Part A. Conduct an online/library journal search and list 2 different journal articles (empirical research; 1 quantitative & 1 qualitative) that are concerned with some aspect of second language research. List the full title, the publisher and summarize some ideas of the scope of articles in each journal regards to (1) the types of research, types of reasoning made (inductive/deductive), types of instruments, types of data analyses, evidence of validity or trustworthiness of the study (DO NOT copy the abstracts; write the scopes on your own based on your reading). (200 words)

Part B. Select one empirical research report (not a review article). Provide full publication data for the article. Your main task is to review the structures and designs of the study. The review should INCLUDE (1) a summary of the theoretical and methodological background associated with the study and (2) the major results and significant conclusions derived from the study. You should DISCUSS (1) the kind of the research, (2) designs of the research, (3) measures used, (4) data collection procedures, (5) data analysis, and (6) inferences or conclusions made based on the data obtained from the study. Attempt to identify the issues of reliability and validity of the study. You should try to be critical to the study, not to overly criticize it. You should include YOUR OWN REFLECTION on what you have learnt from reviewing the article in regard to the nature of research methods. (1,000 words)

Part A:

This assignment is based on two different journal articles that are concerned with some aspect of second language research, one of which being “Relationships among Motivation Orientations, Metacognitive Awareness and Proficiency in L2 Listening” written by Larry Vandergrift from University of Ottawa and published by Oxford University Press in 2005; the other being “Evaluating the Relative Effectiveness of Structured-input and Output-based Instruction in Foreign Language Learning” written by Rosemary Erlam from University of Auckland and published by Cambridge University Press in 2003.

The former article, that is, “Relationships among Motivation Orientations, Metacognitive Awareness and Proficiency in L2 Listening”, is an empirical research based on the analyses to the results of two questionnaires, namely, a motivation questionnaire and a metacognitive awareness questionnaire, completed by 57 adolescent learners of French. The questionnaires designed by the author are rather authentic and comprehensive; they not only approve but also deny the hypotheses of the author. Inductively, the study provides some empirical support for the research.

The latter one, “Evaluating the Relative Effectiveness of Structured-input and Output-based Instruction in Foreign Language Learning”, is an empirical research based on the review of the former studies which compared the effectiveness of structured-input with output-based instruction. With such theoretical basis, the author is able to pursue his research by presenting results from a study which compares the relative effects of structured-input and output-based instruction on students’ ability to comprehend and produce direct object pronouns in second language French. And a valuable result is obtained from such a research, that is, greater gains are available for the output-based instruction group.

Part B:

In this part, the author would make a specific study on an article, namely, “Negotiation for Meaning and Peer Assistance in Second Language Classrooms” written by Pauline Foster and Amy Snyder Ohta and published by Oxford University Press in 2005, would be made.

I. A General Review of the article:

First of all, the theoretical and methodological background associated with the study is as follows. Based on the views of Long and Pica, that is, “according to Long (1985, 1996) comprehensible input gained through interactional adjustments such as negotiating meaning and modifying output is central to second language acquisition, and much research has been undertaken to discover which classroom activities give learners the greatest benefit from this type of interaction (Pica 1994)”, this paper investigates the value of language classroom negotiation of meaning from both cognitive and sociocultural perspectives. On the one hand, the cognitive approaches regard second language acquisition as essentially the mental process of acquiring systems of knowledge which make up the target language. On the other hand, the sociocultural approaches regard language development as essentially a social process.

Moreover, as far as the major results and significant conclusions derived from the study are concerned, the authors make the following four main points from the study:

Firstly, as Schegloff figures out, “careful qualitative analysis is necessary prior to quantitative analysis of discourse data” (Schegloff, 1993). What’s more, Gass and Mackey point out that “stimulated recall would provide an avenue for exploring what a speaker understood, did not understand, or may have intended by a particular utterance” (Gass and Mackey, 2000).

Secondly, “learners can take plenty of opportunities to modify their output and focus on form without the requirement to exchange information exactly or negotiate for meaning” (P₂₄, L_11~13).

Thirdly, “it is possible that a learner in a successful interaction is able and willing to focus on form without having first to be shunted into a communication problem” (P₂₄, L_18~20).

Lastly, the authors do not claim that NfM (Negotiation for Meaning) is unimportant. “Interactional processes including negotiation for meaning and various kinds of peer assistance and repair are among the many ways learners gain access to the language being learned” (P₂₄, L_29~32).

