service (Figures 3, 4). Although one participant had used the service to teach only Finnish, the majority of the participants had taught English via Moomin Language School (Figure 4). Also, even though 7 of the participants had used the service over a year, 5 participants had used it only 1-6 months (Figure 3). The differences in educational backgrounds, experience, and languages they have taught via Moomin Language School are accounted for in the analysis of the results.
4. Methods
In this section, the methods for the analyses are presented. The first chapter discusses the methods that are used to analyze and evaluate the content of Moomin Language School from the perspective of early English language teaching. The next section presents the research methods that are used in the analysis of the answers gathered by the questionnaire. Both methods contribute to indicating as to how Moomin Language School could be improved based on the results of this study.
6 5 7
1-6
MONTHS 7-12
MONTHS OVER A
YEAR Q 1.2 I H AVE USED MO O MIN
LANGUAGE SCH O O L…
14 11 1 1
Q1.3 I HAVE USED MOOMIN LANGUAGE SCHOOL TO
TEACH…
English
Finnish as a second language
English and Finnish as a first language
Both English and Finnish as a second language Other
Figure 3. Participants’ experience in Moomin Language School in question 1.2.
Figure 4. Languages taught by the participants via Moomin Language School in question 1.3.
4.1. Material analysis and evaluation
Moomin Language School is analyzed using quantitative and qualitative methods, although the main aspect of the analysis is quantitative to thoroughly inspect the nature and characteristics of the material. This was done to gain more reliable and versatile data. Quantitative methods are used to, for instance, subcategorize content areas and activity types to indicate the emphasis of the material.
Qualitative methods are used to describe and analyze the content and activities in more detail and compare them to the theories of SLA and EELT as well as to the regulations of the Finnish National Agency for Education. The analysis of Moomin Language School content is conducted by doing a close reading of the material. Close reading means observing the text in great detail in order to find all striking features or predetermined selected features of the text (Kain 1998). Next, the text is interpreted based on the observations. However, “close reading requires careful gathering of data (your observations) and careful thinking about what these data add up to” (Kain 1998). Hence, the material is analyzed to find relevant features relating to EELT. These observations are interpreted and analyzed, and finally compared to the answers gathered by the questionnaire.
The method for analyzing the content of Moomin Language School is strongly based on Littlejohn’s model for language teaching material analysis (2011, 179-211) introduced in chapter 2.4.1, and it is modified to suit the purposes of this study. This model was selected because it concentrates on analyzing “materials ‘as they are’”, and not analyzing them as “’materials in action’”
(Littlejohn 2011, 181). Indeed, the analysis of how teaching material actually functions in real classroom situations would require a very different methodology, and as the aim of this study is to conduct an evaluation of the material, the teaching content is analyzed solely on the basis of how it is presented in the Moomin Language School Tool and application.
As the aim of the first research questions is to find out how Moomin Language School takes the young age of the learners into consideration, the evaluation focuses on analyzing “how the tasks, language and content in the materials are selected and sequenced” (Littlejohn 2011, 183). The analysis
includes all three levels of analysis that Littlejohn suggests, moving from objective description of the material to subjective analysis of the material and tasks to finally deduce principles of selection and sequence, learner roles as well as demands on learner’s competence (Littlejohn 2011, 185). Littlejohn (2011, 187-201) further on suggests a detailed step-by-step model for analyzing the material, but it does not suit the level of young English learners, as the materials and tasks are limited to mostly learning vocabulary and practicing short communicative phrases, and are based on short and generally repetitive action-oriented and playful methods – which are not present in Littlejohn’s model.
However, he does offer a clear and applicable framework for analyzing English teaching material.
In order to evaluate the content of Moomin Language School, ELT evaluation theories are used to determine what is regarded as age-appropriate thematic and linguistic content and teaching methods for young English language learners. The theory and research introduced in chapter 2 are used to select suitable parameters for the analysis. These parameters function as the framework to which the material can be compared. Hence, this comparison indicates how Moomin Language School follows the guidelines provided by theories in the fields of SLA and EELT, as well as the Finnish National Agency for Education.
4.2. Qualitative survey
A qualitative survey was used as a methodological approach to collect both quantitative and qualitative data, through which the analysis of attitudes and experiences of the users of Moomin Language School could be conducted. As stated by McQuiggan et al. (2015, 206-207), surveys are a convenient and efficient way to gather relevant data. Furthermore, McQuiggan et al. (2015, 199) explain that in order to give a comprehensive evaluation of a learning service, data “collected through feedback from the users, who are usually educators or learners” is crucial, which is why this method was chosen for this part of the analysis. Surveys tend to be regarded as a quantitative method to gather data; a questionnaire can nevertheless produce plenty of qualitative data in terms of open-ended
questions. As stated by Hutton (1990, 219): “It is able to explore the subtleties of human perception, the nuances of language and the interrelationship of concepts largely lost to the quantitative researcher.” Here Hutton is describing the interviewing method, and although the research method chosen for this study is a questionnaire, the questions still enable the collection of qualitative data of the participants’ attitudes and perceptions through multiple open-ended questions.
The questionnaire used in this study combines quantitative and qualitative methods to gain more reliable results, and to reveal any contradictions in the participants’ answers. An electronic questionnaire was chosen because, in addition to it being an inexpensive, efficient, and timesaving choice, it enabled the questionnaire to be sent to as many people as possible to ensure the maximum number of responses (Barribeau et al. 1994-2012). However, one of the weaknesses of an electronic questionnaire is that the participants cannot ask any instructions, and this may affect the response rate.