UNIVERSITY OF EXETER

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND LIFELONG LEARNING

570036539

The Nature of Educational Enquiry

Summative Assignment Module EED D031

Part 1– A novice researcher discovery of the nature of methodological

approaches in educational research.

Part 2 – critical response to two research articles.

Dr. Salah Troudi

Submitted in April 2009, as part of the requirements for the Ed. D in TESOL

2008-9

1

PART A THE NATURE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

PREAMBLE

In the first part of this assignment, I will explore the nature of three methodologies

used in educational research: the positivistic, the interpretive and the critical

positions. This section will begin with a discussion of the educational scholar’s

toolkit, including the distinction between methods, theories and approaches, the

pros and cons of quantitative and qualitative approaches, the levels of analysis

issue. This will be followed by a discussion of ontology because it is chronologically

and conceptually prior to the next step, epistemology.

In the second part of the assignment, I will critically assess two papers, reflecting

different paradigms and different ways of conducting educational research.

 

Considerations before starting:

 

As a novice researcher, I am interested in language identity issues. I wrote an

assignment about the hegemonic nature of Huntington’s discourse. I wrote a

second assignment on ethnic minority students in secondary school in England.

While writing my third assignment, I have come to realize that while researchers

2

may choose to study such topics with good intentions and may even hope to

instigate positive change in the lives of participants, the research may instead lead

to further marginalization and oppression of the researched. I was unaware of the

paradigm that guided my research and unaware of being “privileged’. This is

constitutes one of the main conundrums in educational research:

critical researchers criticize researchers who adopt a positivist perspective,

claiming that their supposed objectivity results in the oppression of research

participants (Habermas, 1989).  In line with this argument, Jandt and Tanno state

that "privileged persons (researchers) who speak for the multicultural other can

potentially increase or reinforce oppression" (Jandt and Tanno, 2001: 128).

The other main conundrum in social/educational research is the wide range of

terminologies that is used to define approaches, traditions, positions and

paradigms. Before going any further, some terms need to be defined and concepts

clarified. Though credited with popularizing the term paradigm, Thomas

Kuhn added another term to the list of sociological concepts that are continually

and constantly challenged concept in the field of social science. Crotty defines

paradigm as “a set of beliefs…an overarching conceptual construct, a particular

way in which scientists make sense of the world “(Crotty, 2003: 35). Paradigm is

also described as “a basic set of beliefs that guides action” (Guba, 1990: 17).

Methods are the various means by which researchers research, analyze and

ultimately answer research questions (Wellington, and Batchmaker; 2005).; they

represent techniques or procedures used to gather data related to research

questions or hypothesis (Crotty, 2003: 2).However, different methods can be used

with different approaches and theories but some methods can be feasible or totally

incongruent with some approaches or theories for ontological and/or

epistemological reasons. The term methodology refers to the strategy, the plan of

action lying behind the choice and use of particular method and linking the choice

and use of methods to the desired outcome (Crotty, 2003: 2). Theories generally

describe phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Theories are fundamentally

3

products of human endeavour; therefore their construction is not a dispassionate

and objective process but an involved and subjective undertaking. As theorist

Pierre Bourdieu (1991) states: “Every theory, as the word itself suggests, is a

program of perception, but that is all the more true of theories about the social

world” (Bourdieu, 1991:128). Theories stem from theoretical assumptions about the

existence of the world and are predictive and/or explanatory: in educational

research theory aims to help researchers» understand events and see them in a

new way”   (Wellington, 2000: 27).   Approaches are less-specified orientations or

ways in which to tackle a research question or problem. They are generally not as

specified as theories but are best conceived of as an orientation which draws on

personal beliefs, expectations and sometimes worldviews which shape the

researcher’s choice of research questions.

 

 What is research?

In answer to the question ‘what is research?’ various definitions may be given with

reasonable confidence, ranging from common assumptions to elaborate definitions

in the realms of academia. Etymologically the term research comes from the

French “recherche”, which means to survey or to travel through. Ernest defines

research as a ‘systematic enquiry with the aim of producing knowledge’ (Ernest,

1994: 8). The terms investigation, systematic, data analysis, understanding and

solution give perspective to a rather minimalist definition of research that views it

as an investigation into a problem or a mere means to solve problems. The first

task for the researcher is to formulate a clear and valid research question that is

also relevant and ethical (Wellington, 2000). The target group must be chosen

4

carefully and the research should be controlled and systematic. One of the first

ethical issues a researcher must address is the recruitment of research participants

and consent is the cornerstone of ethical research. Diener and Crandall believe

this consent comes in various named stages. These are competence, voluntarism,

full informative and comprehension (Diener and Crandall, 1978). In the case of

research in early years practice and education, researchers must obtain informed

consent from responsible adults, or if necessary, the permission of the children

themselves may be sought in order to obtain valid results. (Cohen: 2003). 

Selecting the correct paradigm, the adequate methodology and methods which will

allow investigation and the validity of results is equally as important. Since

theoretical questions in education surface from different conceptions and

interpretations of social reality, different paradigms are used to determine the

criteria according to which one would select and define problems in the area of

ones expertises. Crotty posits that researchers also need to answer two central

questions that their researches seek to answer: what methodologies and methods

will be employed and how to justify their choice? (Crotty, 2003:2).

