Understanding, Evaluating, and Conducting Second Language Writing Research

Charlene Polio, Debra Friedman

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• eBook ISBN: 9781317600893
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Understanding, Evaluating, and Conducting Second Language Writing Research speaks to the rapidly growing area of second language writing by providing a uniquely balanced approach to L2 writing research. While other books favor either a qualitative or quantitative approach to second language acquisition (SLA) research, this text is comprehensive in scope and does not privilege one approach over the other, illuminating the strengths of each and the ways in which they might complement each other. It also provides equal weight to the cognitive and socio-cultural approaches to SLA. Containing an array of focal studies and suggestions for further reading, this text is the ideal resource for students beginning to conduct L2 writing research as well as for more experienced researchers who wish to expand their approach to conducting research.

1
Introduction

Second language (L2) writing is both a cognitive process, in which a writer draws upon a set of internalized skills and knowledge to produce a text, and a situated activity that takes place in a specific context with a specific goal and for a specific audience. As a result, L2 writing research encompasses a wide range of topics while drawing on a wide variety of research traditions. This diversity also reflects the field’s roots in the areas of both second language acquisition (SLA) and first language (L1) composition. The former has tended to be more cognitively oriented and use quantitative and experimental research methods, whereas the latter has tended to be more socially oriented and to use qualitative and naturalistic methods. L2 writing research has consistently drawn on both quantitative and qualitative paradigms, probably more so than any other area of applied linguistics. We see this as a positive phenomenon because it gives researchers a variety of tools to use, allows them to answer many different types of research questions, and helps them to tap into both the cognitive and social aspects of writing. In this book, we discuss the different epistemological traditions behind the various approaches to L2 research in more detail, but we maintain that no one research approach should be privileged; rather, the approach should emerge from the research questions that one wishes to answer. Furthermore, qualitative and quantitative approaches can inform and complement each other in mixed methods research (see Chapter 5). We begin this chapter by explaining what we see as the scope of L2 writing research. We then provide a description of two studies, one quantitative and one qualitative, to illustrate how two very different approaches to research can inform the field of L2 writing. We then end with a description of the organization of this book.

The Scope of Second Language Writing Research

The types of research that fall under the scope of L2 writing research are varied and broad, and different volumes divide up the field in different ways. Probably the most basic distinction between types of research is related to a pedagogical distinction, namely the difference between writing as way to learn language and writing for real-life purposes. These have been described as writing-to-learn and learning-to-write approaches (e.g., Manchón, 2011). A writing-to-learn-language focus would be on activities or tasks not done outside of the classroom. One example of such an activity is a dictocomp, an activity in which students reconstruct a text after listening to it. Although the associated text could be related to real-life purposes, the activity is often used to get students to learn to use the language from the text. We also might include here studies that focus on corrective feedback. Although grammar feedback might be given on any type of assignment, research in this area focuses on language learning, not on the task as it is used outside the classroom. On the other hand, a learning-to-write activity might teach students how to write a literature review for an academic paper. There would be a focus on the language used, for example through explicit instruction or feedback, but also a focus on the content, organization, and audience. The goal is for students to be able to write a literature review in their respective academic fields. In the classroom, these approaches are not mutually exclusive. In research, they may not be either, but there is often a focus on one or the other. For example, consider a study that manipulates task complexity and then examines the effect on writers’ language (e.g., Kuiken & Vedder, 2008). The goal of the study is to understand what teachers can do to help students produce more complex language without necessarily considering students’ real-life goals. Conversely, consider Lillis and Curry’s (2010) volume on the politics of publishing in English. They studied scholars with real-life writing goals and how those scholars went about producing English texts within their research networks. There was little emphasis on how such scholars’ language learning was affected. Both of these studies fall within the area of L2 writing. Although we are considering only writing research in which learners produce texts beyond the sentence level, we include both research in which the writing is used for real-life purposes and writing that is done only for the purposes of language learning.

Another way to distinguish approaches to L2 writing research is based on the phenomenon being studied. Articles and books about L2 writing research have divided up the field in different ways. For example, Polio (2001) classified writing research according to the following foci: writers’ texts, writers’ processes, participants in the learning and teaching process, and the context within and outside of the classroom. Hyland (2009), in his volume on teaching and researching writing, included four foci: practitioners, L2 writers’ texts and target text, writers and their processes and attitudes, and readers and their expectations and evaluations. In a comprehensive review of L2 writing research, Leki, Cumming, and Silva (2008) divided their book into three sections: contexts for L2 writing, instruction and assessment, and basic research, which included writer characteristics, composing processes, textual issues, and grammatical issues. Finally, the new Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing (Manchón & Matsuda, 2016) covers a variety of topics that can be subsumed under the categories of writers’ texts, processes, identity, backgrounds and goals; the context for L2 writing; and teacher research. The point is that L2 writing research may concern something as language focused as how L2 writers use lexical phrases (Li & Schmitt, 2009) or something as contextually focused as how L2 writers learn to write in a writing center (Severino & Cogie, 2016).

One can also consider the range of L2 writing research against a background of the studies’ theoretical perspective. We do not have the space to go into detail on the different theories of L2 writing, but we refer readers to Cumming (2016), who details four theories: contrastive rhetoric, cognitive models of composing, genre theories, and sociocultural theory. In addition, he mentions other theories such as critical theory, goal theory, and dynamic systems theory. The point that should be kept in mind is that despite the tendency of certain theories to be linked to certain approaches, no one theory goes with one method. One example comes from contrastive rhetoric, which, simply put, is the idea that writers from different cultures organize their writing differently. The theory has changed and developed since first proposed by Kaplan (1966), and the ways that researchers working within the theory have conducted research have also varied. Many researchers have taken a text-based approach, examining differences in the organization of writers writing in their first and second languages (e.g., Hirose, 2003). Others, such as Shi (2003), used interviews to understand what Western-trained Chinese scholars perceived to be differences between Chinese and English writing and why those differences existed.

