Description Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research
Description Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research
Introduction: developmental issues in pragmatics
-journalpapers.org- Over the last three decades,
a number of studies in
second language (L2) pragmaticsdwhether qualitative, quantitative, descriptive, or quasi-experimental have addressed developmental issues of
pragmatic competence (for a review, see Taguchi & Roever, 2017). Developmental studies
go beyond just the description of pragmatic
language use. They intend to capture changes in
pragmatic competence and explain these changes by
examining influences eboth contextual and indi- vidual that may be
related to
the changes. Some questions addressed
in this process include:
Past research that explored these issues largely falls into three areas: cross-sectional, instructional, and longitudinal. Of these three areas, cross-sectional research has generated the most findings. Cross-sectional studies collect data from two or more sections of a sample based on differences in general proficiency, span of formal study, or length of residence in the target community. Any differences in pragmatic performance gleaned from the comparison across groups are attributed to changes that learners exhibit at different stages of their L2 learning and thus are considered to provide developmental insights. Findings from cross-sectional studies generally point out that higher proficiency and length of residence are associated with pragmatic abilities, but they do not guarantee same levels of development across individuals, contexts, and pragmatic targets (Xiao, 2015a).
 |
| ilustrasi |
Similar to cross-sectional studies,
instructional studies are concerned with change and factors affecting the change, but more precisely, they focus on direct instruction as the factor
and examine its impact on learning outcomes e the change in pragmatic knowledge from pre-to post-instruction. Some instructional studies
are also
considered longitudinal, including delayed post-tests and implementing long-lasting interventions (e.g., Alcon-Soler, 2015; Cunningham, 2016). Instructional
studies are largely quasi-experimental, comparing
intact groups of learners who received instruction with those who did not, or examining two or more groups under different treatment conditions. Existing
findings unanimously point to
the
positive role of instruction in
pragmatic development (e.g., Halenko & Jones, 2011; Li, 2012; Nguyen, 2013). Other generalizations that emerge in the literature include:
(1) Explicit instruction is
effective when it
involves direct metapragmatic information and production practice of pragmatic
forms; and (2) Implicit instruction can be effective if
instructional tasks promote noticing and processing
of pragmatic features (e.g., having learners respond to
input or compare examples to induce rules behind
them) (Taguchi, 2015).
Quantitative and qualitative approaches in longitudinal L2 pragmatics research
Quantitative studies can reveal how L2 learners' pragmatic competence changes over time through systematic, cyclical data collection. Researchers administer a comparable task to elicit performance from a group of learners at certain time intervals and quantify their performance with numerical indices (e.g., scores, ratings, and frequency counts). Then, they compare group-level performance across time points, often using inferential statistics such as repeated-measures ANOVA or mixed-model analysis. By controlling the task, data collection procedure, and context of study (e.g., same learner group in the same environment), quantitative research seeks a causality relationship between time and change. Systematic data collection, fixed time intervals, statistical analyses, and effect sizes allow researchers to determine whether learners make a significant gain over time and how large the gain size is on the given time scale. By incorporating contextual and individual variables into design, researchers can also investigate factors contributing to the gain, which in turn generates explanations for pragmatic development.
The benefit of using a qualitative approach is the approach's open-ended, exploratory stance in which researchers can
commit to gaining an understanding of reasons behind
a phenomenon, rather than proving or disproving a hypothesis. Unlike a predictive approach using a linear analysis of pre-selected variables, qualitative research can deal with a greater number of elements that emerge in the data and use them as a whole as evidence
toward interpreting observed changes
Mixed methods approach in longitudinal L2 pragmatics research
Purpose and types of mixed methods research
According
to Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann, and
Hanson (2003), mixed methods research involves “the collection or analysis of
both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study in which the data are
collected concurrently or sequentially, are
given priority, and involve the integration of data” (p. 29). This
definition underscores several characteristics of research design and data
collection in mixed methods. First, quantitative and qualitative data are collected either concurrently or We may find something in
quantitative data and find something
different in qualitative analysis. Tashakkori and Teddlie argue that such divergent findings are valuable because they generate new understanding of a phenomenon.
While there is uniformity in the definition and benefits of mixed methods research, there are different design types in mixed methods (Creswell et al., 2003):
- Sequential explanatory: Quantitative data is collected first, followed by qualitative data that can explain the findings from quantitative data (e.g., after assessing pragmatic competence at group-level, following up on several participants to gain understanding about their characteristics).
- Sequential exploratory: Qualitative data is collected first, followed by quantitative data to interpret qualitative findings(e.g., collecting interview data to identify recurrent themes and then using those themes to develop survey items). (3) Sequential transformative: Quantitative or qualitative data are collected in sequence for the purpose of changing an existing policy or practice.
- Concurrent triangulation: Quantitative and qualitative data are collected simultaneously with equal emphasis and are used to cross-validate findings
- Concurrent nested: Quantitative and qualitative data are collected simultaneously, but one type of data is more pre- dominant than the other. Less predominant data is nested (embedded) within more predominant data and used to enrich description of the data.
- Concurrent transformative: Quantitative and qualitative data are collected simultaneously with equal emphasis, and are used for the purpose of changing an existing policy or practice.
Conclusion
Another future challenge relates to the construction of a concrete research design using mixed methods. I encourage researchers to ask how best they can answer the research questions
they propose and think
about the best possible evidence that they can
collect to answer the questions. Such evidence will naturally involve quantitative and qualitative data because more evidence leads to stronger inferences. This evidence-based perspective will help researchers think how to intersect various data sources to answer research questions and how to design a study accordingly. Given the complex nature of
pragmatic competence, studies
need to be designed in a way that multiple
data sources can facilitate a multi-level analysis of
context, individuals, and pragmatic development. Quantitative and qualitative data in a triangulated format can shed light on
the complexity of pragmatic
development in which multiple
factors are interconnected and jointly influence the develop- mental trajectories as they change.
0 Response to "Description Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research"
Post a Comment