II. Further analyses to the article:

1.       The kind of the research:

This is an empirical research which involves both quantitative and qualitative analyses on the basis of authentic experiment as well as the relevant theories.

2.       Designs of the research:

The article is made up of the following 8 parts:

At the very beginning, a general introduction is made for the two approaches which are mostly used to SLA (Second Language Acquisition), namely, sociocultural and cognitive approaches.

Part two discusses the role of the NfM (Negotiation for Meaning) in SLA (Second Language Acquisition), which makes a theoretical basis for further research.

Part three clearly lays out 4 problems with problem solving through NfM (Negotiation for Meaning), which is a practical preparation for further research.

Part four is the real starting point of the research, listing two main purposes of this paper.

The following three parts all devote to the two purposes mentioned above. First of all, identifying the NfM in research data; and then making clear the relevant definitions of the research, namely, definitions of the three C’s (Comprehension checks, Confirmation checks and Clarification requests). In this part, the authors choose to consider learner discourse from a sociocultural perspective and specifically illustrate the details of the present research; lastly, they analyze the results of the research from both the quantitative and qualitative perspectives.

At the end of the article, the authors make a full conclusion, listing four main points of their own.

3. Measures used:

The research is carried out by following two approaches, one is cognitive approach, and the other is sociocultural approach. There are two research questions posed to two separate groups, each of which is composed of 20 participants.

4. Data collection procedures:

For both data sets audio-recordings are made during normal class times and under normal class conditions, that is simultaneously and in the same room. The first five minutes of each recording are transcribed and coded. Possible confirmation checks, clarification requests, and comprehension checks are initially identified based on turn shape, with coding refined during an examination of the function of the utterances as illuminated by the context (the preceding and following turns), and by the interlocutor’s response. Only utterances which the context and/or interlocutor response indicate a problem with comprehension are marked as negotiation moves. Utterances which have the surface shape of negotiation moves but which have other functions are coded as a different category.

5. Data analysis:

The authors analyze the data from two perspectives:

(1) Quantitative analyses: The research question is how often learners initiated negotiation for meaning during the task which requires them to exchange information, and how much modified output they produce as a consequence. To calculate the frequency of negotiation moves, the number of AS-units produced by each participant is counted.

(2) Qualitative analyses: On the basis of the definitions and examples related to interactional processes, the qualitative analysis of the data is made, which find ample evidence of the learners from both data sets giving and receiving assistance in a variety of ways, using co-constructions, self-corrections, other-corrections and continuers to build their discourse.

6. Inferences or conclusions made based on the data obtained from the study:

From the data obtained from the study, the authors make clear some points. They find that “overtly signaled communication breakdowns, as typified by the classic ‘three Cs’, are not the norm in our data, but are a subset of a larger variety of conversational moves learners make in the process of talking with one another and assisting one another with the interactive task at hand” (P₂₂, L_33~37). What’s more, four main points are laid out by them, which have been illustrated in the former part of this paper.

In my opinion, the reliability and validity of the study attributes to three factors: the sufficient theoretical basis, the scientific research measures and the comprehensive analyses and coding of the results. This is a research perfectly putting theory into practice, and provides valuable empirical support for the latter study in the field of SLA.

References

[1] Larry Vandergrift, Relationships among Motivation Orientations, Metacognitive Awareness and Proficiency in L2 Listening, Oxford University Press 2005.

[2] Rosemary Erlam，Evaluating the Relative Effectiveness of Structured-input and Output-based Instruction in Foreign Language Learning，Cambridge University Press 2003.

[3] Pauline Foster and Amy Snyder Ohta, Negotiation for Meaning and Peer Assistance in Second Language Classrooms, Oxford University Press 2005.

[4] Long, M. H. 1985. Input and second language acquisition theory in S. Gass, and C. Madden (Eds): Input and Second Language Acquisition Rowley. MA: Newbury House, pp. 268–86.

[5] Long, M. H. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition in W. C. Ritchie, and T. K. Bhatia (Eds): Handbook of research on Language Acquisition: Second language acquisition. Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, pp. 413–68.

[6] Pica, T. 1994. Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, outcomes? Language Learning 44/3: 493–527.

[7] Schegloff, E. 1993. Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on language and social interaction, 26: 99–128.

[8] Gass, S. and A. Mackey. 2000. Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.