 

 

Ontology

 

Schools and classrooms are intrinsically social entities and as such reveal aspect

of social realities that researchers may interpret differently. The practice of

ontology sets out to describe the basic categories of being, types of entities, their

essential structures, the relationships between entities…. Researchers in the social

sciences cannot avoid making assumptions and that these assumptions shape

every aspect of their work (Cohen and Manion, 1994). Ontological assumptions

about social reality focus on whether human beings see social reality as being “

external, independent, given or objectively real or instead as, socially constructed

5

subjectively and the result of human thought as expressed through language

“(Wellington, 2005 : 100).

The ontological assumptions constitute the first set of assumptions and concern

the essence of the phenomena being investigated (Cohen, Manion and Morrison:

2000). The ontologist describes entities as falling into two primary categories:

concrete and abstract .Physical entities relating to education include books,

exercise books, written curriculum... Abstract entities include elements such as

education or teaching. Researchers in the tradition of the scientific paradigm claim

that there is a social reality which exists independently of the observer (Pring,

2000), and that this reality can be studied, disseminated and understood. In

addressing the ontological question about reality in social science, positivists

contend that there is an objective reality independent from those who observe it.

Hence the idea that human behaviour can be measured and predicted. In other

words researchers in the tradition of the scientific paradigm claim that there is a

social reality which exists independently of the observer (Pring, 2000). The

ontological positions of the interpretivists are that there is no single reality but that

reality is socially constructed and evolve within its immediate environment.

Humans are engaged in the creation of their environment. Critical perspectives in

social research view society as a cultural practice that needs to be explored in

terms of interests, articulations of power and policy implications. Critical scholars

ask questions such as: Whose interests are served by organizational goals? What

role do they play in creating and maintaining structures of power domination?

Issues of prediction, measurement, domination and control are re-interpreted from

the margins from the viewpoints of those who are not in power.

 

6

Epistemology

With regard to the relation of ontology and epistemology, ontology can be

metaphorically seen as an intellectual house and epistemology as the household

furniture other elements required to live in a given intellectual space.  The

epistemological assumptions constitute the second set of assumptions and

concern “the very base of knowledge- its nature and forms, how it can be acquired

and how it can be communicated to human beings” (Cohen, Manion and

Morrisson; 2000: 6). Guba and Lincoln (1994) discuss the ontological,

epistemological and methodological foundations of different research paradigms.

Ontology reflects beliefs about the nature of reality (is reality an objective

phenomenon that holds truth or is reality virtually constructed through social,

political and gendered meanings?); epistemology refers to beliefs about the

preferred relationship between the researcher and the researched (Should the

researcher remain objective and removed from what he/she studies or should

he/she get immersed in it). Methodology refers to the techniques researchers use

for collecting information about the world (Should they manipulate and measure

variables in order to test hypotheses or should they search for meaning in words

and behaviours? (Guba and Lincoln, 1994).  Ontology, epistemology and

methodology are not independent from one another. They represent the most

significant differences between positivism and other ways of knowing. 

 

Defining epistemology is subject to the same problems as ontology. According to

Guba and Lincoln (1994: 108), the epistemological question is ‘what is the nature

of the relationship between the knower or would be knower and what can be

known?’ Therefore it is about the level of researcher objectivity and the relationship

between the researcher and the phenomenon being studied. The distance of the

researcher from the phenomenon being researched and his objectivity moves

along a continuum. At one end is the positivist paradigm, where researchers

7

believe they are totally objective and have no influence on the phenomenon they

are researching. At the other end of the continuum is the interpretive paradigm,

where individuals create their own meanings about the world that is it is socially

constructed. Finally at the extreme end of the continuum is the critical paradigm.

For critical researchers truth is not an objective description of an external reality. All

human perception is value-laden and based on prejudices. The aim of critical

research is to render those prejudices visible and to expose them for discursive

analysis. The notion of truth can be systematically challenged and contested by

critical researchers, which raises a central issue for critical epistemology. Indeed,

how can we know is what we know is true if all truth claims are always challenged?

This issue is somewhat reminiscent of Descartes’ existentialist quote “I am thinking

therefore I am”. If for Descartes consciousness provides a source of knowledge

that is superior to the empirical knowledge that is founded on the fallible and

misleading evidence of the senses, critical researchers emphasize reflexivity: the

dilemma of scepticism can only be overcome by remaining open to constant

questioning. At the beginning of my research journey, I have had to reflect upon

the various paradigms and methodological options available and settle on the

one(s) that best facilitate the research in which I am engaging. I define a paradigm

as a coherent belief structure or a lens through which I can view the world.

Critical paradigm provides this fusion with my personal context in that as an

Algerian Muslim, Trokyst and teacher of which is foundational to both my personal

faith, my political ideologies and professional practice, essentially serves as a

critique of the existing societies of our era.

Furthermore ontological assumptions give rise to epistemological assumptions and

these in turn give rise to methodological considerations which also in turn give rise

to issues of instrumentations and data collection. All these procedures have to be

seriously taken into consideration throughout the process of a research study.

Then the methodology is selected and finally the method itself. Each provides the

basis for the next. Finally, there is the actual method used, such as questionnaires,

8

interviews, or participant observation (Crotty, 2003). Using the scheme as a guide,

researchers can consciously and deliberately consider how the ideas underlying

their project merge together and ensure consistency between them. This will help

novice researchers conceptualize a research project with intellectual rigour. 

