Early Language Learning

Complexity and Mixed Methods

Janet Enever, Eva Lindgren

• Publisher: Multilingual Matters
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781783098309
• eBook ISBN: 9781783098330
• Topic: Lingue e linguistica
• Subtopic: Istruzione elementare

This is the first collection of research studies to explore the potential for mixed methods to shed light on foreign or second language learning by young learners in instructed contexts. It brings together recent studies undertaken in Cameroon, China, Croatia, Ethiopia, France, Germany, Italy, Kenya, Mexico, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Tanzania and the UK. Themes include English as an additional language, English as a second or foreign language, French as a modern foreign language, medium of instruction controversies and content and language integrated learning (CLIL). The volume reviews the choice of research methodologies for early language learning research in schools with a particular focus on mixed methods and proposes that in the multidisciplinary context of early language learning this paradigm allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the evidence than other approaches might provide. The collection will be of interest to in-service and trainee teachers of young language learners, graduate students in the field of TESOL and early language learning, teacher educators, researchers and policymakers.

1Introduction: Mixed Methods in Early Language Learning Research – Examining Complexity

Eva Lindgren and Janet Enever

In this volume we examine the full complexity of language learning, and in particular the foreign, or second, language learning of young learners in instructed contexts. The aim of the volume is twofold: first and foremost we bring together and present recent research results from the early language learning classroom context. Second, the volume reviews the choice of research methodologies for early language learning research in schools with a particular focus on mixed methods, and proposes that in the multidisciplinary context of early language learning, this paradigm allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the evidence than other approaches might provide.

Before we describe the volume and its underpinnings, we would like to give a brief note on terminology. The term foreign language (FL) will be used for languages other than the mother tongue(s) a person learns in an instructed context where the national language used outside the formal context is not the FL. The term second language (L2) will refer to a language learnt in, or outside, a formal context within a society where the L2 is used as the national, or most widely used, language. However, a word of caution may be necessary. In the case of, for example, Sweden or the Netherlands, English does not have the status of national language, but it is used to such a high degree in society that children learn it in much the same way as an L2 rather than an FL.

Language learning has traditionally been studied from a variety of theoretical perspectives drawing on a range of research methodologies. Recently, Atkinson (2011) called for a broader, holistic approach to the understanding of the learning of other languages than the mother tongue(s) in which the full dynamics and complexity are acknowledged by the use of cognitive, sociocultural and dynamic systems theories. In terms of methods, the cognitive approach has typically included testing and quantitative methods, while the sociocultural approaches have preferred qualitative approaches such as ethnography and case studies. In a thorough review and discussion about complex/dynamic systems in second language research Larsen-Freeman (2011: 62–63) describes how a variety of methodologies can and have been used to study complex systems: quantitative, computer-based modelling, qualitative modelling with or without computers, dynamic descriptions using an ethnographic approach, formative experiments and design experiments.

Mixed methods research (MMR) appeared in the late 1980s as a pragmatic response to debates about the acceptability of combining qualitative and quantitative approaches to research, particularly in the social sciences. Underpinning this debate was the contested area of research methods, where quantitative methods may be identified as connected with a positivist (or post-positivist) worldview and qualitative methods with a constructivist worldview (Creswell, 2003; see Riazi & Candlin, 2014 for a critical review and Gheitasi & Lindgren, 2015 for an overview). MMR is based on the philosophical assumption that both quantitative and qualitative methods are necessary throughout the research process (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2006) and that they allow researchers to explore a variety of research questions within the same study (Teddlie & Tashakori, 2003). By employing MMR, it is argued that validity can be increased by triangulation, complementarity or by the use of results from one study in the development of another (Greene et al., 1989). Greene et al. (1989: 259) further explain that mixed methods can ‘extend the breadth and range of the study’, as well as increase the depth and scope of the outcomes. A challenge in mixed methods research ‘concerns the level of theorising and conceptualising of the research problem so that different layers and various dimensions of the issue in question can be studied and integrated by means of an MMR [mixed methods research] framework’ (Riazi & Candlin, 2014: 161).

However, MMR is a contested area and Fetters (2016: 3) draws our attention to the existence of many previous research studies, which have included both quantitative and qualitative perspectives, dating back to the earliest part of the 20th century at least. He cites particularly the disciplines of anthropology, social psychology and sociology as reflecting an approach that includes a mix of methods in a single research programme. Similarly, Maxwell (2013) reports that such traditions date back some centuries in the fields of natural, social and health sciences, reminding us that barriers as to what constituted legitimate research methodologies did not exist in Ancient Greek times where astronomy ‘used both observational description and quantitative measurement’ (Maxwell, 2013: 14).