Different Questions, Different Approaches

As noted previously, both quantitative and qualitative approaches have been used to investigate issues of interest in L2 writing, with the choice between them depending on the questions to be answered or the phenomenon to be explored. For example, establishing causal relationships between a practice and an outcome (e.g., a particular instructional technique and writing improvement) requires an experimental quantitative study in which the researcher controls and manipulates variables by assigning participants to random groups and designing tasks for them to perform. However, if one wants to examine how a teacher implements the instructional technique and how students feel about it, one would employ qualitative methods such as observing participants in the course of their everyday classroom activities and eliciting their perspectives through interviews.

Although we emphasize that these different approaches to research are equally valid and suitable for understanding different aspects of the complex processes involved in L2 writing, others would argue that they are inherently irreconcilable, as they represent distinct sets of beliefs, or paradigms, regarding the nature of reality (ontology) and ways of knowing (epistemology). Research paradigms have been classified and labeled in various ways, but the most essential distinction is between postpositivist and postmodern (or poststructuralist) paradigms (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). Postpositivism is embodied in the scientific method and rests on an assumption that objective truth exists. For researchers working from this perspective, the aim of research is to discover this truth to the extent possible and to generate findings that can be generalized to other contexts. Those adopting a postmodern paradigm, on the other hand, assume that there are multiple perspectives on reality and that what we call truth is a social construction. Such researchers do not aim to discover universal and generalizable facts but to provide a detailed picture of particular settings or participants in order to explore and document the diversity of individual experience.

For some postmodern researchers, the postpositivist assumptions and emphasis on generalizability (or external validity; see Chapter 2) and replicability (see Chapter 12) that underlie quantitative and experimental studies are ill-suited to the study of human activities such as writing that are shaped by multiple social practices, beliefs, and values, thus making each instance unique. For others, there are concerns that holding qualitative research to such standards risks marginalizing it as unscientific, descriptive, and ungeneralizable. Our position is that while these paradigms clearly represent different worldviews, they need not be in contention. In a discussion of this issue in the social sciences, Lincoln and Guba (2000) noted the increased acceptance of nonpostpositivist research (a trend that can also be found in the field of SLA in general and in L2 writing research in particular) and argued for the value of “dialogue, consensus, and confluence” where possible (p. 167). Moreover, we also note that quantitative and qualitative approaches do not map neatly onto postpositivist (quantitative) and postmodern (qualitative) paradigms. Much L2 writing research, both quantitative and qualitative, has reflected and continues to reflect a postpositivist orientation, and a postmodernist need not take what Lincoln and Guba (2000) called an “antiquantitative stance” (p. 174). As we hope to show in the remainder of this volume, it is precisely the openness of the field of L2 writing to a range of research paradigms, approaches, and methods that has allowed for the emergence of a body of work that has enriched understandings of the complex social and cognitive processes that constitute L2 writing.

Two Example Studies

To illustrate how different approaches can be used to answer different but related questions, we present in Box 1.1 two studies on peer review (also called peer editing, peer response, or peer feedback). The first study (Lundstrom & Baker, 2009) is a well-constructed experimental study that manipulated a treatment condition in an attempt to disentangle variables related to peer review that can affect learners’ revisions. The second study (Zhu & Mitchell, 2012) is a qualitative case study that attempted to understand why learners take different stances toward peer review. It did not attempt to manipulate any variables but rather sought to document and understand students’ behavior in a particular context.

Both studies begin by reviewing work on peer review but immediately diverge. Lundstrom and Baker (2009) discuss the purported benefits of peer review to the reviewer and cite studies from L1 research that suggest the benefits to writers of reviewing their peers’ work. They note the lack of similar research on L2 writers and the fact that L1 studies do not address the added complications of having to do peer review in one’s L2. They also note the lack of experimental research on this issue:

[M]ost of the studies do not use experimental research methods (i.e., they do not quantitatively compare two groups), nor do these studies examine the types of improvements students made, whether in global (i.e., organization, development, and cohesion) or local (i.e., grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics) aspects of writing.

(p. 32)

What makes this study a typical quantitative experimental study is that it is concerned with the outcomes of peer review and the relationship between those outcomes and specific roles (i.e., as giver or receiver of peer comments). This focus is reflected in the research questions presented in Box 1.1.

Box 1.1 Comparison of a Quantitative and a Qualitative Study on Peer Review

Lundstrom, K. & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer–s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30–43.

Zhu, W. & Mitchell, D. (2012). Participation in peer response as an activity: An examination of peer response stances from an activity theory perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 362–386.

Background information

Teaching students to review their peers’ work might positively affect the reviewers’ writing. Sociocultural theory and past research suggests that writers can scaffold for reviewers, not just reviewers for writers. Early work on L1 writers suggested that teaching peer review helps students revise their own writing, but this has not been studied experimentally.

Previous studies have shown that student background influences interaction in peer review. Other studies have shown that students take different stances (e....

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• 1 Introduction
• PART I Approaches
• PART II Methods
• Conclusion
• References
• Index