 

Methodology

 

In approaching educational research methodology, I consider various methods,

approaches and theories as tools in the researcher’s toolkit. The toolkit metaphor is

better appropriate than a recipe for several reasons. Research is a quest for

answers to research questions and as research is a construction process, some

tools are better for certain jobs than others. The terms quantitative and qualitative

methods that can be seen as tools for the researchers are sometimes used to refer

to positivism and other forms of research even though many methods (e.g. forms

of interviewing and observation) can be used by researchers from any paradigm

(Denzin & Lincoln, 1994).

Creswell (1998) defines qualitative research as an inquiry process of

understanding based on distinct methodological traditions of inquiry that explores a

social human problem. The researcher then builds a complex holistic picture,

analyzes words, reports detailed view of informants and conducts the study in a

natural setting (Creswell, 1998 :19). Qualitative research makes the assumption

that all knowledge is relative and that there is a subjective element to all research

and knowledge. By contrast quantitative research originates in the physical science

and involves the collection of data so that information can be quantified and

subjected to statistical treatment in order to support or refute “alternative

knowledge claims” (Creswell, 2003: 153).

9

The method, approach or theory that the researcher employs should be matched to

the research question being undertaken just as the tool is matched to the job. If for

example a researcher wants to explore the reasons of academic

underachievement among ethic minority students in the UK at the national level,

quantitative methods might prove quite useful. However if a researcher is

interested in answering the same research question and conducts his study in a

local school with a small number of students, using a qualitative approach could

then be more appropriate.

Beyond the toolkit metaphor, methodology is the philosophy underlying the

procedures and principles in a particular field of inquiry (Crotty: 2003).

Methodology refers to the overall strategy or plan of action for conducting research

(e.g. ethnography, survey research, phenomenological research…). Methodology

depends on ontological and epistemological assumptions about the nature of

reality and the best ways of gaining access to that reality. There are differences

between both approaches based on methodological characteristics, procedures

and techniques. Those differences have to do with the way each approach treats

data, the data collection procedures whether their approach is inductive or

deductive and the generalizability and the validity of the findings (Cohen, 2000).

Those differences appear abysmal to Gage (1989) who speaks of paradigm wars

in social research and denounces the dogmatic attitudes of researchers. On one

corner there are researchers who favour the tenets of positivist research and are

critical of research methods that lack the quantification of data, researcher

objectivity and structured data collection techniques and whose findings cannot be

systematically generalized. At the other corner are those who favour the tenets of

interpretive research who are critical of research methods that do not allow

reflexivity, observation, subjectivity and who employ deductive means by which to

test relationships among variables. Somewhere in the middle are those who

embrace the critical paradigm and intend to recast the existing social order and

cultural practice in favour of the silent voices. If traditional researchers see their

tasks as the description, the interpretation or the reproduction of a fragment of

reality, critical researchers acknowledge the role the researcher’s identity and

10

political standpoint. The ideological stance of critical researchers appear a-priori

morally and ethically grounded as their share concerns with minorities such as for

instance ethnic and cultural minorities or disabled people in terms of equal rights

and democratic social order (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1995 : 139).  Grix (2004)

contends that critical research can be seen as a combination of the scientific and

interpretive approaches.

Positivism

The positivist paradigm in social research is the dominant model in the field,

comprising theories that view “reality” as independent from the observer and

stemming from the Cartesian legacy that mind and matter are separate” (Rakow,

1989: 165) that mind is hierarchically superior to matter and can control it.

Positivism is a philosophic system that excludes metaphysical and other non-

empirical concerns. ((Wellington, 2000; Cohen, Manion and Keith, 2000). Theorist

researchers, bearing these theoretical assumptions, consider that the world is

stable and organized rationally and that they have the task of measuring data, of

processing information and of proposing the most suitable solution wherever they

identify a problem as there is only one universally acknowledged and accepted

best solution to any problem (Laudran, 1996). The confusion of positivism with

sciences is quite common. If science as a method is intrinsically positivist,

scientists are not necessarily positivist philosophically.  Indeed if positivism as a

method demands careful and rigorous evidence-based assertions, positivism as a

philosophy rejects any other method as valid. Literature review on positivism is

likely to focus quickly on the work of several French philosophers of the

Enlightenment (Comte, Condorcet and Saint Simon) .and the Vienna Circle of

philosophers. Positivism and sociology are both coined with August Comte.

Comte’s work on the history of sciences and his “law of three stages» proposed

that sciences go through three stages namely  the theological, the metaphysical

and the positive, which are in turn correlated respectively with three different forms

11

of social organization based on military, law, and industry (Tashakkori and Teddlie,

1995). Positivists posit that that the social world can be studied and explained in a

scientific manner, and that this is still possible even if ideational factors (meanings,

beliefs ideologies, culture, ideas…) play a central role in the social world. The

ideas of the early positivists were pared down and refined by the logical positivists

or the empiricist of the Vienna circle who argue that the world can only be

constructed from information accessed by the senses and that ultimately social

reality is simply that which we can observe. The logical positivists of the Vienna

