Epistemological and Methodological Issues

3.2.1 Epistemological and Methodological Assumptions

All research is based upon two distinct epistemological assumptions that concern the very fundamentals of knowledge. From the positivist (or rationalistic) perspective, knowledge is “hard, real and capable of being transmitted in tangible form” (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2005, p. 6), whereas from the interpretive (or anti-positivist) perspective, knowledge is “of a softer or more subjective, spiritual or even transcendental kind, based on experience and insight of a unique and essentially personal nature” (Cohen et al., p. 6). Where researchers position themselves epistemologically will have a profound effect on the methodological approach adopted in research. A researcher who considers the social world as being soft, personal and created from subjective experience will likely adhere to qualitative methodologies. On the other hand, if a researcher subscribes to the positivist perspective, that the social world, or the world of SLA for that matter, is hard, external and objectively definable, they will tend toward adopting

camps have been involved in ongoing debates as to what domain SLA research and theory construction should firmly put its roots in.

A study conducted by Henning (1986) helps to provide a historical and epistemological perspective to the field of SLA. Henning investigated two major journals: TESOL Quarterly and Language Learning from 1970 to 1985. His investigation revealed a major increase in the amount of quantitative articles over that period. In TESOL Quarterly there was an increase from 12% to 61%, and in

Language Learning, there was an increase from 24% to 92 %. Henning, a

prominent SLA researcher of that time, viewed this as “a positive development— a kind of coming of age of a discipline” (p. 704). Most recently, Lazaraton (2005) found that, “in the journal, Studies in Second Language Acquisition… 90% of the articles from 1991 to 1997 were quantitatively based,” and that, “this number was 100% from 1998 to 2001” (p. 212). The rationalistic research paradigm has been dominant and continues to dominate SLA research and theory construction today. The conventional view that language acquisition is a mental process has resulted in the accumulation of a large body of research that has centred itself in the rationalistic paradigm. However, this large body of research, founded from quantitative methodological perspectives, has come under criticism. Tarone (1994) points out that "quantitative methods of research have probably been

overdominant [italics added] in attempts to analyze learner language, as well as in

suggesting implications of language analysis research for the ESL classroom" (p. 678). Tarone ascertains that "researchers typically agree, in theory, that both qualitative and quantitative methodologies are essential to the accurate description and analysis of learner language" (p. 676). Even though both quantitative and qualitative methodologies are considered equally important, the authority of empiricism continues to dominate mainstream SLA literature today. The current research project, although falling under the quantitative research umbrella, in no way attempts to undermine or downplay the important role that qualitative research plays in SLA research and theory construction. It should be noted that the author recognizes the advantages and disadvantages of both research types. The advantage of using a quantitative methodology in the current investigation was that it enabled the distribution of the survey to a large number of student participants in a relatively short period of time. Of relevance to this investigation, attention will now be drawn to the use of Likert rating scales and questionnaires

in research concerning L2 motivation.

3.2.2 Likert Rating Scales 3.2.2.1 Strength and Relevance of Likert Rating Scales

Likert scales are used exclusively to capture respondents’ International Posture and L2 Learning Motivation in the current investigation. Cohen et al. (2005) suggest that the attraction of rating scales is that they “provide more opportunity than dichotomous questions for rendering data more sensitive and responsive to respondents. This makes rating scales particularly useful for tapping attitudes, perceptions and opinions [italics added] of respondents” (p. 255). In this investigation Likert scales are, therefore, well suited to task because questionnaire items of the survey are aimed at assessing specific

attitudes, perceptions and opinions. Likert scales measure attitude in a

quantitative way which produces data that lends itself to statistical analysis.

3.2.2.2 Five Point verses Seven Point Likert Scales

Likert questions are often used as five-, seven-, or nine-point scales. There are some advantages to using seven-point scales. Cohen et al. (2005) posit that “most of us would not wish to be called extremists; we often prefer to appear like each other in many respects” (p. 254). For rating scales this means that we might wish to avoid the two extreme poles at each end of the continuum of the rating scales. On a five-point scale this reduces the number of positions in the scales to a choice of three. This means that in fact very little choice is given to respondents. The strength of the current survey is that it utilizes a seven point Likert scale. Cohen et al. (2005) explain that,

To go beyond a seven point scale is to invite a degree of detail and precision which might not be appropriate for the item in question, particularly if the argument set out above is accepted, visa-vis that one respondent’s scale point three might be another’s scale point four. (p. 254)

In other words, there is no need to provide more than seven points as a seven point scale is effective enough in categorizing responses.

3.2.2.3 Limitations of Likert Rating Scales

One major limitation of Likert scales is that the scales themselves define participants’ responses into categories predetermined by the researcher. Cohen et al. (2005) explaining that,

we [researchers] have no way of knowing if the respondent might have wished to add any other comments about the issue under investigation. It might have been the case that there was

something far more pressing about the issue that the rating scale included but which was condemned to silence for want of a category. (p. 253)

In the current investigation pilot participants were provided with the opportunity to express their comments in the Comments Section at the conclusion of the pilot questionnaire. The section reads, “please feel free to withdraw your answers, make a complaint or comment about the administration of the survey or the questions presented in the questionnaire” (see Appendix B). Even though no such comments were made in the pilot questionnaire, this opportunity provided an important step in the refinement of the questions in the survey for the main study. One popular method used to extract Likert scale responses is through the use of questionnaires. The following section provides a review of the use of

questionnaires in SLA research.

3.2.3 Questionnaires and SLA Research

In his discussion of questionnaires in research Mackey (2005) establishes that,

questionnaires allow researchers to gather information that learners are able to report about themselves, such as their beliefs and

motivation about learning [italics added] or their reactions to learning

and classroom instruction and activities, information that is typically not available from production data alone. (pp. 92-93)

Questionnaires are therefore highly applicable to research in SLA studies, especially in the field of motivation. Questionnaires have played a significant role in

SLA research concerned with motivation (see, for example, Noels et al., 1999) and are therefore highly relevant to the current investigation.

Now that an understanding of the epistemological and methodological foundations of the current investigation has been made, the specific procedures followed in the current investigation will be described. Information will be provided with regards to participant demographic, number of participants, techniques used for maximizing response rates, the inherent strengths and weaknesses of the study, and, the way in which test-retest reliability and methodological rigor were maintained. This information provides important background information to the five phases carried out in 2007.