Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Theories
- Part II Methods
- 5 Qualitative Classroom Methods
- 6 Experimental Studies in L2 Classrooms
- 7 Action Research: Developments, Characteristics, and Future Directions
- 8 Classroom Observation Research
- 9 Psycholinguistic and Neurolinguistic Methods
- Part III Skill Development
- Part IV Individual Differences
- Part V Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches
- Part VI Context and Environment
- Part VII Moving Forward
- Index
- References
6 - Experimental Studies in L2 Classrooms
from Part II - Methods
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 June 2019
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Theories
- Part II Methods
- 5 Qualitative Classroom Methods
- 6 Experimental Studies in L2 Classrooms
- 7 Action Research: Developments, Characteristics, and Future Directions
- 8 Classroom Observation Research
- 9 Psycholinguistic and Neurolinguistic Methods
- Part III Skill Development
- Part IV Individual Differences
- Part V Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches
- Part VI Context and Environment
- Part VII Moving Forward
- Index
- References
Summary
In the past, experimental research was somewhat at odds with qualitative research, both in terms of ontology (one’s view of reality) and epistemology (what knowledge is). Experimental research falls within a postpositivist paradigm, which suggests that an objective and discoverable truth exists (its ontology) and that we can find out that truth by generating and testing hypotheses (its epistemology). Using the example of authentic listening materials, this means that under ideal circumstances, researchers should be able to determine the effect of authentic listening materials on listening comprehension. Qualitative research, on the other hand, falls within a postmodernist paradigm that rests on the ideas that there are multiple truths (its ontology) and that research should try to uncover the diversity of experiences and perspectives on a topic of inquiry (its epistemology).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning , pp. 137 - 165Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Asher, J. J. (1972). Children’s first language as a model for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 56, 133–139.Google Scholar
Aubrey, S. (2017a). Measuring flow in the EFL classroom: Learners’ perceptions of inter- and intra-cultural task-based interactions. TESOL Quarterly, 51(3), 661–692.Google Scholar
Aubrey, S. (2017b). Inter-cultural contact and flow in a task-based Japanese EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 717–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H. E. (2015). The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language Teaching Research, 19(3), 324–350.Google Scholar
Barkaoui, K. (2010). Explaining ESL essay holistic scores: A multilevel modeling approach. Language Testing, 27, 515–535.Google Scholar
Barkaoui, K. (2014). Quantitative approaches for analyzing longitudinal data in second language research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 65–101.Google Scholar
Beretta, A. (1986). Program-fair language teaching evaluation. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 431–444.Google Scholar
Boers, F., Dang, T. C. T., & Strong, B. (2017). Comparing the effectiveness of phrase-focused exercises: A partial replication of Boers, Demecheleer, Coxhead, and Webb (2014). Language Teaching Research, 21(3), 362–380.Google Scholar
Brown, J. (2014). Mixed methods research for TESOL. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8–22.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, L., & Muñoz, C. (2016). The foreign language classroom: Current perspectives and future considerations. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 133–147.Google Scholar
De Costa, P., Valmori, L., & Choi, I. (2017). Qualitative research methods. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 541–561). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
De Silva, R. (2015). Writing strategy instruction: Its impact on writing in a second language for academic purposes. Language Teaching Research, 19(3), 301–323.Google Scholar
Dolean, D. D. (2016). The effects of teaching songs during foreign language classes on students’ foreign language anxiety. Language Teaching Research, 20(5), 638–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Douglas Fir Group (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 19–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farley, A. P., Ramonda, K., & Liu, X. (2012). The concreteness effect and the bilingual lexicon: The impact of visual stimuli attachment on meaning recall of abstract L2 words. Language Teaching Research, 16(4), 449–466.Google Scholar
Galante, A., & Thomson, R. I. (2017). The effectiveness of drama as an instructional approach for the development of second language oral fluency, comprehensibility, and accentedness. TESOL Quarterly, 51(1), 115–142.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (2015). Experimental research. In Paltridge, B. & Phakiti, A. (eds.), Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical resource (pp. 101–118). New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55, 575–611.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Sterling, S. (2017). Ethics in ISLA. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 577–595). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gilmore, A. (2008). Getting real in the language classroom: Developing Japanese students’ communicative competence with authentic materials. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Nottingham University.Google Scholar
Gilmore, A. (2011). “I prefer not text”: Developing Japanese learners’ communicative competence with authentic materials. Language Learning, 61(3), 786–819.Google Scholar
Hamada, Y. (2016). Shadowing: Who benefits and how? Uncovering a booming EFL teaching technique for listening comprehension. Language Teaching Research, 20(1), 35–52.Google Scholar
Hashemi, M. R. (2012). Reflections on mixing methods in applied linguistics research. Applied Linguistics, 33, 206–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hashemi, M. R., & Babaii, E. (2013). Mixed methods research: Toward new research designs in applied linguistics. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 828–852.Google Scholar
Heras, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2015). The impact of CLIL on affective factors and vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 19(1), 70–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hung, H. T. (2017). Design-based research: Redesign of an English language course using a flipped classroom approach. TESOL Quarterly, 51(1), 180–192.Google Scholar
Jang, E. E., Wagner, M., & Park, G. (2014). Mixed methods research in language testing and assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 123–153.Google Scholar
Karimi, M. N. (2015). EFL learners’ multiple documents literacy: Effects of a strategy-directed intervention program. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 40–56.Google Scholar
Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A. (2014a). Learners’ beliefs as mediators of what is noticed and learned in the language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 86–109.Google Scholar
Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A. (2014b). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 428–452.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2013). Effects of pretask modeling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 8–35.Google Scholar
Kim, Y., & Taguchi, N. (2015). Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom contexts: The role of task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 99(4), 656–677.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Research methodology on language development from a complex systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 200–213.Google Scholar
Laufer, B., & Rozovski-Roitblat, B. (2015). Retention of new words: Quantity of encounters, quality of task, and degree of knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 19(6), 687–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Q. (2012). Effects of instruction on adolescent beginners’ acquisition of request modification. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 30–55.Google Scholar
Lin, M. H. (2016). Effects of corpus-aided language learning in the EFL grammar classroom: A case study of students’ learning attitudes and teachers’ perceptions in Taiwan. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 871–893.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1980). Inside the “black box”: Methodological issues in classroom research on language learning. Language Learning, 30(1), 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2017). Classroom-based research. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 541–561). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mahboob, A., Paltridge, B., Phakiti, A., Wagner, E., Starfield, S., Burns, A., …, De Costa, P. I. (2016). TESOL Quarterly research guidelines. TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 42–65.Google Scholar
Moranski, K., & Kim, F. (2016). “Flipping” lessons in a multi-section Spanish course: Implications for assigning explicit grammar instruction outside of the classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 830–852.Google Scholar
Nguyen, L. T. C., & Gu, Y. (2013). Strategy-based instruction: A learner-focused approach to developing learner autonomy. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 9–30.Google Scholar
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary development. In Coady, J. & Huckin, T. (eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 174–200). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Polio, C., & Friedman, D. A. (2017). Understanding, evaluating, and conducting second language writing research. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Porte, G. (2012). Replication research in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rahimi, M. (2013). Is training student reviewers worth its while? A study of how training influences the quality of students’ feedback and writing. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 67–89.Google Scholar
Rassaei, E. (2015). Recasts, field dependence/independence cognitive style, and L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 19(4), 499–518.Google Scholar
Riazi, A. M., & Candlin, C. N. (2014). Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning: Opportunities, issues and challenges. Language Teaching, 47, 135–173.Google Scholar
Saito, Y., & Saito, K. (2017). Differential effects of instruction on the development of second language comprehensibility, word stress, rhythm, and intonation: The case of inexperienced Japanese EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 21(5), 589–608.Google Scholar
Sato, E., Chen, J. C. C., & Jourdain, S. (2017). Integrating digital technology in an intensive, fully online college course for Japanese beginning learners: A standards-based, performance-driven approach. The Modern Language Journal, 101(4), 756–775.Google Scholar
Scherer, G. A. C., & Wertheimer, M. (1964). A psycholinguistic experiment in foreign language teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Serrano, R., Stengers, H., & Housen, A. (2015). Acquisition of formulaic sequences in intensive and regular EFL programmes. Language Teaching Research, 19(1), 89–106.Google Scholar
Short, D. J., Fidelman, C. G., & Louguit, M. (2012). Developing academic language in English language learners through sheltered instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 334–361.Google Scholar
Sonbul, S., & Schmitt, N. (2013). Explicit and implicit lexical knowledge: Acquisition of collocations under different input conditions. Language Learning, 63(1), 121–159.Google Scholar
Spada, N., Jessop, L., Tomita, Y., Suzuki, W., & Valeo, A. (2014). Isolated and integrated form-focused instruction: Effects on different types of L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 453–473.Google Scholar
Spinner, P., Gass, S. M., & Behney, J. (2013). Ecological validity in eye-tracking: An empirical study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(2), 389–415.Google Scholar
Sun, C. H. (2017). The value of picture-book reading-based collaborative output activities for vocabulary retention. Language Teaching Research, 21(1), 96–117.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P., Campbell, C., & McCormack, J. (2016). Development of speech fluency over a short period of time: Effects of pedagogic intervention. TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 447–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tian, L., & Macaro, E. (2012). Comparing the effect of teacher codeswitching with English-only explanations on the vocabulary acquisition of Chinese university students: A lexical focus-on-form study. Language Teaching Research, 16(3), 367–391.Google Scholar
Tomita, Y., & Spada, N. (2013). Form-focused instruction and learner investment in L2 communication. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 591–610.Google Scholar
Wegener, D., & Blankenship, K. (2007). Ecological validity. In Baumeister, R. F. & Vohs, K. D. (eds.), Encyclopedia of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 275–276). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Xu, Y., Chang, L. Y., & Perfetti, C. A. (2014). The effect of radical-based grouping in character learning in Chinese as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal, 98(3), 773–793.Google Scholar
Yasuda, S. (2011). Genre-based tasks in foreign language writing: Developing writers’ genre awareness, linguistic knowledge, and writing competence. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 111–133.Google Scholar
Yeldham, M. (2016). Second language listening instruction: Comparing a strategies-based approach with an interactive, strategies/bottom-up skills approach. TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 394–420.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by