2.

SLA research methodology

2.1. Introduction

 “Research is a systematic approach to finding answers to questions” (Hatch and Farhady,

1982, p.1)

- Crucial for being systematic is a good research – design.

- This chapter is based on SLA and how it deals with the components of research design :

1) methodology
2) setting

 3) instrumentation
4) measurement

 1960 → disagreements between cognitive psychologists and behaviourists.

 - Researchers rely no more on other disciplines for theoretical orientation, they conclude
their research on SLA directly.

 - Nowadays, SLA researchers became more creative in the ways of seeking answers as well as
trying alternative ways, not only relying on the original research methodology.

 2.2 Qualitative versus quantative methodologies

 Qualitative methodology → researchers avoid to test the hypothesis, but they tend to
observe what is present with focus, occasionally the data, free to vary during the
observation.

 Quantative methodology → researchers typify special experiments designed to test certain

hypothesis through use of objective instruments and statistical analyses.

 Lognitudal versus Cross – Section studies

 The lognitudal approach is based on observing the linguistical development of just one
subject in a certain period of time.
- naturalistic
- process oriented
- ungeneralizable

 Cross section studies include more subjects, but they collect their statistics in just one
session.

- There is still no strict rule about which approach to adopt, as we must be able to trace
changes diachronically, as well as synchronically.


 - Difficulties in single case studies due to the lack of generalizability, since every individual
subject has its own SLA behaviour.

- Researchers should be clear about the purpose of their study in SLA and match that purpose
with adequate attributes in order to accomplish it.


“The research question should determine methodological designs”

 Introspection

 the ultimate qualitative study in which learners, with guidance from the researcher, learners
examine their own behaviour for insights into SLA.

 questions about the validity of introspective insights:

 SLA researchers challenge the validity because they question whether learner’s reports truly
represent what is transpiring within the learner. (Seliger, 1983)

 Researchers question:

 One view: introspection should be limited to studys of affective factors; attitudes and
motivation. (Seliger,1983)

 Others argue: observation provided by the researcher cannot gain access to the learner’s
conscious thought (Gaies, 1983)

 O’Malley,1985- study of learning strategies:

 Success in identifying learning strategies by interviewing learners themselves.

 Less success in identifying strategies based on the researcher’s own observations.

Quasi experiment- closer to the actual experiment

• one of two criteria of experimental design is met

• it includes one or more control groups

• there are multiple observations of a group before and after the treatment

• subjects are both control group (before the treatment) and experimental group (after the
treatment)

• if the treatment had a positive effect on the subjects , the curve describing the results should
show an upswing

 Experiment- the key feature is that all factors except one are to be held constant

 single factor is varied so that it is possible effects can be tested

  there are two criteria for experiment: two groups and subjects are randomly assigned

 properly controlled experiments allow researchers to generalize findings

 …. But- simplification

 Manipulation of variables

- There is no clear- cut separation between one methodology and the other, features of one may be
borrowed by another

- Qualitative and quantitative paradigms should be seen as complementary

 Setting- Selinker (1972), Kasper (1982), Felix (1981a)- errors as a consequence of learners
producing structures for which they were not ready developmentally

 difference between instructed and naturalistic setting- type of the input

 there are features of SLA process common to both

 differences in the behavior caused by the environment different from differences in behavior
due to learner characteristics (Johnston 1985)

 Instrumentation: production data elicitation

 - The issue of naturalness arises with the type of data the researcher collects

 - One of the features which varies along qualitative/quantitative continuum is whether or not
any instrumentation is used

 - Qualitative – reject the use of instruments to elicit data, favour spontaneous or ‘natural’
data

 - Quantitative – use instruments in studies

 Spontanious production desirable, presence of an observer - unspontanious

 - If completely spontanious production data were available, there are certain drawbacks such
as:

 1. Certain language features could not be studied because they do not occur frequently in
normal conversation (gerund, future perfect tense)