Circle were scientism's supporters who formulated a “Verifiability Principle” that

was so exclusive that their own doctrine could not meet the requirements of

"legitimate" knowledge that they established as a rule. Positivists have been

routinely criticized for claiming the badge of exclusivity over objectivity since this

stance privileges the researchers’ knowledge claims while giving them a universal

acceptance of what constitutes the truth. Positivists believe that there is an

objective real world beyond the individual's body which can be known and

described. All conclusions about reality are based on empirical observations that

can be verified. According to Habermas, traditional science acts as a tool of

domination instead of a way to achieve enlightenment and freedom (Yoshitake,

2004). Specifically, traditional social science removes practical implications from

theory and replaces it with methodological restrictions. Consequently Habermas

argues that social and political theory must be critical. However the positivist

paradigm continues to dominate “leading theories and research to social

engineering that controls human beings” (Habermas cited in Yoshitake, 2004:

16). The positivist conception of science considers that the goal of science is to

explain and predict observable phenomena, in terms of universal, atemporal and

aspatial laws (Yoshitake, 2004).

Some scholars suggest that alternative paradigms such as interpretivist and/or

critical perspectives (Yoshitake, 2004) offer solutions to the positivist conundrum.

 

12

The interpretivist paradigm

 

The interpretive paradigm can be viewed as a possible alternative to the positivist

paradigm that constitutes the main trend.  Interpretative research is coined with the

terms such as naturalistic, constructivist as well as qualitative methodology (Grix,

2004; Crotty, 2003). According to the interpretative paradigm, meaning is a human

construction and as such the assumptions of the interpretive paradigm are radically

different from those of the positive paradigm (Grix, 2004; Richards, 2003). Indeed

unlike the scientific paradigm that is funded on the assumption that the world is

objective, the interpretative assumes a world created by subjective interpretations

(Pring, 2000).  The interpretists argue that the positivist approach take the meaning

out of the analysis. Unlike them interpretivists seek explanation within the realm of

individual consciousness. Hence the idea that the meaning that interpretivist

researchers attribute to things in the world around them is not only constructed but

contingent. The knowledge that is constructed depends heavily on contextual

features such as historical and geographical elements as well cultural elements

that researchers bring to their work.  Relevant and valid meanings can therefore

vary from person to person and over time and space.  

Interpretive theorists have made their subjectivist epistemological critique of

positivism’s objectivist epistemology a central component of their reaction against

the dominance of positivism in social science (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998). Critical

researchers and theorists would agree with this critic.  Interpretive scholars also

contend that because we cannot know the world outside of our knowledge of it,

researchers cannot argue that the world exits beyond their interpretation of it.

Therefore the objects of human knowledge are not independent of their

interpretations. Interpretive researchers strive to find research tools to make the

world in all its complexities visible (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998). On the other hand

interpretive researchers predominantly use qualitative methodology based on ‘the

socially constructed nature of reality’ (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998). This process-

13

based understanding is acquired by exploratory and ethnographic methods of data

collection involving fieldwork such as: interviews, diaries, case studies or focus

groups, which ‘interpret’ the data from a given situation or context from multiple

perspectives.

14

Critical paradigm

Unlike positivist perspectives which claim to be objective, critical researchers

acknowledge the role the researcher’s identity and political standpoint plays in

interpretation. Drawing on Denzin and Lincoln’s (2005) definition of paradigm (“a

basic set of belief that guides researchers”), objectivity is a human construction.

Positivist as well as interpretativist and critical researches are based on beliefs and

on human mental constructions that can not be rated in terms of absolute

truthfulness. Unlike positivist perspective which claims to be objective, critical

researchers acknowledge the role of the researcher’s identity and political

standpoint play in interpretation. According to Bernstein (1978), critical research

aims to improve the human condition by generating awareness and emancipating

the oppressed from their oppression. In line with this argument the topics critical

researchers’ research must stem from the needs of participants. The central

historical figure of this theory is Jurgen Habermas (who worked at the Frankfurt

School in Germany) who developed an approach of investigation and action in the

social sciences, which could describe the historical forces that restrict human

freedom and provide the ideological justification of those forces (Bernstein, 1978).

Habermas has developed what is arguably the most comprehensive account of

critical social theory. Habermas (1972) argues against scientism: "science’s belief

in itself: that is, the conviction that we can no longer understand science as one

form of possible knowledge, but rather must identify knowledge with science"

(Habermas, 1972: 4). Critical researchers frequently criticize those who adopt a

positivist perspective, pointing out that their supposed objectivity results in the

oppression of research participants (Habermas, 1989). Habermas also argues that

social and political theory must be critical (Habermas, 1989). The critical

researcher aims to uncover social realities and injustices to emancipate individuals

from disempowering practice through political intervention and change.

15

Although Grix (2004) contends that critical research can be seen as a combination

of the scientific and interpretive approaches, those who reject the positivist

paradigm often assume that their frequent choice of qualitative methods allows

them to escape many of the oppressive pitfalls of the positivist paradigm. However

any method that enables the researcher to be the possessor of the truth and

knowledge also condones the maintenance of the dominant social order. Indeed in

critical social science, the researcher uses his or her power to frame the research

problem, the questions and the methods and in making these choices, the

researcher also denies research participants’ power. The critical paradigm aims to

challenge the existing social order and cultural practice in favour of the

underprivileged. Activist research offers a more ethical framework from which to

approach cultural research with minority groups. Critical researchers often take an

activist stance and can be both confrontational and interventionists (Guba, 1990).

