Triangulation

Th e present study was conducted within the exploratory-interpretative paradigm (as defi ned by Grotjahn 1987; Pressley and Affl erbach 1995). Data analysis was carried out by means of interpretative procedures, such as qualitative content analysis, as well as statistical analysis. To gain more confi dence in the fi ndings and to obtain a less-biased picture of the research object, several types of triangulation (cf. Den-zin 1970, as cited by van Lier 1994: 13) were employed: theoretical triangulation, which involved interpreting the same set of data from several diff erent perspectives;

data triangulation, which means making use of a variety of data sources to study the same issue and methodological triangulation, which entails making use of multiple research methods to investigate the same issue.

Let us look at Table III.18. All the stages in the study were embedded in the psycholinguistic view of the reading process, which conceptualises reading as a cognitive intrapersonal process (Bernhardt 1991). However, within this view, two theoretical orientations were distinguished: strategic, which views reading as a strategic problem-solving process during which the reader applies strategies to cope with diffi culties he/she encounters when reading texts, and constructivist, which underlines reading as “a reader’s direct engagement with text ideas rather than engagement fi ltered through specifi c strategies” (Kucan and Beck 1997: 284), thus highlighting the reader’s constructing the model (representation) of the text.

Stage 1 and 2 in the study draw on the strategic view of reading; whereas stages 3, 4 and 5 – on the constructivist view of reading. Data in the study was obtained from two sources: students’ thinking aloud and interviews, which enabled me to study students’ individual styles of reading in relation to the Polish and English text as well as the diff erences between reading in Polish and reading in English. As regards methodology, two research methods were applied: think-aloud methodology and interviews. Both methods provided insight into how students read in their L1 and FL as well as information about students’ individual reading styles.

Apart from the three types of triangulation discussed above, one more type of triangulation was employed. It involved using diff erent procedures to analyse the same set of data (i.e., the think-aloud data), which allowed me to focus on diff erent aspects of the object of the study, reading in L1 and FL, at diff erent stages of the study (see Table III.18.).

Table III.18. Th e diff erent types of triangulation employed in the study Analysis procedure (stage of

the study)

Source of data Th eoretical orientations within a psycholinguistic view Analysis of reading strategies

(Stage 1)

TA protocols reading as a strategic problem-solving process

Analysis of problems and solu-tions (Stage 2)

TA protocols reading as a strategic problem-solving process

Analysis of propositions (Stage 3)

TA protocols reading as a process of con-structing the model of the text

Analysis procedure (stage of the study)

Source of data Th eoretical orientations within a psycholinguistic view Analysis of idiosyncratic

pat-terns of constructing compre-hension (Stage 4)

TA protocols reading as a process of con-structing the model of the text

Evaluation of students’ com-prehension (Stage 5)

TA protocols reading as a process of con-structing the model of the text Interviews with students

(Stage 6)

interviews conducted with each student by the author of the study

---(not applicable)

Source: own study.

Th is combination of theoretical orientations, research methods, data types and analysis procedures, referred to by Denzin (1970, cited in van Lier 1994: 13) as multiple triangulation, has several advantages. Th eoretical triangulation aided the validity of the study, allowing me to conceptualise the object of the research (i.e., reading in L1 and FL) in several diff erent ways. Th e following aspects of reading were investigated:

reading strategies (Stage 1), the problems readers encountered and the solutions they applied (Stage 2), the propositions students constructed when reading (Stage 3), stu-dents’ idiosyncratic patterns of constructing comprehension (Stage 4) and stustu-dents’

ability to identify the main ideas in the texts (Stage 5). It is important to underline that the study looked at both the process of reading (Stages 1, 2, 3, 4) and the product of reading (Stage 5). Th e advantage of methodological triangulation was that it pro-vided an opportunity to study the same problem by means of two research methods.

Students’ individual styles of reading in relation to the Polish and English text, and the diff erences between reading in Polish and reading in English were investigated by think-aloud protocols (which elicited simultaneous and immediately consecutive reporting) and direct retrospective interviews. Th is allowed me to compare the results of the two analyses and to gain more insight into the issues under investigation.

As stated above, triangulation allowed me to ask the same questions several times and thus enriched the fi ndings obtained at the earlier stages. Below, all the stages of the study are discussed; the results that were enriched and confi rmed are underlined.

Stage 1 (the analysis of strategies) resulted in the identifi cation of four strategy categories: technical, emotional, rational/logical and evaluating/critical. At this stage, the following fi ndings concerning diff erences between reading in Polish and reading in English were obtained:

In reading in Polish, the subjects seemed to focus more on higher-level skills –

than on lower-level skills.

In reading in English, the students concentrated on both higher and lower –

level skills.

In reading in Polish, actions that indicate a development of the situation –

model of the text were identifi ed, such as more active personal involvement on the part of the reader and extrapolating. Th e use of emotional strategies was also considered indicative of students’ attempts to construct the situa-tion model of the text.

In reading in English, the subjects demonstrated a higher level of metacogni-–

tion, i.e., awareness of how they were reading.

While rereading the Polish text, the students processed larger parts of the –

text, e.g., paragraphs; in English they focussed on smaller parts, e.g., indi-vidual sentences.

At Stage 2 (the analysis of problems and solutions) additional information was obtained about the following strategies identifi ed at Stage 1: referring to earlier parts of the text, drawing on prior knowledge, dialoguing with the text ideas, summing up the information and translation. Th e following conclusions regarding diff erences between reading in Polish and reading in English, suggested at the earlier stage, were confi rmed:

the more signifi cant role of higher-level skills (focus on understanding the –

text idea) in reading in Polish and lower-level skills (focus on vocabulary) in reading in English;

students’ tendency to use a narrow co-text in reading in English and a wider –

co-text in reading in Polish.

Stage 3 (the analysis of propositions) brought more insight into several strat-egies identifi ed at Stage 1, namely the strategy of predicting the development of ideas and evaluating/critical strategies. A focus on the propositions students constructed when reading the texts created an opportunity to observe the role of predictions in constructing comprehension of the text. It was also possible to observe how the students evaluated the products of their comprehension, thereby to understand better the nature of the evaluating strategies applied by the learners.

Stage 4 identifi ed students’ idiosyncratic patterns of constructing comprehen-sion. Th e interviews with the students (Stage 6) provided further information about students’ individual styles of reading in relation to the Polish and the English text.

Stage 5 measured readers’ comprehension of the texts, viewed as an ability to identify the main ideas of the texts. Th e results pointed to certain diff erences among the students in reading both texts, e.g., to the very poor performance of some students. It was possible to explain those diff erences by analysing the data obtained in the interview at Stage 6.

Further, the retrospective interviews (Stage 6) confi rmed the fi ndings from Stage 1 concerning the students attitudes’ towards L1 and FL texts, especially those pointing to the students’ emotional engagement when reading. Th e learners’ com-ments also provided explanation as to why the subjects regarded the strategies of translation, reading aloud and rereading so important in reading in English. Th is fi nding underlined the importance of lower level skills in reading in English (thereby supporting the observation from the earlier stages of the study).

To sum up, I do hope that the diff erent types of triangulation I employed in the study have increased the trustworthiness of my research and improved the validity and reliability of the evaluation of its fi ndings.