research
questions posed, neither a purely quantitative or qualitative approach would have
provided the necessary insights. Therefore, a mixed methods approach was selected
to reflect the complexity of the problem and research questions posed, and the
inherent complexity of educational contexts and issues (Greene, 2005). Whilst all
methods have their criticisms and limitations, the use of a mixed methods approach
can also ensure greater reliability in that any methodological shortcoming inherent to
any given approach can reciprocally be complemented and neutralised by the other
approach’s strengths (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Other benefits of a mixed
methods approach include the ability to achieve a deeper understanding of the
problem through a combination of qualitative and quantitative data, thus enabling a
greater validity in findings and inferences (Ponce & Pagán-Maldonado, 2015).
In light of the complexity, plurality and context of the study, a convergence mixed
methods research design was used, to explore the research problem from both
qualitative and quantitative perspectives. Data were collected from learners and
teachers across four schools, and an intervention was implemented in two schools, to
assess its impact by comparing student responses before and after the intervention.
One objective was to explore teachers’ and learners’ perceptions and beliefs about
the importance of intercultural learning within second language instruction, and this
was done through the use of teacher and student questionnaires and semi-structured
interviews with teachers. Another objective of the study was to reflect the extent to
which intercultural learning actually occurred in teachers’ practice and in learners’
language learning experience. The teacher and student questionnaires, teacher
interviews as well as lesson observations, were used for this purpose. The qualitative
approach used to explore attitudes, beliefs and experiences also served an
exploratory purpose, by determining the variables to be investigated - and provided a
solution to the lack of existing research on intercultural teaching in the context of
secondary schools (Hennebry, 2014a).
A quantitative approach was needed to establish whether the use of the teaching
intervention using a CLIL approach and materials had an impact on developing
learners’ intercultural understanding, through the completion of a pre and post-test
quiz. Qualitative methods were also used to complement the quantitative findings of
the quiz, through lesson observations during the intervention phase and through
teaching and learning logs, to gather teachers’ and learners’ views about the
intervention approach and materials.
3.2.3. The role of action research
Because of the focus of the study on aspects of culture in language teaching and
learning, the study was highly contextualised, and an action-based approach was
favoured. This was particularly important to me as the study was individually and
professionally motivated, and so aimed to provide me with an opportunity to reflect
on, and improve my own practice as a teacher of languages. For this reason, the
choice was made to place myself in the role of participant teacher; furthermore, as
the study was predicated on the view that intercultural understanding should be one
of the aims of language teaching and learning, including some of my learners, in the
hope of enhancing their learning experience, was equally important.
Although the study made no claim to replicability, as a practitioner-researcher, it was
also important to me that any finding would serve the wider teaching community by
providing a possible model in solution to the research problem. As a result, other
schools and teachers were sought to take part in the study, in the hope that a collegial
approach to action-research would serve to develop new knowledge, in addition to
improving teachers’ practice and learners’ experiences. Despite concerns expressed
by some that research is too complex to serve practice (Hammersley, 2005), or that
little is done to investigate the scope for replication of small-scale, practitioners’
research such as this one (Dyson & Desforges, 2002), I nonetheless shared the view
of Siraj-Blatchford and colleagues that ‘any study developed to identify ‘good
quality’ practice provides within it the potential to develop concrete (and
demonstrably practical) solutions to the problem’ (Siraj-Blatchford, Sammons,
Taggart, Sylva, & Melhuish, 2006:75), and that small-scale, practitioner research can
serve to the accumulation of evidence and knowledge (Oakley, 2004; Siraj-
Blatchford et al., 2006).