Longitudinal research

Dornyei (2007) refers to longitudinal research as “the ongoing examination of people or phenomena over time” (p. 78). With regards to second language learning, this could involve tracking and analysing learners’ progression of the L2 over a certain period in time. Menard (2002) defines longitudinal research according to the data and design of the study. For example, the data needs to be collected at two or more points in time and the comparison of the subjects in question are taken from the same sample group at the different points in time. This form of research differs from its counterpart ‘cross- sectional research’ which involves collecting data at just one point in time, as in the strategic planning studies we reviewed in 3.3.4. Menard (2002) notes the major advantages of longitudinal research is that it enables us “to describe patterns of change and to establish the direction (positive or negative and from Y to X or from X to Y)…..of casual relationships” (p. 3). This is of particular importance in terms of language learning, which in itself, is a process that occurs over time, thus Ortega & Iberri-Shea (2005) argue that longitudinal research is crucial in helping our understanding of how language learning works to a far greater degree than cross- sectional research which can only examine language performance at isolated points in time. For example, as research question two investigates learners’ planning strategies over time, longitudinal research would enable data to be collected as learners plan for oral tasks at different time periods. Learners could be interviewed immediately after each performance which would enable them to easily recall their task performance. These results would therefore show us how language learning develops over time. Ortega & Iberri-Shea (2005) recommend incorporating qualitative and quantitative methods for longitudinal research because the strengths of each approach can compliment the findings of the overall study. As we saw in the last sub-section, this

appears to suit the purposes of the present study as we have already confirmed the use of a mixed methods approach therefore the most appropriate design would be to use a mixed-methods longitudinal design.

Given the apparent pedagogic value gained from longitudinal studies, why is there a lack of them within SLA research? For example, as we saw in 3.4.1, the only longitudinal planning study carried out to date was Bygate (2001b). As language learning is dynamic process, longitudinal studies would seem to be an ideal form of research, and Dornyei (2007) stresses the need for “many more longitudinal investigations in the field to explore the sequential patterns and the changes that occur” (p. 40). Yet the majority of language studies have instead performed cross-sectional research. Dornyei (2007) explains why this is the case by outlining the disadvantages of longitudinal research:

1 “Attrition” (p. 82). Due to the long-term nature of the research, participants may decide to withdraw during the process thus preventing the comparison of data at different points in time.

2 “Panel conditioning” (p. 83). Taking part in a longitudinal study may affect participants’ behaviour and responses during the process to the point where it threatens the reliability of the data. For example, learners may “behave differently because they want to please the researcher whom they are getting to know better and better” (p. 83). Students may also “lose their inhibition about the data collection format” (p. 83). In relation to the present study, learners may become more relaxed each time they repeat a task and as a result, their performances may alter due to a reduction in their affective filters.

3 Samuda & Bygate (2008) also inform us of the extra cost and time that is required to carry out a long-term study as well as the extra data analysis involved which acts as a further deterrent.

In an attempt to address the issues involved with longitudinal studies, Dornyei (2007) recommends the following:

1 With regards to attrition, strategies can be used to prevent participants from pulling out of a study by providing small rewards. Attrition can also be minimised by reducing the length of a study. Dornyei (2007) argues that, within applied linguistics, a

longitudinal study may only need to last ten weeks, as in the case of Bygate’s (2001b) study. To prevent attrition in this study, the researcher paid the students an hourly fee for their participation. Furthermore, the duration of the study was set at seven weeks, three weeks less than Bygate’s (2001b) study, however it was decided that seven weeks would make it more convenient for teachers to replicate during a standard fifteen week university semester that may include examinations and mid-term breaks. The participants were initially informed about the length of the study, and were asked to consider their commitment before signing a contract which stipulated their willing participation (see appendix B for the participation consent forms).

2 Attempts were made to reduce the effects of panel conditioning by following Ortega (1999). For example, Ortega did not take part in task performances with the learners (the students performed them in dyads) and she only interacted with the participants during the interview sessions. Researcher biases were also avoided by not asking leading questions. For the purpose of this study, the researcher was required to participate with the students during task performance (to act as the listener) but no attempt was made to interact with the students on a personal level prior to task performance and during the interviews. In addition, as each student would wait in turn to see the researcher individually, there was no time available for personal discussion. Of course it is impossible to prevent participants from changing their behaviour over time. However, any negative affects that may have occurred from panel conditioning would have been recorded during the interviews and used as a factor to explain the quantitative results, thus showing the benefits of a mixed-methods approach as suggested by Ortega & Iberri-Shea (2005).

3 Although longitudinal studies require time and effort in order to collect data, the researcher was able to organise a schedule to allow the data collection to take place over a specified time period as well as finding time to analyse the data afterwards. In addition, as the data analysis involved the use of computer-aided qualitative and quantitative software, for example CLAN and SPSS (explained in more detail in the next chapter) this resulted “in considerable gains in efficiency. This frees up researcher time and helps to avoid data overload” (Dornyei, 2007, p. 265).

Having justified the mixed-methods longitudinal design for this study, we now turn our attention towards the design of the pilot study before examining each of its components in turn.

4.3

Experimental Design

In line with previous task-based developmental studies (Bygate, 2001b; Mackey, 1999), the pilot study incorporated a pre- post-test design that involved a pre-test, treatment, an immediate post-test followed by a two week delayed post-test. Schmitt (2010) explains that the benefits of such a design are that comparisons between the pre-test and the immediate post-test help “to determine the effect of the treatment” (p. 155) whilst comparisons between the pre-test and the delayed post-test “can demonstrate if long- term retention (i.e learning) has occurred” (p. 156). In addition, this study used a mixed factorial repeated-measures design. Dornyei (2007) notes that repeated-measures designs are commonly used within applied linguistics research and are relevant for quantitative longitudinal studies that involve analysing a sample of participants over certain points in time. The mixed factorial design consisted of within-subject and between-subject factors. The within-subject variable was testing with three levels: pre- test, immediate post-test, delayed post-test in which all the students performed the tests. Finally, the between-subject variable was planning time with three levels: guided planning, unguided planning, and no planning as the participants were split into three planning conditions.