Abstract
This paper is a critical analysis of a study done by Kroll, Michael, Tokowicz and Dufour (2002) whose aim was to examine how adult learners of second language (L2) develop lexical representations for second language words and then link them with the existing representations for words in the first language (L1). The study entailed two experiments.
The first experiment entailed a comparison between two groups of English learners and one group of native English speakers and their performance in word naming and translation. The second experiment entailed two groups of non-fluent learners and one group of fluent bilinguals.
These groups performed similar tasks like in the first experiment, that is, word naming and translation. This paper examines the relationship between methodology and methods, the relationship between theory, research and practice as well as ethical issues arising from the study done by Kroll et al. (2002).
Introduction
Many people often confuse the meaning of the terms methodology and methods. As a result, these two terms are often used interchangeably in the research arena. However, methodology and methods are two different words with different meanings. Methodology is a broader term that encompasses the theories and perspectives that underlies the research as well as the methods that are used in conducting the research.
On the other hand, methods simply refer to the methods used in collecting and analysing data and reporting the results. This paper will examine the relationship between methodology and methods as well as the relationship between theory, research and practice based on a research study conducted by Kroll, Michael, Tokowicz & Dufour (2002).
Assumptions and reasoning that underpin methodologies and methods
The main aim of the study conducted by Kroll et al. (2002) was to examine how adult learners of second language (L2) develop lexical representations for second language words and then link them with the existing representations for words in the first language (L1). In order to conduct their study, Kroll et al. (2002) reviewed prior studies that had been done to examine the same problem.
The researchers made a number of assumptions and reasoning which facilitated their study. To begin with, the researchers define “bilingual” as persons who make use of a second language with relatively high proficiency level. They argue that majority of the research studies they reviewed involve participants who are late learners of a second language and therefore they are unable to balance their use of two languages.
Second, the researchers assume that fluency and proficiency are synonymous and therefore they use the two terms interchangeably. We however know that being fluent in a language and being proficient in that language refers to different levels of mastery of a language. Third, Kroll et al. (2002) measure the performance of the participants using word production such as naming of words and translation.
They therefore reason that the effects of developing second language skills are best evaluated through the speed with which the participants complete the tasks given and the accuracy with which they are able to speak in the L2 (Kroll et al., 2002, p.138).
These assumptions and reasoning shaped the methodology and method used in the paper. Specifically, they determined the type of participants that would be recruited to take part in the study and the experiments that would be conducted to achieve the main objective of the study.
Relationship between methodology and methods
In order to understand the relationship between methodology and methods, it is important to know the meanings of these two terms. Although the terms methodology and methods are often used interchangeably, they are not synonymous. The term methodology has been defined by several authors.
Somekh and Lewin (2005) have defined methodology as both “the collection of methods or rules by which a particular piece of research is undertaken” and the “principles, theories and values that underpin a particular approach to research” (p.346).
Walter (2006) on the other hand asserts that methodology is “the frame of reference for the research which is influenced by the paradigm in which our theoretical perspective is placed or developed” (p.35).
From these definitions, it is clear that methodology is the general approach to research that is associated with the concept or theoretical framework that governs the research. On the other hand, method is the orderly methods, processes, tools or instruments used to collect and analyse data (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). The relationship between methodology and methods is that methodology guides methods.
Methodology is the determining factor of the type of data that will be used in research, the data collection tools and instruments that will be used, the data analysis techniques to be used as well as the manner in which the interpretation of the results will be done. The methods used therefore depend on the methodology adopted by the researcher (Schram, 2006).
For instance, a researcher interested in culture may use auto/biography, stories and myths to collect and analyse data; an economist may collect government statistical data and utilize them to create a model that will enable him to produce research results; and a sociologist might conduct interviews of people and take part in some aspects of the respondents’ lives so as to understand the world view of the respondents (Silverman, 2000).
In the paper by Kroll et al. (2002), the relationship between methodology and methods is apparent. The main aim of the study was to examine how English language learners develop lexicon. However in order to conduct the study, the researchers relied on certain theoretical frameworks, specifically the revised hierarchical model and the bilingual interactive activation model.
Each of these theoretical models explains the process of lexicon development by English language learners and has been used previously by other researchers to study the same issue. These models have shaped the research process of the study by Kroll et al (2002). In particular, the models influenced the type of data that were collected, the data collection tools and the data analysis techniques that were used.
Based on the models, the most appropriate research design was an experiment. The researchers conducted two different experiments using participants from English language learners class and native English speakers. The first experiment entailed a comparison between two groups of English learners and one group of native English speakers and their performance in word naming and translation.
The second experiment entailed two groups of non-fluent learners and one group of fluent bilinguals. These groups performed similar tasks like in the first experiment, that is, word naming and translation. Based on the theoretical frameworks, Kroll et al. (2002) had to find the most effective way of collecting the data for their study.
For the first experiment, the words were presented one at a time on an IBM PC and the participants were required to name them aloud and translate them aloud. The presentation of words on the PC was done randomly for each of the participant. The responses were recorded by the computer program.
Analysis of the data was then done using various measures such as fluency measures, performance measures, and cognate status. In the second experiment, the same procedure as in the first experiment was followed.
The only difference between the first and second experiments is that the first experiment used two groups of participants at different levels of L2 proficiency while the second experiment used two groups of non-fluent learners (Kroll et al., 2002, p. 153.). The comparison of the performance between the groups of participants was enabled using data analysis techniques such as means and percentages.
The relationships between research, theory and practice in the paper
In education, it is recognized that individual teachers may have a need to or may want to use research findings that help to address their unique situations (Biesta, 2007).