Critical scholars profess action as a goal of research (Habermas, 1989). Habermas

also criticizes scholars for failing to move from theorizing to action for the benefit of

everyday people (Bernstein, 1978). He argues: “When practical discourse is

eliminated or suppressed, the public realm loses – in the classical sense of politics

– its political function” (Bernstein, 1978:188). Littlejohn (2002) posits that critical

approaches aim to identity power interlay and imbalances between individuals

and attempt to address oppressive circumstances. He identifies three

characteristics that define critical social science. Firstly critical researchers believe

that researchers should understand the lived experiences of people in context.

Second, critical researchers focus on social conditions with the intent of uncovering

oppressive power arrangements. Third, “critical social science makes a conscious

effort to fuse theory and action” (Littlejohn, 2002: 207).

 

16

Research methods relating to the research paradigms

  

In the rich tradition of social research, what one considers “the research process”

can be conceptualized in many different ways. Regardless of where the researcher

begins, the research process involves ethical issues as well as philosophical

considerations before even starting the process. Moreover the nature of the

research should drive the methodology adopted. Crotty (1998) provides a

framework to justify theoretical perspective, select a paradigm and its subsequent

methodology. At its inception stage of the research process, the researcher should

himself ask the following questions:

1 What is the essence of the phenomena he /she wants to investigate?

2 Is the phenomenon objective or is it subjectively created?

3 How can the knowledge be disseminated? Can it be replicated?

4 How does the phenomenon relate to its environment?

Once the researcher starts the research process, the transition from questions to

methods, one would assume would be natural and logical. However do

researchers systematically consciously choose to collect their data in a manner

that best answers their questions? It should be noted that there is no one best

method in educational and social sciences but rather multiple methods all equally

capable of collecting data that would answer a particular research question or test

17

specific hypotheses. Researchers may feel pressured to choose a particular camp

as historically and still currently social research is divided into opposing

paradigmatic camps that place certain methodologies as distinct and opposite from

those used by researchers in the other camps (Tashakkori and Teddlie :2003). At

the centre of these differences are perceived contradictions of how each camp

views human behaviour and how they choose to conduct their research. Indeed the

terms quantitative and qualitative methods are still associated with definite

paradigms, even though many methods (e.g. interviewing, surveys and

observations) can be used by researchers from any paradigm (Denzin and Lincoln,

1994). Crotty (2003) prefers to use these terms to describe a range of research

tools or methods. Educational researchers could greatly benefit from adopting

Crotty’s flexible view on qualitative and quantitative approaches, on the role of

methods in the research process and in selecting the methodology or

methodologies that best fit their research purpose and also increase the value of

the research outcome.  The area of mixed method research is now being

considered as an alternative option in conducting research (Tashakkori and

Teddlie, 2003).

 

 

 PART 2 CRITIQUE OF RESEARCH ARTICLES

This section will compare and contrast the two articles below in relation to

qualitative and quantitative approaches to research focusing on the design and

methods used in each study including sampling, data collection and data analysis.

The first chosen article by Syed (2006) uses a qualitative method to look at the

motivational factors in connection with learning a second language. The second

18

article, written by Guilloteaux and Dörnyei (2006), uses a quantitative approach to

assess teachers’ motivational strategies and test their impact on the learning

behaviour of South Korean students. Those articles were selected because the

theme of motivation has been discussed in depth during my last seminar at Exeter

University and the literature relating to motivation is replete. Besides the issue of

motivation is embedded in my professional agenda as a teach languages to young

adult learners in a private college in London.

Study I: Research in the interpretive tradition

In Dörnyei and Schmidt (2001), pp. 127-147.

Notions of self in foreign language learning: a qualitative analysis.

Zafar Syed, Military Language Institute, Abu Dhabi, UAE. (cf. appendix 1).

  Relevance of the abstract

The abstract of a research study can be defined as a paragraph that summarizes

the whole study. It is usually a brief, concise, comprehensive summary that gives

readers an overview of essential elements of the study. It is also by essence a

teaser as readers will use it to decide whether or not to read the full report based

upon the abstract. A written abstract usually conveys the rationale and the

objective for writing an article: the fact that the author of the study neglects to write

an abstract is an omission of an important part of the study.

19

 

Introduction

In the introduction Syed briefly discusses learners’ motivation and reasons behind

learners’ attitudes to learning. She points out that while there have been

researches that have investigated students’ motivation to learn, few studies have

investigated this topic in depth. Those studies have conceptualized motivation as a

general construct. The author identifies two relevant variables (socio-cultural and

psychological) that help to investigate the topic of motivation in academic settings.

Syed frames her research question as follow: What are the motivational

characteristics to learn a heritage language? The present study draws on intrinsic

and extrinsic motivations of University students in state of Hawaii who are learning

Hindi as a second language.

The author establishes a correlation between learning a language (learning the

codes and contents) and the intrinsic and extinct expressions of self (ethnic,

cultural, linguistic).

I find the study very interesting and relevant to my own research agenda: the use

of languages to construct identity has been explored in education, specifically in

the United States but little researches have focussed on the possible linkage

between identity and second language acquisition.

 

 Literature review

20

The literature review contextualizes the study and assist in grounding the rationale

of the study. Indeed literature on the topic motivation is thoroughly explored and

the author documents the connections between motivation and two definite

constructs:

(1) Attitudes towards learning language and ethnic identity.