 2. Learners will not reveal their entire linguistic repertoire, rather, they will use only those
aspects in which they have the most confidence and avoid the troublesome ones

 3. It requires a lot of time and a lot of learners who will spontaneously start talking about the
actual subject that the observer needs

 - One of the primary functions of instruments designed to elicit production data – to oblige
learners to produce the item the investigator is interested in studying
 - At the same time, if possible, subjects should remain unaware of the item under
investigation, for researchers to obtain as much natural performance as possible

 Instruments that shall be described furthermore describe a number of the elicitation

procedures employed in SLA research today

 1. Reading aloud – used in studies researching pronunciation, recorded for later analysis

 2. Structured exercises – subjects asked to preform some grammatical manipulation

(exercises: transformation, fill-in-the-blanks, sentence-rewrite)

 3. Completion task – subjects listen to/read the beginning of a sentence and complete it with
their own words (fill in verbs, complete the dialogue)

 4. Elicited imitation – researcher reads sentences with the examples of the structure under
study to subjects, they have to repeat it after him; long sentences paraphrased

 5. Elicited translation – translating sentences from native language into the second language
and vice versa;

 6. Guided composition – subjects produce oral or written composition in respone to some set
of organized stimuli

 7. Question and answer (with stimulus) – subjects look at a picture or a series of pictures and
answer questions designed to elicit particular structures under study

 8. Reconstruction – “story retelling”, “paraphrase recall”; subjects read/listen to a story or

watch a movie and retell it or reconstruct it orally or in writing

 9. Communication games – Native English Speakers paired with both – child and adolescent
ESL learners, conversations taped and transcribed, analyzed the input received by the ESL of
different ages from the native-speaker

 10. Role play – contextual features are important in determining how a speaker will behave
(status of a speaker and a listener, urgency of the message, relationship between S and L,
sexes, ages, etc.); the speech act can be kept constant while the contextual features are
varied; this way many dimensions of a learner’s pragmatic competence may be explored

 11. Oral interview – varies, depending on the researchers; some of them control the topic
and hope that they can make the conversation in a way that subjects will produce the
structure being studied; others allow subjects freedom in choosing what topics should be
discussed and hope they will consequently produce more spontaneous speech

 12. Free composition – the least controlled of all elicitation procedures; aside from
establishing a topic, there is no intervention by the researcher

 - topic itself can encourage the production of certain structures being studied (morphology,
past tense)

 2.5 Variability problem

 Major problem that occurs with the use of elicitation procedures is the variability of
performance- subject’s performance will vary from task to task.

 Larsen-Freeman (1975) - a study of morpheme acquisition by ESL learners.

 When she compared the results of the tasks, a great deal of variation was detected.

 Some of the reasons for variations:

 1. the amount and quality of the context (varies from task to task)

 2.Conditions under which the task was performed

 3. the use of “careful styles”

 4. the amount of planning time subjects have

 5. types of errors subjects make

 6. difference between the type of data gathered in a linguistic interview and in natural,
spontaneous speech.

 2.6 Instrumentation: intuitional data elicitation

 - ‘learner’s competence data’ (the speaker/hearer’s knowledge of their language)

 - ‘metalinguistic judgement data’ or

 - ‘intuitional data’

 If learner produces a correct form, how do we know why they succeeded in doing so?

 - by learning the rules?

 - by memorising the phrase?

 - by chance?

 SLA researchers must be able to account for learner’s second language competence, not only
their performance

 Four elicitation procedures have been done in order to understand learner’s intuition:

 1. error recognition and correction- (Cohen and Robbins, 1976)

 2. grammaticality judgements (Schachter, Tyson and Diffley, 1976)

 3. other judgement tasks

 - social acceptability (Tucker and Sarofim, 1979)

 - politeness (Walters, 1979)

 - acceptability (Carroll and Singh, 1982)

 - the ease of understanding (Eisenstein and Berkowitz, 1981)

 4. Card sorting (Guiroa et al. 1982)

 2.7 Instrumentation: the use of miniature languages

 Miniature language- artificial language created by the researcher.

