Content uploaded by Lisbeth M Brevik
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lisbeth M Brevik on Aug 25, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Lisbeth M Brevik, University of Oslo, Norway
The Multiphase Design:
How Mixed Methods Research
Adds Value to Research Projects
Objectives
•To investigate the practices involved in developing
reading comprehension in English as the L2 in
Norwegian upper secondary school
•Obtaining and integrating teacher and student
perspectives
•Integration of qualitative and quantitative methods,
analyses, and reporting of findings
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
Review: reading research
•Reading comprehension strategy research
–Quantitative studies and reviews (strategy effects)
–Quantitative and qualitative programs focusing on L1
strategy instruction and use (program effects)
–Qualitative classroom observations in L1 (naturalistic)
•The field of reading research “has witnessed an
increased realisation that cognitive variables interact
with social and cultural variables in complex ways,
necessitating the use of more complex methods of
data collection” (Kamil et al., 2011, p. xviii)
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
Mixed methods literature
•Philosophical assumptions
•Theoretical frameworks
–Johnson & Christensen (2013)
–Greene (2015)
–Creswell (2015)
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
Rationale for MMR
•QUAL + QUAN
•Reading research gap
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
Norwegian context
•Primary school
–1st to 7th grade (6-12 years)
•Lower secondary
–8th to 10th grade (13-15 years)
•Upper secondary
–11th to 13th grade (16-18 years)
–General (academic) studies
–Vocational studies
–Voluntary
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
Research questions
•RQ1 (QUAL + QUAN): To what extent and how do
upper secondary teachers include reading
comprehension strategies in their English L2
instruction?
•RQ2 (QUAL + QUAN): To what extent and how do
upper secondary students use reading
comprehension strategies in English L2?
•RQ3 (QUAN): How proficient are upper secondary
students as readers of English L2?
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
Multiphase design (plan)
Integration
(methods, analysis, pespectives, findings)
QUAL
(student focus groups)
QUAL
(teacher focus group)
QUAN
(student survey)
QUAN
(teacher survey)
Phase
1
Phase
2
Phase
3
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
Multiphase design (study)
Integration
(methods, analysis, perspectives, findings)
QUAL
(student focus groups,
observation, narratives)
QUAL
(teacher focus group)
QUAN
(student tests)
QUAL
(teacher narratives)
Phase
1
Phase
2
Phase
3
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
Sample integration
•Phases 1–2: Followed some of the teachers (n=21)
into their classrooms (n=5) and included their
students (n=64)
•Phase 2: Compared the students (n=64) to the
population (n=10,331)
•Phase 2: integrated teacher and student samples,
and samples in general and vocational programmes
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
Methods integration
•Phase 1: The teacher focus groups (QUAL) influenced
the choice of teacher narratives (QUAL).
•Phases 1–2: The self-reported teacher data in phase 1
influenced the choice of classroom observations in
phase 2 (QUAL). The teacher narratives and focus
groups in phase 1 influenced the choice of replication
in phase 2 (QUAL). The single perspective in phase 1
influenced the multiple perspective in phase 2 (QUAL)
•Phase 2: The student data (QUAL) influenced the need
for reading tests (QUAN)
•Phase 3: Integrated multiple methods (QUAL + QUAN)
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
Analysis integration
•Phase 1: Integrated the analysis of the focus group
data with the teacher narratives one month later
(QUAL triangulation)
•Phase 2: Integrated analysis of the observation data,
with the student focus group data, and the teacher
narratives (QUAL triangulation)
•Phase 2: Integrated analysis of the student focus
group data with the test data (QUAL + QUAN)
•Phases 1–2: Integrated analysis of teacher
narratives across one year (QUAL), in light of the
test data (QUAL + QUAN)
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
Findings integration (RQ1)
To what extent and how do upper secondary teachers
include reading comprehension strategies in their
English L2 instruction?
Phases 1–3: integrated teacher and student findings
over one year (QUAL + QUAN)
•Teacher narratives across one year (QUAL)
•Classroom observation (QUAL)
•In light of student test results (QUAN)
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
Findings integration (RQ1)
Integration
(methods, analysis, perspectives, findings)
QUAL
(student focus groups,
observation, narratives)
QUAL
(teacher focus group)
QUAN
(student tests)
QUAL
(teacher narratives)
Phase
1
Phase
2
Phase
3
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
Findings RQ1:
teachers’ strategy instruction
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
Findings RQ1:
teachers’ strategy instruction
Vocational students General students
(poor readers) (good readers)
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
Findings integration (RQ2)
To what extent and how do upper secondary students
use reading comprehension strategies in English L2?
Phases 2–3: Integrated student findings at the same
time (QUAL + QUAN)
•Classroom observation (QUAL)
•Student focus groups (QUAL)
•Student reading tests (QUAN)
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
Findings integration (RQ2)
Integration
(methods, analysis, perspectives, findings)
QUAL
(student focus groups,
observation, narratives)
QUAL
(teacher focus group)
QUAN
(student tests)
QUAL
(teacher narratives)
Phase
1
Phase
2
Phase
3
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
Findings RQ2:
students’ strategy use
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
Findings integration (RQ3)
How proficient are upper secondary students as
readers of English L2?
Phase 2: student test results (QUAN + QUAL)
•Student focus groups (QUAL variables)
•Student reading tests (QUAN n = 64)
•Student reading tests (QUAN n = 10,331)
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
Findings integration (RQ3)
Integration
(methods, analysis, perspectives, findings)
QUAL
(student focus groups,
observation, narratives)
QUAL
(teacher focus group)
QUAN
(student tests)
QUAL
(teacher narratives)
Phase
1
Phase
2
Phase
3
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
Findings RQ3:
Students’ reading proficiency
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
General studies (Year 11) Vocational studies (Year
11)
Norwegian
English
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
How to mix?
INTEGRATION (mixed): To investigate the practices
involved in developing reading comprehension in English
as the L2 in Norwegian upper secondary school
Teacher focus groups
Teacher narratives
PHASE 1: QUAL
Classroom observation
Teacher narratives
Student focus groups
PHASE 2: QUAL
Student reading tests
PHASE 2: QUAN
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
Multiphase design: added value
•Allows for influence between phases
•Captures complexity and richness of data
•Opens for unexpected findings and
adjustment of methods
•Integrates within and across phases
•Integrates samples, perspectives, methods,
analysis and findings
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
Conclusion
•Before this study, there were little evidence of reading strategy
instruction and use in the classroom, either in L1 or L2
•Based on the multiphase MM design, we believe that
–teachers instruct students in using reading comprehension
strategies when reading in L2
–teachers need to make their strategy instruction explicit to
themselves and their students
–students use the strategies when reading in L2
–good readers (in general studies) use the strategies in the
classroom because the teachers tell them to
–poorer readers (in vocational studies) use the strategies when
reading in L2 in and out of school because they see personal
purposes for doing so (i.e. helping them understand and become
better readers)
ECER 2017 | Lisbeth M Brevik (l.m.brevik@ils.uio.no)
