Abstract
There are different ways of classifying research studies. They can be classified in terms of the type of research design used, such as descriptive, experimental and correlational studies. Descriptive research attempts to describe the phenomenon in its naturalistic context, whereas experimental research manipulates variables under controlled conditions. Correctional research examines associations between or among variables. Studies can also be classified in terms of their data collection methods. In this respect, they can, for instance, be quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research. Quantitative research involves numerical data collected through various quantitative measures and analysis of those data through statistical procedures. Qualitative research consists of verbal data or data that involve texts and the analysis and interpretation of those texts. Mixed methods research involves a combination of both types of data. The terms qualitative and quantitative are also used to differentiate between studies in terms of their philosophical points of view with qualitative research valuing subjective judgments, whereas quantitative research stressing objectivity, control, and distance from the research. A third way of classifying research studies is in terms of their objectives. Studies can be exploratory or explanatory in their objectives. Exploratory research aims to discover ideas or to understand the phenomenon by attempting to generate new perspectives or hypothesis from the data. Explanatory research, however, aims to provide explanations for the relationship among variables by identifying the causes. Finally, studies can be classified in terms of the time frame for data collection. Hence they can be either cross-sectional or longitudinal. Cross-sectional studies involve data collected at a particular point of time or during short periods of time. Longitudinal studies involve data collected over an extended period of time with the aim of describing or tracking development or change over time.
The six articles published in this issue of Language Teaching Research present research that varies widely in terms of the type of research design used as well as methodology of data collection, time frame and research objectives. They range from highly controlled experimental and/or cross-sectional studies that attempt to explain relationships or differences between and among groups, to descriptive and/or highly qualitative research that attempts to provide an in-depth understanding of the nature of the event, to longitudinal studies to trace development over time.
The first study by Abrams and Rott is a quantitative cross-sectional study of 245 learners of German as a second language (L2) at two public universities in the USA. It aimed to examine learner performance when they carried out two different commonly used assessment tasks (discrete-point tasks and integrative essay tasks). The participants’ performance was examined in terms of the grammatical accuracy, fluency, and complexity of the features used in the tasks. To track development, data were collected at four points of time in their program (semester 1 through semester 4). Since the study was quantitative and cross-sectional, the researchers were able to use a number of statistical procedures to compare learners’ performance at each level. The results showed that learners’ performance varied at different points of time depending on the type of grammatical features tested. For example, while students’ accuracy of the use of modal verbs improved from the second to the third semester, their accuracy of the use of infinitives declined in the second and fourth semesters. As for fluency and complexity, second-year learners produced more fluent sentences than first-year learners, and fourth-semester learners’ sentences were more complex than others. Overall, the results point to the complexity of L2 development by showing that learner grammatical accuracy does not improve in a linear fashion, and that it may be affected by task type and other factors such as the nature of the target structure. One limitation of this study, as the authors acknowledge, is that because it is cross-sectional and not longitudinal, the results cannot provide direct evidence for development.
Suzuki and DeKeyser report a study that compared the effectiveness of two types of practice (distributed and massed) for the proceduralization of L2 grammatical features (the te-form of the verb in Japanese). Distributed practice was defined as the one characterized by long time intervals between practice sessions whereas massed practice involved shorter intervals. The study used a pretest–posttest experimental design in which participants (40 beginner level learners of Japanese) were randomly assigned to two groups, each receiving four individual practice sessions in a laboratory setting. One group (n = 18) engaged in practice with one-day between-session intervals and the other (n = 22) with a seven-day between-session intervals. The study used two types of tests: a rule application test and a picture sentence completion test. Both accuracy and speed were measured. The results showed no difference between the two types of practice on accuracy scores, but it showed an advantage for massed practice on the speed measures in one of the tests (the picture sentence completion test). The authors discussed a number of factors (including the training task complexity and the proceduralization of L2 forms) to explain the findings and also pointed out that the findings may tentatively suggest that both massed and distributed practices could be worthwhile approaches for teaching L2 grammatical forms. This study is significant as it contributes to our understanding of the role that different types of practice play in language learning. However, since it is a laboratory study, classroom implications should be treated cautiously. Also since the study does not include a control group, it is hard to know whether the results shown are due to the treatments or other variables.
