The role of qualitative approaches to research in CALL contexts: Closing in on the learner’s experience
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v32i3.26620Keywords:
CALL, Qualitative research, Research design, Mixed methodsAbstract
The article considers the role of qualitative research methods in CALL through describing a series of examples. These examples are used to highlight the importance and value of qualitative data in relation to a specific research objective in CALL. The use of qualitative methods in conjunction with other approaches as in mixed method research designs are a particular focus. It is argued that qualitative methods are especially effective when used in this way. The discussion also aims to elaborate upon the role of qualitative approaches within CALL specifically, as a domain for research study with particular attributes that require a qualitative orientation. Here the use of electronic dictionaries is considered. Dictionary use is suited to such a discussion because it occurs frequently in everyday life, suggesting a qualitative approach, as well as in research studies that are strictly controlled, as in a quantitative approach. The contrast is instructive and helps demonstrate the respective strengths and limitations of each method. Also central to the discussion is the language learner. A number of the studies described emphasize the importance of listening to the students’ voice in the qualitative component (e.g., Conole, 2008; Jones, 2003). It is in the unpacking of what students actually do moment-by-moment in CALL tasks and activities that best illustrate the strengths of qualitative methods in enhancing our understanding of mediated learning and thereby driving productive research agendas.References
Brown, J. D. (2009). Open-response items in questionnaires. In J. Heigham & R. A. Croker (Eds), Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics, 200–219. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cohen, A. D. & White, C. (2008). Language learners as informed consumers of language instruction. In A. Stavans & I. Kupperberg (Eds), Studies in Language and Language Education, 185–205) Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press.
Conole, G. (2008). Listening to the learner voice: The ever-changing landscape of technology use for language students. ReCALL, 20 (2), 124–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0958344008000220
Cotos, E. (2011). Potential of automated writing evaluation feedback. CALICO Journal, 28 (2), 420–459. http://dx.doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.2.420-459
Hamel, M-J. (2012). Testing aspects of the usability of an online learner dictionary prototype: A product- and process-oriented study. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 25 (4), 339–365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.591805
Hammersley, M. (2013). What is Qualitative Research? London: Bloomsbury.
Heigham, J. & Croker, R. A. (Eds). (2009). Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230239517
Ivankova, N. V. & Creswell, J. W. (2009). Mixed methods. In J. Heigham & R. A. Croker (Eds), Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics, 135–164. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jones, L. C. (2003). Supporting listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition with multimedia annotations: The students’ voice. CALICO Journal, 21 (1), 41–65.
Krathwohl, D. R. (1993). Methods of Educational and Social Science Research: An Integrated Approach. New York: Longman.
Levy, M. (2000). Scope, goals and methods in CALL research: Questions of coherence and autonomy. ReCALL, 12 (2), 170–195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0958344000000525
Levy, M. & Caws, C. (In press.). CALL design and research: Taking a micro and macro view. In C. Caws & M-J. Hamel (Eds). Learner Computer Interactions: New Insights on CALL Theories and Applications. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
Levy, M. & Gardner, R. (2012) Liminality in multitasking: Where talk and task collide in computer collaborations. Language in Society 41 (5), 557–587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404512000656
Levy, M. & Steel, C. (2015). Language learner perspectives on the functionality and use of electronic language dictionaries. ReCALL, 27 (2): 1–20. Published online: 5 January 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095834401400038X
Levy, M. & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL Dimensions: Options and Issues in Computer Assisted Language Learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
O’Rourke, B. (2008). The other C in CMC: What alternative data sources can tell us about text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication and language learning. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 21 (3), 227–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588220802090253
O’Rourke, B. (2012). Using eye-tracking to investigate gaze behavior in synchronous computer-mediated communication for language learning. In M. Dooly & R. O’Dowd (Eds), Researching Online Foreign Language Interaction and Exchange: Theories, Methods and Challenges, 305–341. Bern: Peter Lang.
Rossman, G. B. & Rallis, S. F. (2003). Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Smith, B. (2008). Methodological hurdles in capturing CMC data: The case of the missing self-repair. Language Learning and Technology, 12 (1), 85–103.
Steel, C & Levy, M. (2013). Language students and their technologies: Charting the evolution 2006–2011. ReCALL, 25 (3), 306–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0958344013000128
Stickler, U. & Shi, L. (2015). Eye movements of online Chinese learners. CALICO Journal, 32 (1), 52–81.
Tono, Y. (2011). Application of eye-tracking in EFL learners’ dictionary look-up process research. International Journal of Lexicography, 24 (1), 124–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecq043
Ware, P. & Rivas, B. (2012). Researching classroom integration of online language learning projects: Mixed methods approaches. In M. Dooly & R. O’Dowd (Eds), Researching Online Foreign Language Interaction and Exchange: Theories, Methods and Challenges, 107–131. Bern: Peter Lang.
Winograd, T. & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