(2) Learning a language and individuals’ social and cultural identity.

Research aim and research paradigm

The researcher clearly states that the study utilizes qualitative methodology

suitable to the “holistic” and” emic” nature of her inquiry. She wants to data to be

collected from “the point of view of those involved» rather than” pre-conceived

domains”.

The research is then conducted using naturalistic inquiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1985)

from an ethnographic perspective as her intention is to create as vivid a

reconstruction as possible of students’ motivational behaviours. The study is

consistent with Hitchcock and Hughes’ (1989, as cited in Cohen, Manion and

Morrison, 2000) claim that ethnography involves the production of a list of features

common to a particular group and the description and analysis of patterns of social

interaction. Besides ethnography seems particularly suitable for identifying and

understanding social and cultural norms in classrooms

 

 

Methodology, methods and collection of data

21

 

Leedy and Ormrod (2001) describe the necessary steps in the ethnography

process: Firstly the researcher has to gain access to a site. Secondly the

researcher must establish relationship with the participants and build trust. Thirdly

the researcher must socialize with everyone involved in the research in order to

identify the key informants in the culture). Reflecting this to this study, data were

collected on site (University of Hawaii) mainly through observations. Each of the

twelve students selected for the study took part in a series of interviews during the

course of one semester. These interviews focused on students’ motivation to learn.

Teachers were also interviewed on a weekly basis during the course of the

semester and these interviews focused on teaching and learning Hindi. The

interviews were transcribed and coded for the categories of motivation and beliefs.

Other ethnographic aspects were incorporated into the major study: those

additional data sources included analysis of classroom materials, classroom

observation, questionnaires, informal gatherings with students and electronic

message communication.

 

Analysis, interpretation and reporting of the data

Syed analyzes the field data using selected principles from grounded theory.

Creswell defines grounded theory research as the “researcher attempts to derive a

general, abstract theory of a process, action, or interaction grounded in the views

of participants in a study” (Creswell, 2003:14). Grounded theory describes a

method of using empirical data without preconceived theories; grounded theory

research begins with data that develops into a theory. The term grounded also

provides the context of this method while the research requires that the theory

22

must emerge from the data collected in the field rather than taken from the

research literature (Leedy and Ormrod, 2001). Creswell (2003) adds that the data

can be obtained from several sources such as interviewing participants or

witnesses, reviewing historical videotapes or records and observations while on-

site.

In her study Syed uses a wide range of qualitative methods to collect her data

which includes: classroom observation and classroom materials analysis,

interviews with the students and the teacher. In addition she multiplies social

contacts with the informants. The triangulation of those methods and her

commitment to observe the informants for one semester make the study both

plausible and interesting. .

Analysis of the data begins with a data matrix in which each of the twelve students

was rated in terms of the characteristics of intrinsic motivation to learn Hindi. The

data suggested that there are different types of students: externally motivated

students (e.g. career opportunities) and internally motivated students. From the

data matrix concerning internally motivated students, a second matrix was derived

which represents the main focus of the study. Drawing on internally motivated

students, the analysis suggested that there were three “types” among the twelve

students. Students learn Hindi for cultural reasons in relation to their sense of

identity while others learn it for linguistic reasons. More interestingly students also

learn it to trace their heritage and transmit it to their children.

Claim to knowledge and limitation of the study

As mentioned in the previous section, the data suggested three “types” of students

among the twelve in this study. The descriptions include aspects of the students’

23

motivation to learn as well as their beliefs about the nature of Hindi as a taught

language. Syed manages to prove the relevance of her research question by

showing that learning Hindi as a second language is mainly conceptually

motivated. For internally motivated students, a psychologically central belief is that

learning Hindi consists primarily of constructing or developing one’s identity.

However the sample size is small resulting in reduced generalizability. In addition

the study covers only one state (Hawaii) and one academic institution (The

University of Hawaii) and only two classrooms. Syed seems to assume that

threats to validity and reliability can be erased by focussing exclusively on the rich

collection of data and by meticulously reporting them. Instead those threats could

have been attenuated by bringing to attention the importance of validity and

reliability through the piece of research (Cohen, 2000). I believe that Syed’s rigid

application of preconceived classification to report the qualitative data may hinder

the chance of the study to be used in other academic settings. Indeed I wonder if

the study could be reproduced in other academic settings, using a different

heritage language and a different profile of participants.

  Study II: Research in the scientific tradition

Guilloteaux, Marie J.; Dornyei, Zoltan

Motivating Language Learners: A Classroom-Oriented Investigation of the

Effects of Motivational Strategies on Student Motivation (cf. appendix 2).

TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other

Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect, v42 n1 p55-77 Mar 2008

24

Relevance of the abstract.

The purpose and the rationale for writing this paper are clearly expressed in a

carefully crafted abstract. The abstract provides a succinct overview of the

research conducted as well as its objectives, the hypotheses tested, the methods

used, the statistical analyses of the data, its results and conclusions.  The overall

purpose of the study has been stated early within the abstract as the opening

sentence begins by pointing the lack of empirical evidence that teachers’

motivational strategies can enhance students learning. The purpose of this study is

twofold:

To determine the potential interaction effect between teacher’s motivational

strategies and to test their effect on students’ motivational and learning behaviours

in academic institutions .The substantive objective of the study is to test that

hypothesis in order to provide empirical data on the effectiveness of teacher

strategies. The authors frame their research questions as follow: How teacher’s

motivational practices (TMT) affects their students’ motivated learning behaviour

(SML)?The answer to this question, though answered in relation to a study that

involves of over 1300 Korean students, is intended to have universal applications

to other English as a Foreign language programs in other settings and in other

countries.