 - 1st language acquisition research, determining various principles of human language

processing (Smith and Braine, 1972)

 - 2nd language learning- experiment on the effect of instruction (Dunkel, 1948)

 Instrumentation: use of miniature languages

 Artificial language

 recalling and recognizing sentences / subjects are presented with more sentences than they
can have learned by rote, when they are asked to recall, they are actually being to produce
sentences and when they are asked to recognize sentences they are being asked to make a
grammaticality judgement.

 human language processing

 Real language

 comparing and evaluating visual and auditory presentation

 Instrumentation: affective variables

 Researching affective variables:

 Questionnaries- Important for evaluating motivation

 Sociometry- Important for studying attitudes towards minority group members within a
group

 Matched guise technique- A technique for revealing the attitudes of the subjects towards the
languages they hear

 The following two procedures have been used to study affective factors; however, they have
also been used to study language learning strategies and communicative strategies.
 Diary study -Takes into account personal variables that either promote or inhibit second
language learning

 Focused introspection – different introspection techniques / the feelings of the subjects

 Instrumentation from other disciplines

 Borrowing from other disciplines with the aim of analyzing learner characteristics

 Measuring learner performance

 Defining what language proficiency is and when it is acquired

 Prevailing view: language proficiency could be divided into unrelated skills and knowledge of
language components

 Oller and Cummins

 Oller: language proficiency is indivisible trait, global proficiency factor related to IQ

 Cummins: cognitive/academic proficiency and basic interpersonal skills (BICS)

 Sociolinguistic competence: students are developing communicative competence rather than

mere linguistic proficiency

 Definitive analysis of communicative competence is elusive

 Defining an acquisition point

 To be able to locate when a particular structure is acquired

 Typical acquisition pattern: at first, the learner uses the structure perfectly but the next time
regression (backsliding) appears-the learner rarely uses the form correctly

 Hakuta: the point of acquisition is the ‘the first of three consecutive 2-week samples in
which the morpheme is supplied in over 90% of obligatory contexts’

 2 limitations to the definition

 Obligatory context, challenging when it comes to sociolinguistically conditioned use of

certain forms

 Attained native like-control, learners’ speech is being compared with what native speakers
would do

 Solution: focus on the emergence of structures rather than on their mastery

 Task vs test

 To assess the learners’ mastery of particular structures

 Test-measures what the learner knows and doesn’t know of the target language, normative

 Task-reveals what a learner knows (the rules, systems, categories)

 Difference: purpose

 An index of development

 Researchers wish to measure learner’s progress in their L2 development

 Different proficiency measures have been used in SLA studies, e.g. scores on standard
examinations( e.g. Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency) or proficiency scales( e.g.
FSI- Foreign Service Institute)

 Learners proficiency is determined by the teacher’s evaluation or by the level of the course
to which the student is assigned based on his or her performance on an institutional
placement test

 Examination of ESL students’ compositions made by Larsen-Freeman and Strom

 Results were disappointing-they all worked to a certain extent to discriminate proficiency

differences among groups of learners, but none appeared to work for all individual subjects

 Other desirable characteristics of an SLA index of development made by Larsen-Freemen:

that it be readily available, that it work well for speakers of different native language
backgrounds, as well as learners of different ages, educational background, etc., and that it
could be applied later on data already collected

 Other researchers recognized the need for establishing an index of development

 Schumann

 Pienemann

 CONCLUSION

 Both qualitative and quantitative research have a role to play in enhancing our
understanding of SLA

 There should not be a case of choosing between the qualitative and quantitative paradigms
nor among extant methodologies

 Numerous differences between tutored and untutored environments for SLA

 well-designed instruments could make production, intuitional and affective data collection
more efficient

 The value in having the means to study as they are developing