Regardless of the contested philosophical and historical underpinnings of MMR, the use of more than one theoretical and methodological approach seems useful for early language learning research. The complexity of the language classroom, including how children learn foreign languages, what may influence their learning and what role the teacher and the context play, all lend themselves well to the mix of methods. For example, in order to understand more about children’s reading in a foreign language, students may be asked in a questionnaire how they feel about reading in a foreign language; in parallel, data on their reading skills is collected by means of a test and the teacher is interviewed about teaching strategies. When analysing the data, quantitative methods can be used for test and questionnaire data, which may then be discussed in the light of the teachers’ response. In a sequential study, children’s interviews can serve as input to a larger survey about, for example, motivation for learning foreign languages.

This Volume

In this volume we report on a variety of studies, which represent a mix of instructed contexts, countries and methods. In the final chapter we return to the question of mixed methods and discuss its potential for early language learning research. The contexts for early language learning in the studies include English as an additional language (EAL), English as a second or foreign language (L2/FL), French as a modern foreign language (MFL), controversies on choices of medium of instruction (MOI) and classrooms exploring the potential for content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Each of these themes reflects an area of current growth in the broad field of early language learning worldwide today. The contexts from which the research studies are drawn include: China, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, UK and the African countries of Kenya, South Africa, Cameroon and Ethiopia. Across the continents of Africa, Europe, Asia and Latin America (as reflected in this choice of research papers) growth in early language learning has been substantial since the beginning of the 21st century. Research in each of these regions is now beginning to build, but further knowledge is needed to establish understanding and expertise in the very varied contexts emerging today.

The first part of the book includes three overviews of recent research findings in quite different contexts. This part is introduced by Agatha van Ginkel who discusses research evidence from a range of multilingual contexts in Africa to consider the complex question of decisions on the medium of instruction in the first few years of schooling. This is followed by a chapter focusing on the importance of including cultural, social and intercultural learning in the primary languages curriculum. Patricia Driscoll critiques recent research in the field to propose that a distinctive cultural strand needs to be placed at the heart of the primary curriculum. The first part is concluded with a wide-ranging discussion of research in the field of EAL in UK primary schools. Here, Victoria Murphy explores research on vocabulary and literacy development placing particular importance on the development of rich, high quality lexical representations, which can promote more advanced and complex reading and writing skills in English.

The second part of the book includes five empirical studies of early language learning, all of which adopt a mixed method approach to data collection and analysis. The introductory chapter from Alison Porter reports on a classroom study of oracy and literacy development in French in the UK with findings revealing the benefits of providing input through a number of modalities. This is followed by an innovative approach to exploring questions of motivation for primary learners of English in China where data were collected using the tools of elicited metaphor, combined with questionnaire responses. A team of researchers based in Wuhan, China worked on this study, originally initiated by Jin Lixian as a visiting researcher based in Leicester, UK. This is followed by a similarly innovative study, using a quite different methodology, to report on the effects of using multilingual virtual storybooks in primary classrooms in Germany. Here, Judith Buendgens-Kosten, Ilonca Hardy and Daniela Elsner have focused on revealing evidence of vocabulary development and story comprehension in their study. The fourth chapter in this part comes from Heather Hilton, providing a study of early learners of English in France. The study compares outcomes from a class of beginners starting in grade 1 with another class which started in grade 3. This close empirical study provides a fine-grained analysis of both individual case studies and a series of group studies. As a final chapter to this part, Karmen Pižorn tackles the thorny debate over CLIL in primary classrooms. Her critical analysis of research and current claims is well-illustrated by a small-scale study of a CLIL classroom compared with a parallel class where more conventional approaches to EFL teaching and learning are adopted.