 

Introduction

Creswell states that  introductions in quantitative studies are usually formatted in a

third person point of view, which sets an impersonal tone also helps to create a

sense of objectivity and distance between the researcher and the subject

(Creswell, 1994: 43).  Reflecting this to the research study the use of the pronoun

“we” in the introductory paragraph not only tend to overstress the role of the

25

researchers but also hinder the objectivity of the study. The introduction presents

previous background research based on motivation that builds up a good

foundation of research sources on the same topic.

 

Literature review

The introduction includes a mixture of the literature review and provides meaningful

accounts of previous researches. In grappling with the subject of motivation in the

foreign language classroom the authors use 25 references in their study; therefore

the literature used to contextualize the study is replete. As Creswell points out:

 “A hallmark of quantitative research is a substantial literature review in a separate

section at the beginning of the study. The literature plays a major role in two ways:

justifying the need for the research problem and identifying the direction of the

study. (Creswell, 2002: 53)

 The literature review clearly identifies the direction of the study and offers a

detailed overview of previous researches on the topic of motivation such as

motivational strategies and their potential relevance in language educational

programmes.

The “justification of the study” element is also given careful consideration.

Technically they justify their research by the “classic” claim that there is a relative

absence of research on the relevance of motivational techniques in language

classrooms. The literature review indicates that there is a lot of interesting and

challenging work going on in language motivation research. However the authors

of the study suggest that there are only two relevant published studies and

reference one of the co-author’s (Dörnyei). The name Dörnyei is redundant in the

literature review: his name is quoted nine times in a list that comprises twenty five

26

references. Besides the fact that Dörnyei designed the MOLT is stressed upon on

several occasions in the study.

 

Paradigm nature of the study.

 

Although the researchers use a mixture of quantitative and qualitative data, the

research is based on a positivist assumption and is mainly grounded on

quantitative methodology which includes extensive numerical data. Any scientific

method presupposes ontology. From the ontological perspective, this study is

realistic: Realist ontologies view reality as an external objective phenomenon,

existing independently of human consciousness (Guba and Lincoln 2000, Richard,

2003; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998). The researchers seem to believe that

motivational characteristics can be described by asking a large sample size of

students to respond to specific statements on specially constructed questionnaires.

 

From the epistemological perspective the study is objectivist. Objectivist

epistemologies are associated with realist ontologies which view reality as an

external objective phenomenon, existing independently of human consciousness

(Guba and Lincoln 2000). Objectivist epistemologies rely on inquiry that is

experimental and manipulative in which questions or hypotheses are stated and

are evaluated by empirical testing.

 

27

 Methodology, methods and collection of data

 

The methodology is based on a quantitative paradigm with a correlational design.

According to Cohen and Manion (1989), correlational studies are appropriate in

educational research when there is a need to discover or clarify relationships and

little or no previous research has been undertaken. In fact "the investigation and its

outcomes may then be used as a basis for further research or as a source of

additional hypotheses" (Cohen and Manion, 1989:161). In this study the

methodology has been stated explicitly. Data for the study is primarily collected

through a survey in form of a questionnaire to measure the motivational behaviours

of over 3000 students as well as teacher appraisal forms in order to test teachers’

intrinsic professional abilities. The use of motivational strategies teachers (27 in 20

different schools) was examined with a classroom observation instrument called

the Motivation Orientation of Language Teaching (MOLT). The data of the study is

quantitatively analyzed and statistics are used to test the hypothesis. It is a

correlational research that explores relationships that exist among variables,

mainly teacher motivational strategies and their effect on EFL learners’

motivational behaviours. The research sample size in this quantitative study is very

large (over 1300). Despite the fact that there is no minimum sampling size in

educational research; Cohen suggests that the number 30 is the minimum required

to use statistics (Cohen and Manion, Morison, 1989:93). The results are meant to

be generalised beyond EFL classes in South Korea. Other essentials such as how

the data are gathered and who would be undertaking the research (questionnaires)

have also been clarified. The localisation of the study (South Korea), the target

group (27 Korean teachers and 1,381 students in 40 classes), the gender and the

age the participants have been included.

Data Analysis and results

28

 

This study is interesting in its quantitative approach of assessing the effectiveness

of using motivational strategies. However it is difficult to reach an understanding of

motivational strategies and behaviours using quantitative data as the numeric data

are too complicated to talk for themselves and would need further textual

explanation. For instance the authors use Cronback Alpha coefficient to measure

students’ motivational behaviours in a scale from 0 to 1. Z-score was created to

describe the “combined variable of teachers’ motivational practise”. The authors

showcase the rich data collected through appraisal forms, observations, surveys

and include several excerpts that reveal for instance that the language teachers'

motivational practice is directly linked to increased levels of the learners' motivated

learning behaviours and their motivational state. One way in which this study

provides new insight is that these data suggests positive effects of using teachers’

motivational strategies. In spite of the convoluted nature of the research process,

this study predicts and tests two hypotheses in an attempt to expand the teacher

motivational strategy literature. The results of this study appear at a cursory glance

to support the presence of the hypothesized interactions between motivational

strategies and motivational behaviours. These findings provide new information in

three main ways. First the use of numerical data constitutes a relative novelty in

motivational research. These data and the subsequent findings of the study offer

empirical evidence that suggest that teachers’ motivational strategies must be used

as an instructional tool in order to increase teacher effectiveness and elicit student

outcomes. Previous researches on the topic have focused primarily on the

qualitative data. Second the findings help to uncover the relevance of teacher

motivational strategies in academic settings and support the use of teacher

motivational strategies as an instructional tool. The third way in which this study

provides new knowledge is by suggesting appropriately that teachers’ motivational

strategies can produce a positive learning environment that is beneficial to

students as well as to teachers.

