Employment of multiple approaches

It has been suggested that there is no best approach for research, since each type has its advantages and disadvantages. There are three commonly discussed research approaches in the literature: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods (Creswell, 2014). The selection of a research approach is often determined by the nature of a particular study, the identified research questions and researchers’ own personal training and experiences (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011; Creswell, 2014). The decision should be informed by the philosophical assumptions the researcher brings to the study, procedures of inquiry, and specific research methods of data collection, analysis and interpretation. The employment of diverse approaches (quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods) has helped to produce meaningful and valid results, and thus achieve a comprehensive understanding of learner motivation and language teaching (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011; Shehadeh & Coombe, 2012). In this study, a qualitative approach and a mixed methods approach were chosen and employed in the process of reframing research focuses and questions. The following sections will report the process of choosing and employing multiple research methods in the research practice.

4.2.2.1 Qualitative approach for Research Question 1

According to Creswell (2014), qualitative research is an approach for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. It is naturalistic, pragmatic, interpretive, emergent, multifaceted, and grounded in the lived experiences of people (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). It can also provide insider meaning by exploring the participants’ views of the situation being studied, and normally has a small sample size (Dörnyei, 2007). It has become an increasingly important and useful mode of inquiry for the social science and applied fields, especially in the field of education (Marshall & Rossman, 2011;

Dörnyei, 2007).

At the first stage of my study (see Paper 1 and 2), qualitative research was used due to following considerations:

First, it is suggested that the matching between the research questions and research methods be as close as possible. A good way to achieve fit is to ensure that the methods follow the questions; that is, we first think about what we are trying to find out, and then consider how we are going to do it (Punch, 2009). As mentioned, this study initially focused on the experience of using tasks and a PBL-inspired method in developing Chinese language and culture teaching and learning, with the ultimate aim of enhancing learner motivation, which led to an explorative question: can a student-centred approach (i.e., TBTL or a PBL-inspired method) be used to motivate students to learn Chinese language and culture in an intercultural (or Danish) context? The focus on the learner’s perspective in the question fits with the characteristics of qualitative research in that it explores the participants’ views of the studied situations and produces insider meaning. This form of inquiry has supported a way of looking at this study that characterises an inductive style, a focus on individual meaning, and the importance of considering the complexity of a situation.

Second, as a newcomer to the Danish context, I needed to gain a deep understanding of both the teaching philosophy of the Danish education system and the unfamiliar teaching and learning methods that might be more appropriate to use in the context. I felt that the choice of a qualitative approach could help me to quickly adapt to the new culture through participation in the natural settings where data was generated and where I could reflect on my role and practice in a systematic way. Thus, the empirical data was mainly collected by participant observation and semi-structured interviews.

Third, I was an arts student (language and literature) when studying as an undergraduate myself; I did not receive any training in quantitative research. Given that a qualitative approach was more familiar, it was the natural choice.

Fourth and last, the small sample size of participants made qualitative research ideal. There was only a small number of students in the two Chinese courses focused upon in the beginning stage of the study (one had 21 students, the other had 8). It is suggested that a sample size of 30 is the minimum number of cases if researchers plan to use some form of statistical analysis in their data (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011). Apparently, the small sample size in the two cases played a part in determining what methods I could use, making qualitative methods the best option.

4.2.2.2 Mixed methods approach for Research Question 2 For many years, quantitative and qualitative forms of research have been known as two basic alternatives when conducting a study. Different from naturalistic qualitative research, quantitative research tends to test objective theories by examining the relationships between variables, which can be measured and then analysed using statistical procedures (Creswell, 2014). The distinction between the two approaches is often discussed, and is not only related to using words or numbers, using closed-ended or open-ended questions or being deductive or inductive; it is also related to the basic philosophical assumptions the researchers bring to the study (e.g., positivist/post-positivist worldview or constructivist worldview), the potential types of research strategies (e.g., experiments or case studies) and the specific methods employed in conducting these strategies (collecting data on instruments or through observing a setting) (Teddlie &

Tashakkori, 2009; Creswell, 2014).

It is suggested that the two approaches should not be viewed as rigid, distinct categories or dichotomies, since they can represent different ends on an exploratory-confirmatory continuum (Creswell, 2014; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Mixed methods research resides in the middle of this continuum because it incorporates elements of both qualitative and quantitative approaches. The core assumption of this form of inquiry is that the combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches provides a more complete understanding of a research problem than either approach does alone. Mixed methods research has been regarded as a “third methodological movement, with some researchers seeing quantitative research as the first movement and qualitative as the second” (Teddlie

& Tashakkori, 2009, p. 76).

In the second stage of this study (see Paper 3 and 4), a mixed methods approach became a relevant option for following reasons:

First, it had a strong connection to the research problems and questions. From the first stage of the study, I had the assumption that task-based teaching and learning (TBTL) could be used as a motivating and effective method to teach Chinese language and culture in a Danish context. Based on this assumption, I focused on

how students were motivated to learn Chinese language and culture via TBTL in a student-centred learning environment. In order to answer this question, I needed to test the assumption by finding out if TBTL really made the students feel motivated or made learner motivation/orientation increase, and this had to be done before I explored the students’ experience of being motivated in the learning environment. It is suggested that research problems suited for mixed methods are those in which one data source may be insufficient, results need to be explained, exploratory findings need to be generalised, a second method is needed to enhance a primary method, a theoretical stance needs to be employed or an overall research objective can be best addressed with multiple phases or projects (Creswell & Clark, 2011).

The cases in Papers 3 and 4 encountered these problems when I was seeking answers to the general research question, so a mixed methods research became relevant and important. The following sub-questions (see Paper 3 and 4) have reflected these considerations and the logic behind them:

1) Sub-question 2.1: To what degree can tasks make students feel motivated to learn Chinese language and culture, and what characteristics do students associate with the motivating tasks?

2) Sub-question 2.2: How do students’ motivational orientations change in a Chinese language and culture course using a TBTL method?

Second, the large sample size of participants (153 participants in Paper 3, 129 participants in Paper 4) inspired me to use surveys to collect statistical data, and then use that data to measure the motivating effect of selected learning tasks so I could compare the levels of learner orientation before and after the course.

Qualitative data from participant observation and group interviews was considered insufficient to clearly show the effect of the teaching method on the level of learner orientation/motivation.

Third, I worked with a co-author with a quantitative research background. It is recommended that researchers should first gain experience with both quantitative research and qualitative research before undertaking a mixed methods study (Creswell & Clark, 2011). As mentioned above, I had not received any training in quantitative approaches before conducting this study, and therefore, only qualitative approaches were considered during the first stage. When a quantitative approach became necessary during the second stage of the study, my co-author Xiaoju Duan was invited to assist with the quantitative data analysis. With Xiaoju Duan’s help and through attending a PhD course, I also learned to do relevant quantitative analysis myself. All of these factors made the use of a mixed methods approach possible in this study.