How research methodologies influence findings

Bu çalışmada, aynı söylemsel veriye farklı araştırma yöntemleri uygulandığında tamamen karşıt sonuçlara varılabileceği görüşü savunulmaktadır. Çalışmada, ‘olumsuz kanıtın bulunmaması’ varsayımını desteklemek için söylemsel veri kullanan klasik bir psikodilbilim çalışması (Brown ve Hanlon, 1970) yeniden incelenmiştir. Bu araştırmada, özgün çalışmayla, mevcut veride yüzeysel olarak belirlenebilen söylemsel özelliklere dair araştırma yapılmış olduğu ve bu özelliklerin doğrudan psikolojik temellere dayandırıldığı savunulmaktadır. Önceki çalışmada kullanılan yöntemle, veride bulunan düzeltici dönüt ve olumsuz kanıt belirlenememiştir. Daha sonraki çalışmalarda da araştırmacılar, Brown ve Hanlon’un ebeveynlerin çocuklarına düzeltici dönüt ya da olumsuz kanıt sunmadığına dair hatalı sonuç çıkarımlarında bulunmuşlardır. Özgün dökümlerin küçük bir kısmı Konuşma Çözümlemesi ile yeniden incelendiğinde; yetişkinlerin sunduğu ve çocukların faydalandığı düzeltici dönüt örneklerine dair net örnekler bulunmuştur. Ayrıca, çocukların dilbilgisi açısından yanlış üretimlerine yetişkinlerin neden ve nasıl tepki verdikleri de tarafımdan sorgulanmaktadır. Çalışmada, söylemsel veri çalışmalarında Konuşma Çözümlemesi yapan kişinin, psikodilbilimciyle çalışmasının gerektiği önerisinde bulunulmuştur.

This paper proposes that different research methodologies, when applied to the same discoursal data, can reach diametrically opposing conclusions. The study re-examines a classic psycholinguistic study (Brown and Hanlon, 1970) which uses discoursal data to support the ‘no negative evidence’ hypothesis. It is argued that the original study searched in the data for superficially identifiable discoursal features, which were then directly indexed to psychological constructs. This methodology was unable to locate examples of corrective feedback or negative evidence which are present in their data. Subsequent researchers came to the flawed conclusion that Brown and Hanlon had proved that parents did not supply corrective feedback or negative evidence to their children. A reanalysis of a small proportion of the original transcripts from a CA perspective finds clear examples of corrective feedback or negative evidence supplied by adults and utilized by children. I also consider how adults respond to ungrammatical utterances by children and why they do so. The study suggests a need for conversation analysts to work together with psycholinguists on discoursal data.

PDF

___

Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal, 75, 460-472.
Anderson, N.J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning. ERIC Digest, April 2002, 3-4.
Chamot, A. U., & O`Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Chamot, A.U., & Rubin, J. (1994). Comments on Janie Rees-Miller's 'A critical appraisal of learner training: theoretical bases and teaching implications': Two readers react. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 771-776.
Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P . B., Robbins, J. (1999). The learning strategies handbook., NY: Longman.
Chamot, A.U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112–130.
Cohen, A. D. (2000). Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Goh, C. C.M. (2002). Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction patterns. System, 30(2), 185-206
Goh, C. (2008). Metacognitive Instruction for Second Language Listening Development: Theory, Practice and Research Implications. Regional Language Centre Journal, 39(2), 188 -213.
Goh, C., & Yusnita, T. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT Journal 60(3), 222–232
Hauck, M. (2005). Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive strategies and CALL. In J. Egbert and G. Petrie (eds.), CALL research perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 65–86.
Jamieson, J., Grgurovic, M., & Becker, T. (2008). Using diagnostic information to adapt traditional textbook-based instruction. In C. A. Chapelle, Y.R. Chung, & J. Xu (Eds.), Towards adaptive CALL: Natural language processing for diagnostic language assessment (25-39). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
Luo-xian, S. (2005). Metacognitive Awareness and Second Language Listeners. Media in Foreign Language Instruction, 6, 55-59.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R., & Kupper, L. (1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 285-296.
O' Malley, J.M., & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training. System, 17, 235-247.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Rasekh, Z. E. & Ranjbary, R. (2003). Metacognitive strategy training for vocabulary learning. Retrieved May 18, 2007 from http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESLEJ/ ej26/a5.html
Ridley, D.S., Schutz, P.A., Glanz, R.S. & Weinstein, C.E. (1992). Self-regulated learning: the interactive influence of metacognitive awareness and goal-setting. Journal of Experimental Education 60 (4), 293-306.
Seferoglu,G. & Uzakgören, S. (2004). Equipping learners with listening strategies in English language classes. Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal, 27, 223-231.
Thompson, I., & Rubin, J. (1996). Can strategy instruction improve listening comprehension? Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 331-342.
Vandergrift, L. (1997). The comprehension strategies of second language (French) listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 387-409.
Vandergrift, L. (1999). Facilitating second language listening comprehension: Acquiring successful strategies. ELT Journal, 54, 168-176.
Vandergrift, L. (2003). From prediction through reflection: Guiding students through the process of L2 listening. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 425-440.
Vandergrift, L. Goh, C.C.M., Mareschal, C., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ): Development and Validation. Language Learning, 56(3), 431-462.
Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 515-37.
Yang, C. (2009). A study of metacognitive strategies employed by English listeners. International Education Studies. 2(4), 134-139. http://www.nclrc.org/guides/HED/chapter1.html http://eslstrategy.elitebridge.net/metacognitionInstruction.html
National Capital Language Resource Center (NCLRC): http://www.nclrc.org/ http://calla.ws/overview.html