The third part includes four chapters that adopt a longitudinal perspective in answering questions related to early language learning. Themes included are motivation and self-concept, broad language outcomes and the development of listening, reading and writing skills, all of which lend themselves well to tracking over time as a mechanism for recording their dynamic development. This part opens with Yuko Goto Butler’s study of motivation in primary school learners of English in China. Her study triangulates a number of qualitative and quantitative measures to identify factors influencing motivation over time. The three further studies in this part all take as their starting point data initially collected in the ELLiE study (Enever, 2011). First, in Lucilla Lopriore’s chapter, the longitudinal focus is on the development of listening, reading and writing skills over time in Italy. Outcomes are reviewed in relation to both teacher assessment and learner self-assessment. Next, Eva Lindgren and Janet Enever report on a continuation of the study with a sub-sample of the original cohort based in Sweden. In their chapter they discuss final outcomes achieved after six years of English classes, providing rich, thick descriptions of learner achievements. Finally, Jelena Mihaljević Djigunović discusses longitudinal evidence from 81 Croatian learners of English to review the instability of young learners’ attitudes, motivation and L2 self-concept over time. The implications of her findings are considered from a theoretical and practical perspective.

The final part of the book includes three chapters offering an evaluative perspective on some of the major themes for early language learning in instructed contexts today. This part is introduced with a chapter from María del Pilar García Mayo and Ainara Imaz Agirre who discuss interactive tasks in the primary FL classroom. For many, interactive tasks are seen as essential building blocks for progress in language learning, thus our understanding of task design and effectiveness in the primary years is vital. In their study the researchers compared two learning environments, firstly a CLIL-type environment and secondly a mainstream EFL environment. Their report on interaction for the 27 dyads in their study indicates a more frequent use of conversational adjustments as one outcome from instruction in a CLIL-type environment, while age appears to be of limited significance as a variable. This use was not constant in time for any of the FL groups, however. In the second chapter in this part, the context shifts to Mexico, where Peter Sayer, Ruth Ban and Magdalena López de Anda report on the design and implementation of a large-scale impact study for the evaluation of primary English. This chapter reports on the pilot phase, implemented in one Mexican state, charting the evidence of both linguistic and non-linguistic gains made across the first six grades of schooling. The final chapter in this part, authored by Raphaela Porsch and Eva Wilden, presents a project for the development of a final test framework for use at the beginning of secondary school in Germany. The proposed C-test aims at measuring general language ability with a view to providing secondary school (year 5) EFL teachers with a tool for diagnosing their new pupils EFL learning. The authors discuss the first stages of design and development for this complex evaluative tool.

In the concluding chapter to this volume we reflect on the potential contribution that MMR may offer the field of early language learning (ELL) research. Here, we discuss the variety of contributions presented, proposing that factors such as scale and multidisciplinarity may be more likely to promote the choice of an MMR design. Nonetheless, we fully acknowledge the continuing contribution that a singular research design can make to extend the knowledge base of research in ELL and call for expansion of investigations in all directions.

References

Atkinson, D. (2011) Introduction: Cognitivism and second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (ed.) Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 1–23). London: Routledge.

Creswell, J. (2003) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J.W. and Plano Clark, V.L. (2006) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Enever, J. (ed.) (2011) ELLiE. Early Language Learning in Europe. London: British Council. See https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/B309%20ELLiE%20Book%202011%20FINAL.pdf (accessed 16 March 2017).

Fetters, M.D. (2016) ‘Haven’t we always been doing mixed methods research?’ Lessons learned from the development of the horseless carriage. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 10 (1), 3–11.

Gheitasi, P. and Lindgren, E. (2015) Broadening the understanding of the language classroom: Mixed methods. In E. Lindgren and J. Enever (eds) Språkdidaktik: Researching Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 21–30). Umeå: Umeå Universitet.

Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J. and Graham, W.F. (1989) Toward a conceptual framework for mixed method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11 (3), 255–274.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011) A complexity theory approach to second language development/acquisition. In D. Atkinson (ed.) Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 48–72). London: Routledge.

Maxwell, J.A. (2016) Expanding the history and range of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 10 (1), 12–27.

Riazi, M.A. and Candlin, C.N. (2014) Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning: Opportunities, issues and challenges. Language Teaching 47, 135–173.

Ted...

Table of contents

• Cover-Page
• Half-Title
• Series
• Title
• Dedication
• Copyright
• Contents
• Figures and Tables
• Contributors
• 1. Introduction: Mixed Methods in Early Language Learning Research – Examining Complexity
• Part 1: Overviews of Research Findings
• Part 2: Empirical Studies Using Mixed Methods
• Part 3: Longitudinal Perspectives Using Mixed Methods
• Part 4: Evaluating Early Language Learning Programmes
• Index