Observation

From the mid 70s to the mid 80s, observation was used frequently for investigating LLSs. In particular, some researchers (Stern, 1975; Wesche, 1975; Wong-Fillmore, 1976; Naiman et al. 1978/1996; Rubin, 1981; Chesterfield and Chesterfield 1985) used it as a main method to identify what strategies might be employed either by successful language learners or young learners.

Two main features of classroom observation can be identified. Firstly, although it was difficult to record learners’ mental operations, early LLS researchers indicated that LLSs can be identified from learners’ physical behaviours through observation and such observations helped them to exemplify the mental process of the learners and elicit some observable strategies. For example, in Rubin’s (1981) study, cognitive processes (e.g. memorisation, monitoring and guessing) were identified through some observable strategies (e.g. Memorisation was associated with taking notes of new items; Monitoring was associated with correcting error in own/other’s vocabulary.) From their observation, Chesterfield and Chesterfield (1985) provided many examples to elicit LLSs in a productive way. For example, “When the aide corrects someone else, saying ‘only’ in a correcting tone, one learner repeats ‘only’ was used to exemplify the strategyrepetition.

The second main feature is that many observed strategies are related to social dimensions of language learning. For example, Wong-Fillmore (1976) identified some

social strategies (e.g. join a group) through her class observation and stressed their importance in language learning. Chesterfield and Chesterfield (1985) expanded the conceptualisation of LLSs and combined both communication strategies and strategies for developing sociolinguistic competence in their observation schedule. Based on their class observation, they found that some social-related strategies (e.g. role play: spontaneous practices of the target language in interaction with others) and communication strategies (e.g. practising the target language with others) increased learners’ exposure to the target language and enhanced their motivation to learn.

However, LLSs are cognitive in nature, and, from a cognitive perspective researchers argue that, for the most part, LLSs are associated with unobservable inner mental operations. Therefore, observation is still seen as a limited research tool (Rubin, 1981; O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; Cohen, 1998). More recently, researchers have reconsidered observation and stress its importance in strategy research. To overcome the limitation above, White et al. (2007) suggest that combining classroom observation with other research methods can be an efficient way to capture both observable and unobservable learners’ strategies. In relation to my study, some unobservable VLSs and mental processes can be identified from learners’ physical behaviours through observation. These were further explored and compared with the follow-up student interviews. Here, observation and interviews interacted together. The observation suggests probes for interviews, while interviews offer leads for the researcher’s observations (Tjora, 2006). In addition, Macaro (2001: 66) suggests that

it is useful to take fieldnotes, because it is a less time-consuming way of observing strategy use compared with think-aloud protocol. In particular, he highlighted that this technique can make a contribution in classroom-based action research on LLSs. For example, teachers could use fieldnotes to observe how their learners are learning for a shorter duration from which some sort of systematic pattern in strategy use may start to emerge. Also, researchers can observe which students are taking notes of what is being said during the lesson. They can also observe which students ask peers for help and in general which students like to collaborate in their language learning. Teachers can assess such observations to impact on their strategy instruction.

More recently, LLSs have been viewed (e.g. Parks and Raymond, 2004; Lamprakaki, 2007; Winke and Abbuhl, 2007; Al-Busaidi, 2009) not only from a cognitive perspective but also from a sociocultural perspective. In other words, LLSs are not exclusively part of an inner mental process; social processes (e.g. a strategy like interacting with native speakers) also facilitate language learning. Therefore, the researchers above use classroom observation together with other research methods (e.g. interviews, questionnaires, focus groups and diaries) to investigate LLSs. Observations in previous studies (Parks and Raymond, 2004; Lamprakaki, 2007; Al-Busaidi, 2009) were recorded based on fieldnotes in the form of detailed descriptions of the behaviours of the learners. In contrast, based on their (input-based, output-based and cognitive-based) taxonomy, Winke and Abbuhl (2007) developed an observation schedule and applied a more structured observation procedure in their

research. One common feature among these four studies is that the role of social processes in LLS development is seen as one particularly important aspect; and the observations focus on the student/student and student/teacher verbal interaction, the teachers’ or peers’ feedback to students’ response and the correction of errors made both in oral and written form. Observation seems to help both capture learners’ verbal interaction with others and identify their social strategies. Hence, in my view, observation still holds an important place in strategy research and thus it was used in this study together with interviews and VOCABlog.

I used a less structured observation approach into the main study. The fieldnote format (see Appendix 2.4.1) was divided by different classroom activities. For each activity, I left much free space to write the notes, and I also wrote several aspects down on the first page of my fieldnotes every time, including the participants, the teacher, peers and artefacts. This format allows the researcher to have much more flexibility to explore learner’s strategic behaviours, raise more questions for the follow-up interview and also provide some focuses to enhance the reliability of the data. Furthermore, it ensured that the participants were not treated in isolation. They were observed within the context of teaching and learning (i.e. their interaction with the teacher, peers and artefacts). I did not note down very detailed information about focal students’ learning behaviour because the use of video-recording and audio-recording can help capture observable behaviours and record the verbal interaction. Rather, fieldnotes were taken in the form of a description of the focal students’ strategic

behaviours which I had questions about, and I also recorded these questions, which were used in the follow-up interview, next to the description in the fieldnote (see a sample in Appendix 2.4.2). For example, I identified some questions about their unobservable strategic behaviour. In addition, the fieldnotes included my own reflections and comment but were kept separate from the main notes.

3.3.1.1 Conducting the observation

The classroom observation was carried out in three groups with a particular focus on six participants from October 2011 to April, 2012 at three sites. Fifteen lessons were observed and two participants were observed in each lesson (see Table 2 below). I normally sat at the back of the classroom but sometimes the teacher and students invited me to sit with them together so as not to interrupt the classroom activities and interactions. Both video-recording and audio-recording were used to supplement my observation (see a sample of my observation data in Appendix 2.4.3). In addition, a voice-recorder was given to each participant to help record their oral interaction with others. The purpose was to explore what social strategies they used to help them learn vocabulary. Immediately after each observation, I identified and developed the ‘writable’ notes into ‘readable’ interview questions and used them in the follow-up interviews.