Mixed-method research is a design in which two different approaches are combined to collect both quantitative data and qualitative data, although the emphasis on each may not be the same (Bergman, 2009; Clark & Cresswell, 2008; McMurray et al., 2004). Bergman (2009) defined it as a design with a combination of at least one qualitative and at least one quantitative component in a single research project or program. More specifically, Morse and Niehaus (2009) defined it as a scientifically rigorous research project, driven by the inductive or deductive theoretical drive, and comprised of a qualitative or quantitative core component with qualitative-quantitative supplementary component(s). While the core component of the project is the complete method used to address the research question, the supplementary component is not. As it is a methodological strategy different from the method which is used to extend the investigation, the supplementary component is incomplete in itself or lacks some aspect of scientific rigour. It cannot stand alone and is regarded as complementary to the core component (Morse & Niehaus, 2009).
The mixed methods approach has three characteristic features: First, use of qualitative and quantitative approaches within a single research project; second, explicit focus on the link between approaches (triangulation); and third, emphasis on practical approaches to research problems (Denscombe, 2007). A mixed method design is believed to be stronger than one that uses only a single method, for example, one using only the quasi-experimental method (see for example, Bryman, 2006; Rocco et al., 2003; Collins et al., 2006; Greene et al., 1989). Descombe (2007) says that there are five reasons for this. The first is improved accuracy. Mixed methods design allows a researcher to use various methods for the same study, which improve the accuracy of the findings. Moreover, the design can assess the bias as well and it then becomes a valuable strategy for the development of research instruments. Greene et al. (1989) posit this use of a mixed methods approach can be used to “seek convergence, corroboration, correspondence of results from the different methods”. The second reason is that a mixed methods design gives a more complete picture of the answers to the research questions. The use of various designs with a mixture of data allows the researcher to have a description of matters under investigation. The third is compensating for strengths and weaknesses. Mixed methods design allows the researcher to be aware of
87 each method’s strengths and weaknesses, which then give room to the researcher to recognise possible bias. By combining methods, it allows the researcher to compensate for the weakness. The fourth is developing the analysis. Mixed methods design allows the researcher to compare and contrast data better, which later can be used to better develop the analysis. The fifth is as an aid to sampling. The mixed method design allows the researcher to use information gathered as a basis to select respondents through a different and contrasting method (Denscombe, 2007).
Morse (1991) proposed two forms of methodology for mixed methods: (1) simultaneously, that is using both methods at the same time; and (2) sequentially, that is using the results of one method for planning the next method. She argues that using quantitative and qualitative methods to address the same research problem leads to the issue of weighing each method and their sequence in the study. The current study considers quantitative and qualitative methods simultaneously. Figure 4.1 illustrates the design of the study.
The present study took these comments into account and used a mixed-method approach involving a quasi-experimental design and the collection of some written comments from students at the posttest stage. The quasi-experimental design involved a control group (monolinguals) and an experimental group (bilinguals) with pretest and posttest measures. In order to gain some extra information students were asked to provide some written comments at the time of the posttest. These were analysed qualitatively and helped to provide a more complete answer to the research questions.
88
Figure 4.1 Design of the Study
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
READING COMPREHENSION
ANCOVA (SPSS)
RESEARCH ETHICS APPROVAL
PILOT STUDIES
DATA COLLECTION
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
ATTITUDE / BEHAVIOUR QUESTIONNAIRE ENGLISH WRITING RUMM 2030 ANOVA (SPSS) ANCOVA (SPSS) ANOVA RUMM 2030 STUDENTS’ WRITTEN COMMENTS ANALYTICAL INDUCTION RUMM 2030 ANCOVA (SPSS) ANOVA
89
Samples
Seven hundred and eighty male and female students who were enrolled in their first-year of middle schools (12/13 years old), consisting of 394 students from bilingual schools and 386 students from monolingual schools, were respondents for this study. The 780 students were taken from 13 State Middle Schools which are called ‘SMPN’. ‘SMPN’ stands for ‘Sekolah Menengah Pertama Negeri’, equivalent with Year 7 Primary School in the Australian context regarding the students’ age. The schools are numbered under districts or suburbs: five schools having combined English and Bahasa Indonesia as medium of instruction, i.e. SMPN 1 (N=76), SMPN 2 (N=74), SMPN 6 (N=152), SMPN 13 (N=31), and SMPN 19 (N=61); and 8 schools using Bahasa Indonesia as a medium of instruction, i.e. SMPN 3 (N=76), SMPN 4 (N=48), SMPN 7 (N=50), SMPN 10 (N=52), SMPN 11 (N=19), SMPN 14 (N=33), SMPN 17 (N=63), and SMPN 18 (N=45).
The schools were taken from the same district or from neighbouring districts within one city, Banda Aceh. This was believed to be important to ensure that the students shared similar characteristics in terms of English teaching and learning
experience; whether in bilingually-taught or monolingually-taught programs. Matching Bilingually-taught and monolingually-taught schools were chosen, as far as possible, by size and socio-economic status, but this also depended on voluntary agreement to participate. Schools surveyed for bilingual students were not also chosen to survey for monolingual students. It was intended that under no circumstances would students from either group interact with each other leading to collaboration between students.
The two groups shared the same characteristic regarding English learning, that is learning English as a foreign language. The two groups had the same English
curriculum, similar syllabi, and they were taught with similar English teaching
methodology. The students’ after-school activities were similar. The major difference between them was the medium of instruction. Bilinguals were taught English as a subject using combined English and Bahasa Indonesia, while monolinguals were taught English using Bahasa Indonesia.
Almost all the students in both groups were of Acehnese (people of Aceh) origin and all spoke Bahasa Indonesia with their parents, siblings, school-mates and teachers.
90 The majority of them also spoke Acehnese as their heritage language with their parents, siblings, extended family, school-mates, and teachers. Only a few of them spoke
English, read English books, watched TV programs, or were strongly involved in conversations in English with their classmates, outside the classrooms. English was rarely used in the monolingual classrooms but it was used in the bilingual classrooms. The only trivial difference between the two groups was the time for English lessons at school. The amount of English used for bilinguals varied, depending on the school, with a range of 38 hours to 57 hours per semester. The 38 hours per semester was made up of two hours for each meeting in a week for 19 meetings in a semester, while the 57 hours was made up of three hours for one or two meetings in a week for 19 meetings in a semester. The amount of English used for monolinguals was fixed, 38 hours per semester, consisting of two hours for one meeting for 19 meetings in a semester. Regarding this slight difference in the teaching-learning hours, the posttest for both groups was administered upon the completion of 32 hours of teaching-learning. This was considered important so as to ensure that both groups of students had been taught English as a subject for the same amount of time prior to the posttests being conducted.
Thus the samples were:
1. English Reading Comprehension and English Writing tests.
2. Questionnaire. All students who sat for the linguistic tests, that is, the English Reading Comprehension and English Writing tests, were requested to answer questionnaires on their attitudes and behaviour with regard to learning English. 3. Student Written Comments. All students who sat for the questionnaire test were
requested to answer the last written item of the questionnaire which was about their experience in regard to learning English as a foreign language.
4. The 780 students were requested to sit for English Reading Comprehension and English Writing Experimental and Control Groups. Students who were taught English bilingually were assigned to the Experimental Groups, and students who were taught English monolingually were assigned to the Control Groups.
The study involved experimental and control groups with pretests and posttest using three measures: (1) English Reading Comprehension, (2) English Text Writing, and (3) an Attitude and Behaviour Questionnaire. Both control and experimental groups
91 were assessed under similar conditions and situations which involved the same English lesson content, similar lesson times and lesson duration, same homework, and same text books, but left the nature of the bilingual and monolingual teaching program
unchanged. The only difference between the two groups was that the one group experienced bilingual teaching and learning processes with a slight extra amount of learning in class, while the second group experienced monolingual teaching and learning processes.
Teachers from bilingual schools and monolingual schools were counselled and monitored over the two months of the experiment to ensure that the controls on
conditions and situations were working as they should. The points to consider were whether some changes in English lesson content, lesson times and lesson duration, homework, and text books occurred. Even though teachers in the bilingual and monolingual schools were different, they both shared similar awareness regarding the points of control that the study needed. The two-month experiment time was taken due to practicality issues and content issues. Practicality issues were teachers’ willingness to participate in the research should the amount of experiment time exceed two months. Study issues were students’ exposure to English language outside of the bilingual and monolingual classrooms. Since the focus of the study was to see the effect of bilingual and monolingual programs on student learning, controlling for extraneous English language variables outside the classroom was important. This was done by continual monitoring and counselling of teachers.
Table 4.1 shows the student numbers by control and experimental groups and by gender in control and experimental groups.
Table 4.1
Student Numbers by Control/Experimental Groups and by Gender in Control/Experimental Groups
Type of program N Gender
Female Male
Bilingual 394 229 165
92