 

29

Limitation of the study

One limitation of the study is that it seems to have a disproportionate number of

participating students (3000) from the same country (South Korea) and from the

same region. Consequently those factors create a bias. As a result motivational

factors and practices appear to be only relevant and applicable to Korean culture.

For research to be reliable it must demonstrate that if it were to be carried out on a

similar group of respondents in similar context, then similar results would be

obtained. (Cohen, 2000). Reliability is a necessary condition for quality

measurement. However reliability alone is not sufficient as validity is also required

(Creswell, 1994: 121). Validity is a vital key to effective research: a research that is

invalid is worthless (Cohen, 2000). Both reliability and validity can be questioned

within the overall research study. Although the study makes mention of a new

observation device (MOLT) and uses what looks like a pseudo scientific discourse,

it must be recognised that certain issues have remained unexplained. For instance

why did the authors consciously remove from the student survey elements relating

to “general attitudinal or motivational factors”? Was there any margin for error in

the “computing» of the means of” nine items” that was meant to assess the

personal qualities of teachers in the post lesson evaluation scale? How were these

items selected? Those issues raise an ethical problem: Can the intrinsic qualities

and eventual flaws of teachers be assessed by a machine?

30

 

Bibliography

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th edn). London: Routledge Falmer. Cresswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Choosing among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Crotty, M. (2003). The Foundations of Social Research. Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. London: Sage.Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln. (eds.). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Dörnyei, Z. & Csizēr, K. (2002). ‘Some dynamics of language attitudes and motivation: results of a longitudinal, nationwide survey.’ Applied Linguistics. Vol. 23. No 4. pp. 421-462Dörnyei, Z & Schmidt, R. (Eds.). Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. Hawai’i, USA: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i at Mãnoa.Ernest, P. (1994). An Introduction to Research Methodology and Paradigms. Exeter, Devon: RSU, University of Exeter.Jandt, F. E., & Tanno, D. V. (2001). Decoding domination, encoding self determination: Intercultural communication research processes. Howard Journal of Communications, 12, 119-135.Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin.Gage, N.L. (1989) ‘The Paradigm Wars and their Aftermath. A “Historical” Sketch of Research on Teaching since 1989’. Educational Researcher, Vol. 18. No.7, pp 4-10.Gardner, R. C. (2000). Correlation, causation, motivation, and second language acquisition. Canadian Psychology, 41, 10-24.Giddens, A. (1976). The New Rules of Sociological Method. London: Hutchinson.Grix, J. (2004). The Foundations of Research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Guilloteaux, MJ and Dornyei Z Motivating language Learners; A classroom Oriented Investigation of the Effects of Motivational Strategies on Student Motivation.TESOL Quarterly, 43(1), 109-111Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) ‘Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research’ in Denzin and Lincoln (eds), pp. 105-17.Guba, E.G.and Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume One: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, trans. T.McCarthy. Boston, MA: Beacon.

31

Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Lather, P. (2006). ‘Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: teaching research in education as a wild profusion’. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education. Vol. 19, No 1, January-February 2006, pp. 35-37.Littlejohn, S. W. (2002). Theories of human communication. Belmont, CA: Mertens, D.M. (2005). Research Methods in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Qualitative and Qualitative Approaches. (2nd Edn.) Thousand Oaks: Sage.Pring, R. (2000). Philosophy of Educational Research. London: Continuum.Richards, K (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting Qualitative Data. Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction. London: Sage.Syed, Z. (2001). Notions of self in foreign language learning: a qualitative analysis. In Z. Dörnyei and R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. (pp. 127-148). Hawai’i, USA: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’I at Mãnoa.Wellington, J. (2000). Educational Research. Contemporary Issues and Practical Approaches. London: Continuum.

32

Appendix 1

Study I: Research in the interpretive tradition In Dörnyei and Schmidt (2001), pp.

127-147.

Notions of self in foreign language learning: a qualitative analysis.

Zafar Syed, Military Language Institute, Abu Dhabi, UAE. .

Available online at : http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tqTpcQ0Qp4C&dq=MOTIVATION+AND+SECOND+LANGUAGE+ACQUISITION+++Zolt%C3%A1n+D%C3%B6rnyei+and+Richard+Schmidt+(+%E2%80%A6

Appendix 2

Guilloteaux, Marie J.; Dornyei, Zoltan

Motivating Language Learners: A Classroom-Oriented Investigation of the Effects of Motivational Strategies on Student Motivation Available online at : http://world.hanyang.ac.kr/~kentlee/slr/docs/motivation-survey-res_tesolq.pdf

33