Wacha and Liu report on a study that aimed to examine the efficacy of two forms of recasts, elaborated recasts and paraphrased recasts, while at the same time comparing them to conventional recasts in an English as a foreign language context. Standard recasts were defined as reformulation that repeated the learner’s utterance minus the error while a paraphrased recast involved reformulation of the error as well as rephrasing the sentence structure. Elaborated recasts included reformulation preceded by utterances that clarified the semantic content of the sentence. The participants were four intermediate level Taiwanese learners of English. Three of them each received one of the three types of recasts, and one received no feedback. The research design was a longitudinal time-series design in which data were collected in 30-minute individual sessions from each participant, who met with an instructor in nine weekly sessions. The target structure was English past tense. The study included two pretests and nine posttests each conducted after each treatment session. Because the study used a longitudinal time-series design, it allowed the researchers to trace the effects of feedback at different points of time on the same learner’s improvement. The results indicated beneficial effects for all three recast types. These findings may be taken to suggest that different types of recasts may have similar effects on L2 development. However, it is difficult to arrive at a generalizable conclusion from this study because the data comes from one learner in each condition rather than from groups of learners.
Zhang conducted a quasi-experimental pretest, posttest, delayed posttest study to examine L2 learners’ writing development in four intact EFL classes. The study compared the performance of four groups of Chinese learners of English. Two groups received reading–writing tasks (in one of the groups, both tasks were in English and in the other group the reading was in Chinese and the writing was in English), one group performed a writing task plus comprehensive corrective feedback, and the fourth group received no treatment. The results showed no significant differences among the three experimental groups in their overall writing scores and the scores related to content and organization. However, there were differences in the posttest scores related to language accuracy. The English/English group and the corrective feedback group performed better than both the control and the Chinese/English groups. The Chinese/English group also outperformed the control group but no difference was found between the English/English group and the corrective feedback group. These results are important because they confirm the importance of corrective feedback for the development of L2 writing accuracy, and also provide evidence for the effectiveness of integrating reading and writing in L2 classrooms. They also suggest that integration is helpful when both the reading and the writing are conducted in the target language, pointing to the importance of the language match between the input and output for L2 writing development.
Uzum conducted a case study of one participant, an Uzbek language teacher, who had travelled to the USA to study in a PhD program. Conducted within a language socialization framework, the aim was to explore how the teacher negotiated her pedagogical beliefs and practices when socializing into the new educational and cultural setting. This study provides a good example of an ethnographic qualitative case study in which data were collected and triangulated from multiple sources including several interviews conducted at different points in time (at the beginning, middle, and end the year), audio and video-recorded classroom observations, and various classroom materials, lesson plans and syllabi as well as detailed field notes taken from the observations. Analysis of the data was inductive and irritative with the interviews being transcribed, coded and analyzed for emerging themes. The findings revealed a number of factors that shaped the participant’s pedagogical beliefs and practices which were classified and discussed by the author under three categories: biographical factors, contextual factors, and dialogic factors. This study is important because it provides significant insights into how a foreign teacher socializes into a new cultural and educational setting and how this process influences his or her pedagogical beliefs and practices.
Arnott examined the perspectives of L2 educators (teachers and administrators) on the implementation of a French as a second language (FSL) teaching innovation in Canada (i.e. the Accelerative Integrated Method), which was used either as an optional or mandated teaching method in two teaching contexts. The study used a mixed methods design in which qualitative data from interviews and focus groups and quantitative data from survey were triangulated to provide an in-depth understating of the participants experiences and perspectives. The findings revealed various areas of similarity and differences in opinions with regards to the utility and implementation of such a pedagogical method and provided important insights into the factors affecting its practice and sustainability in the two contexts.
In sum, the articles in this issue of the journal address a variety of topics in the field of second language teaching, including assessment tasks, second language education, grammar practice, corrective feedback, teacher socialization, and writing development. The studies also use a wide range of research designs and approaches. This reflects the multifaceted nature of second language teaching and the diversity of research methods and strategies used to address issues in this discipline.