Nevertheless, supporters of evidence-based education assert that when it comes to nationwide policy, that is, in situations that call for all schools to change what they are doing, it is important to have proof of the effectiveness of the proposed initiatives (Wiersma, 2000).
This is important especially in the schools which may be unwilling to adapt the proposed changes, as well as in the schools which may practically have no need to adapt to the proposed change.
Even though there are different perspectives of the manner in which research can and should be utilized in educational practice, there is an almost common belief that research can highlight what practices are more effective than others (Krathwohl, 1993; O’Toole & Beckett, 2010).
Research therefore provides hard proof about the possible impact of policy and practice (O’Leary, 2004; Pring, 2000). However, such evidence depends on the epistemological/theoretical assumptions that underlie each research study (Newby, 2010).
In the paper under review, there is a direct relationship between theory, research and practice. Kroll et al. (2002) make use of several theoretical models to base their research study. These models include the revised hierarchical model and the bilingual interactive activation model.
According to the revised hierarchical model, the word association and concept mediation options are merged into one model which assumes that the degree of linkages between words in L1 and L2 assume different values.
The bilingual interactive activation model on the other hand claims that “the bilingual’s lexicon is integrated and that lexical access is non-selective such that lexical candidates in both languages are activated whenever the input shares features with alternatives in each of the languages,” (Kroll et al., 2002, p. 141). It is these two theoretical models that have shaped the research conducted by Kroll et al. (2002).
Specifically, Kroll et al. (2002) wanted to find out the process through which L1 and L2 students gain lexical access during second language acquisition. The researchers conducted two experiments. In the first experiment, the researchers used on e group of English learners and two groups of native English speakers, categorized according to their fluency in French.
The participants were required to name words and undertake translation tasks. The researchers found that the English learners were slower and made more errors in word naming and translation compared to the native English speakers. The second experiment also showed similar results with bilinguals recording higher scores than learners in reading span.
The results of this research have significant implications for practice especially in the development of lexicon among English learners. Thus, the model of lexicon development among English learners that should be adopted should be based on the evidence produced by this research hence the connection between theory, research and practice.
Ethical challenges and issues evident in the paper and possible solutions to the challenges
Any social research or research that involves human subjects has several ethical implications. The research conducted by Kroll et al. (2002) has a couple of ethical challenges and issues. The first ethical issue is the need to compensate the participants for their participation in the study.
Incentives are usually offered to participants not to coerce them to take part in the study but rather to encourage as many people as possible to participate in the study so as to minimize sampling errors (Burgess, 1989; Simons & Usher, 2000). This issue is evident in the paper by Kroll et al. (2002). The participants were given either class credit or monetary compensation for their participation in the study.
Lastly, the researchers also had an ethical obligation in analysis and reporting of the research results. This obligation mandates the researchers to report the results as they are rather than manipulating them in a manner that makes the results acceptable to them and others (Bechhofer & Paterson, 2000).
This implies reporting results which support or contradict the results of previously published results of similar studies (McNamee & Bridges, 2002). Kroll et al. (2002) have obeyed this ethical obligation by comparing their results with other studies conducted previously such as the studies conducted by Sanchez-Casas et al. (1992), De Groot (1992) and Kroll and Stewart (1994).
Conclusion
This paper has examined the meaning of research methodology and methods and the relationship between the two. Methodology is a broader term that encompasses both the theoretical framework and the methods used in the research. Methods on the other hand refer to the tools and instruments used to collect, analyse and interpret data. The paper has also assessed the relationship between theory, research and practice.
These three aspects are interrelated in that theory guides the research process. The research on the other hand influences practice by providing hard evidence on the policies and initiatives that should be implemented. Lastly, it has examined the ethical issues that arose from the research conducted by Kroll et al. (2002). These issues include voluntary participation, anonymity and analysis and reporting of the research findings.
References
Biesta, G., 2007. Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational theory, 57 (1), pp. 1-22.
Bechhofer, F. & Paterson, L., 2000. Principles of research design in the social sciences. London: Routledge.
Burgess, R., 1989. The ethics of educational research. London: Falmer Press.
De Groot, A., 1992. Determinants of word translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, pp. 1001-1018.
Krathwohl, D. R., 1993. Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach. New York: Longman.
Kroll, J. Michael, E. Tokowicz, N. & Dufour, R., 2002. The development of lexical fluency in a second language. Second Language Research, 18 (2), pp. 137-171.
Kroll, J. & Stewart, E., 1994. Category interference in translation and picture naming: evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, pp. 149-174.
Leedy, P. & Ormrod, J., 2005. A handbook for teacher research from design to implementation. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
McNamee, M. & Bridges, D., 2002. The ethics of educational research. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Newby, P., 2010. Research methods for education. Harlow: Pearson.
O’Leary, Z., 2004. The essential guide to doing research. London: Sage.
O’Toole, J. & Beckett, D., 2010. Educational research: Creative thinking and doing. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Pring, R., 2000. Philosophy of educational research. London: Continuum.
Sanchez-Casas, R. Davis, C. & Garcia-Albea, J., 1992. Bilingual lexical processing: exploring the cognate-noncognate distinction. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, pp. 293-310.
Schram, T., 2006. Conceptualizing and proposing qualitative research. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Silverman, D., 2000. Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Simons, H. & Usher, R., 2000. Situated ethics in educational research. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Somekh, B. & Lewin, C., 2005. Research methods in social sciences. London: Sage.
Walter, M., 2006. Social Science methods: an Australian perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wiersma, W., 2000. Research methods in education: An introduction. 7th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.