Mixed methods research in second language writing: A systematic research synthesis
Abstract
In the field of second language (L2) writing, we have recently seen “a collective future trend towards methodological diversity and expansion of repertoires of research methods and approaches†(Manchόn & Matsuda, 2016, p. 9). In responding to the call for methodological diversity, we set out to explore mixed methods research methodology in L2 writing research. Mixed methods research (MMR) has been acknowledged as a ‘third’ or ‘alternative’ methodological approach along with quantitative and qualitative research approaches over the past two decades in social sciences and other fields. However, relatively little has been discussed with regard to MMR in the field of L2 writing. More importantly, well-designed, rigorous MMR can have a great potential to provide a holistic understanding of complex issues in L2 writing research. Given these, in this article, we report the findings from our systematic synthesis of 27 empirical MMR in L2 writing with respect to ‘research contexts/participants,’ ‘research topics,’ ‘purpose of MMR,’ ‘data sources,’ and ‘structure of MMR.’ Our research synthesis provides L2 writing researchers with some valuable insights into the trend of and future directions for MMR in L2 writing.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Asterisk (*) indicates MMR that was reviewed in this research synthesis.
* Bai, B. (2015). The effects of strategy-based writing instruction in Singapore primary schools. System, 53, 96–106. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2015.05.009
* Baker, B. A. (2010). Playing with the stakes: A consideration of an aspect of the social context of a gatekeeping writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 15, 133–153. DOI: 10.1016/j.asw.2010.06.002
* Barkaoui, K. (2007). Rating scale impact on EFL essay marking: A mixed-method study. Assessing Writing, 12, 86–107. DOI: 10.1016/j.asw.2007.07.001
* Barkaoui, K. (2010). Rating do ESL essay raters' evaluation criteria change With experience? A mixed-methods, cross-sectional study. TESOL Quarterly, 12(1), 31–57.
* Busch, D. (2010). Pre-service teacher beliefs about language learning: The second language acquisition course as an agent for change. Language Teaching Research, 14(3), 318–337. DOI: 10.1177/1362168810365239
* Cotos, E., Link, S., & Huffman, S. (2017). Effects of DDL technology on genre learning. Language Learning & Technology, 21(3), 104–130.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand, Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cumming, A. (Ed.). (2012). Adolescent literacies in a multicultural context. New York, NY: Routledge.
de Oliveira, L., & Silva, T. (2013). L2 writing in secondary classrooms: Academic issues, student experiences, and teacher education. New York, NY: Routledge.
* Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2017). Exploring the impact of online peer-editing using Google Docs on EFL learners’ academic writing skills: A mixed methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(8), 787–815, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2017.1363056
* Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2018). An exploration into the impact of WebQuest-based classroom on EFL learners’ critical thinking and academic writing skills: A mixed-methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(3), 1–35, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2018.1449757
* Early, J. S., & Saidy, C. (2014). A study of a multiple component feedback approach to substantive revision for secondary ELL and multilingual writers. Reading and Writing, 27, 995–1014. DOI: 10.1007/s11145-013-9483-y
* Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous teacher electronic feedback and learner uptake in ESL composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 1–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2018.05.005
Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs–principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6 Pt 2), 2134–2156. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12117
* Ferris, D. R. (2014). Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing, 19, 6–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.asw.2013.09.004
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255–274.
Hesse-Biber, S. (2010). Qualitative approaches to mixed methods practice. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 455–468. DOI: 10.1177/1077800410364611
* Iida, A. (2016). Exploring earthquake experiences: A study of second language learners’ ability to express and communicate deeply traumatic events in poetic form. System, 57, 120–133. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2016.02.004
* Janssen, G., Meier, V., & Trace, J. (2015). Building a better rubric: Mixed methods rubric revision. Assessing Writing, 26, 51–66. DOI: 10.1016/j.asw.2015.07.002
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.
* Kahn-Horwitz, J. (2015). ‘Organizing the mess in my mind’: EFL teachers’ perceptions and knowledge of English orthography. Reading and Writing, 28, 611–631. DOI: 10.1007/s11145-015-9541-8
* Lee, I., & Coniam, D. (2013). Introducing assessment for learning for EFL writing in an assessment of learning examination-driven system in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(1), 34–50. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.11.003
* Lee, M.-K. (2015). Peer feedback in second language writing: Investigating junior secondary students' perspectives on inter-feedback and intra-feedback. System, 55, 1–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2015.08.003
Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. New York, NY: Routledge.
* Li, J., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. (2015). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 1–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2014.10.004
* Li, Z., Link, S., Ma, H., Yang, H., & Hegelheimer, V. (2014). The role of automated writing evaluation holistic scores in the ESL classroom. System, 44,66–78. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2014.02.007
* Ma, H., & Slater, T. (2015). Using the developmental path of cause to bridge the gap between AWE scores and writing teachers’ evaluations. Writing & Pedagogy, 7(2/3), 395–422. DOI: 10.1558/wap.v7i2-3.26376
ManchÏŒn, R. M., & Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of second and foreign language writing. Boston, MA: De Gruyter.
Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Second language writing in the 20th century: A situated historical perspective. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 15–34). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
* Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010). Learning outcomes and students’ perceptions of online writing: Simultaneous implementation of a forum, blog, and wiki in an EFL blended learning setting. System, 38, 185–199. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2010.03.006
Morgan, D. L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 362-376. DOI: 10.1177/104973239800800307
* Neumann, H. (2014). Teacher assessment of grammatical ability in second language academic writing: A case study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24, 83–107. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2014.04.002
* Nicolás-Conesa, F., Roca de Larios, J., Coyle, Y. (2014). Development of EFL students’ mental models of writing and their effects on performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24, 1–19. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2014.02.004
Ortega, L. (2015). Research synthesis. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical resource (pp. 225–244). Bloomsbury Publishing.
Ortmeier-Hooper, C., & Enright, K. A. (2011). Mapping new territory: Toward an understanding of adolescent L2 writers and writing in US contexts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(3), 167–181.
Palinkas, L. A., Aarons, G. A., Horwitz, S., Chamberlain, P., Hurlburt, M., & Landsverk, J. (2011). Mixed method designs in implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health 38, 44–53. DOI: 10.1007/s10488-010-0314-z
* Petrić, B., & Harwood, N. (2013). Task requirements, task representation, and self-reported citation functions: An exploratory study of a successful L2 student’s writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 110–124. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2013.01.002
* Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2012). A close investigation into source use in integrated second language writing tasks. Assessing Writing, 17, 18–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.asw.2011.09.002
Riazi, A. M., Shi, L., & Haggerty, J. (2018). Analysis of the empirical research in the journal of second language writing at its 25th year (1992–2016). Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 41–54. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2018.07.002
* Salter-Dvorak, H. (2016). Learning to argue in EAP: Evaluating a curriculum innovation from the inside. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 19–31. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.12.005
Silva, T. (2016). An overview of the development of the infrastructure of second language writing studies. In R. M. Manchόn & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 19–43). Boston, MA: De Gruyter.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In C. Teddlie & A. Tashakkori (Eds.), Hand book of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 3–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
* Wette, R. (2017). Source text use by undergraduate post-novice L2 writers in disciplinary assignments: Progress and ongoing challenges. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 46–58. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.015
* Ziegler, N. A. (2014). Fostering self-regulated learning through the European language portfolio: An embedded mixed methods study. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 921–936. DOI: 10.1111/modl.12147
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
ISSN 1305-578X (Online)
Copyright © 2005-2022 by Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies