Research Critique learning of the second language Education Paper
Research Critique
Instructions
You will write a critique, probably of the same research article that you chose for the critical summary. Start with a brief account of the article so that your reader can easily make a linkage with your summary. You will go on to evaluate the research and your critique will address the following questions:
- How did the findings/results relate to the questions that were asked?
- Was the design (e.g., instrument, procedure, etc.) appropriate for answering the questions or testing the hypotheses of the study?
- To what extent can the conclusions drawn from the study be generalized to other context, with other participants?
- Has the study contributed to our understanding of related theories in the field, and if so, how?
- In view of the criticisms you have made, how would you modify the research?
- What suggestions (if any) would you give for an extension study, in which you improve on aspects you perceive to be flawed, or you indicate what could now be meaningfully done to expand what is covered in the article?
- Word limit 2,500 to 3,000 words including all references.
Some suggestions:
A critique, literally speaking, means “a critical assessment,” and it can be positive, negative, and/or a mix of both. On the one hand, you should not be held back by the belief that a text must be good if it has been published. To reduce your hesitancy, delve into the context and background of the study first so you develop a solid understanding of the related theories, frameworks, and research conventions. Once you do, you will steadily build up your confidence in probing into the details and raising critical questions. On the other hand, it is also important to recognize that these articles would not have been published if they were worthless. While certain criticisms are to be expected, thinking only negatively is probably ill-advised. Instead, it would be more constructive to treat your critique as an expression of what you know and what you think about published work in relation to some reasonable criteria. Keep these above-listed guiding questions in mind such that when you look into the different components of the study, you will have a clear focus. Your opinions, both positive and negative, will be formed based on a careful examination of these different dimensions, and with a close reference to your knowledge and perceptions of the field, be it theoretically oriented or empirically driven.
1 MILE5001 Fall 2020 Second Language Acquisition: Marking Rubric for Research Critique A+ Content The critique demonstrates an excellent grasp of the core aspects of the research, and a thorough understanding of the context, purpose, and positioning of the study in its own and in related fields. It does perfect justice to the contributions of the study and by a process of critical analysis, identifies successfully both strengths and weaknesses. All questions are addressed with meticulous evaluation, rigorous synthesization, and solid arguments, and these are substantially supported by theoretical and empirical evidence. The suggestions made are constructive in the sense that they are both academically/pedagogically meaningful and empirically practical. The critique also indicates a deepened understanding of the related SLA areas. Communication The critique is writing of the highest quality, with a clear structure, elegant style and logical flow. Both positive and negative evaluations are presented with careful choice of wording, and in an appropriate manner. The major arguments are clearly articulated, effectively organized and easy to follow. The use of language is excellent, demonstrating flawless grammar, an impressively wide range of academic vocabulary and sophisticated sentence structures. It also embraces a strong sense of readership. A Content The critique demonstrates a very good control of the core aspects of the research, and a sound understanding of the context, purpose, and positioning of the study in its own and in related fields. Overall it does justice to the contributions of the study and by a process of critical analysis, identifies certain notable strengths and weaknesses. All questions are addressed with close evaluation, synthesization, and convincing arguments, and these are adequately supported by theoretical and empirical evidence. The suggestions made are highly relevant in the sense that they are academically/pedagogically meaningful or empirically practical. The critique also indicates an enhanced understanding of the related SLA areas. Communication The critique is a very good piece of writing with a clear structure, appropriate style and logical flow. Both positive and negative evaluations are mostly presented with careful choice of words and in an appropriate manner. The major arguments are clearly articulated and effectively organized. The use of language is very good, demonstrating high accuracy in grammar, a wide range of academic vocabulary and complex sentence structures. Occasionally, language errors can be found, but they are usually minor. 2 A- Content The critique demonstrates a fairly good control of the core aspects of the research, and quite good understanding of the context, purpose, and positioning of the study in its own and in related fields. It identifies, by critical analysis, certain strengths and weaknesses, though some acts of identification are relatively peripheral. It addresses most of the questions with close evaluation and synthesization, and establishes effective arguments that are mostly supported by theoretical and empirical evidence. Some questions could have been explored in greater depth, though. The suggestions made are academically/pedagogically or empirically relevant, though not all of them appear to be particularly meaningful or feasible. Communication The critique is overall a successful piece of writing. Both positive and negative evaluations are in place, and presented with somewhat careful choice of words and in a largely good manner. The major arguments are generally clearly articulated and effectively organized. Language use is good, demonstrating consistent accuracy in grammar, a range of academic vocabulary and varied sentence structures. Somewhat regularly, language errors can be found, but they do not affect the comprehensibility of the writing. B+ Content The critique demonstrates a satisfactory control of the core aspects of the research, and some understanding of the context, purpose, and positioning of the study in its field. It identifies, by critical analysis, certain strengths and weaknesses, but some turn out to be either peripheral or irrelevant. It addresses the questions with a degree of evaluation and synthesization, and the arguments are generally relevant, but they could have been supported with stronger theoretical or empirical evidence, and discussed in greater depth. Some suggestions are made, but further details are needed to explain the academic/pedagogical or empirical relevance. Communication The critique is a good piece of writing overall. The choice of evaluative language is generally good. The major arguments are mostly presented with clarity and coherence. Language use is also good, demonstrating consistent accuracy in grammar, a range of academic vocabulary and varied sentence structures. Somewhat regularly, language errors can be found, but they do not affect the comprehensibility of the writing. 3 B Content The critique does not demonstrate much of the control or understanding of the research article. Some useful analyses are in evidence, with certain critical assessments, but either most of them are rather peripheral, providing only limited insights into the core aspects of the study or evaluation tends to be either predominantly positive or negative. There is a lack of supporting details. Not all guiding questions are properly addressed. Communication The critique is an inadequate piece of writing at MA level. Language use is satisfactory, demonstrating some accuracy in grammar, but there is a constrained range of academic vocabulary and often less varied sentence structures. Language errors are frequent, and the ideas are not always coherent such that readers may at times have difficulty following the flow of the text. B- Content The critique shows minimal control or understanding of the research article. It fails to address the questions with any critical analysis, or gives one-sided evaluation, or simply summarizes what is readily available in the article. Overall it demonstrates an unsuccessful attempt in completing the task. Communication The critique is a poor piece of writing. It lacks critical analysis or proper evaluations. Language use is unsatisfactory, containing limited accuracy in grammar, a restricted range of academic vocabulary, and ill-formed sentences. The ideas are poorly organized, incoherent, and difficult to follow. C+ Re-submission of a plagiarized assignment after the deadline. The entire assignment is below average in all the aspects assessed. F No submission, or plagiarism found after re-submission of the assignment.
Introduction
The study investigates the student’s perception as regards learning of the second language (L2). Liu & Jackson (2011) explore the field of English as a foreign language (EFL) classroom learning within a formal setup in the learning institution. In this article, Liu and Jackson present their findings on two factors, which are reticence and anxiety, and the impact of learning a second language (L2). Results from previous literature reveal why so many learners remain anxious, especially in a language class. This is reflected by several authors, as shown in the introductory section (Liu & Jackson, 2011). The type of survey applicable alongside a more focused case study from other authors provides a persuasive argument that reticence and anxiety within formal EFL classrooms are crucial factors that determine the results of learning a second language. In this study, the focus is on the determination of different aspects of reticence and anxiety and the impact on learning of second language (L2). Further, the analysis of causes and consequences is also made possible alongside the differences as per gender, proficiency levels, and coping strategies. This reflects the works of Facey (2011), who believes that critical skills provide a good foundation for strategic knowledge.
The study does not outline the statement of the problem within the introductory paragraphs that emphasizes the existing gap in the topic of study (Vasquez et al., 2019). There is no addressing of the specific problem until the research questions are stated later in the study. The background information that addresses the problem as presented is not velar enough. However, the problem seems researchable and can be investigated by use of the data instruments provided and analysis. Further, the variables of interest, foreign language anxiety, and reticence, are well outlined within the literature review.
Research Questions
The study explores the various testable aspects that relate to the study topic by use of four questions. The outlining of the questions under a separate topic by the use of clear numbering makes it easier for the reader to follow through with the idea of the study context. In this study, the primary goal of the research questions explores the general profile of reticence and anxiety amongst Chinese learners as they engage in L2 learning. This entails the level of impact reticence and anxiety has on the students’ learning of oral English, the various factors that trigger reticent and anxiousness amongst students in oral English lessons, and the strategies employed to ensure coping with reticence (Joseph & Lim, 2018).
The questions used in this study helps in identifying the existing gap from the previous literature, for instance, the statement “Reticence and anxiety have been found to be closely related to each other, and few researchers have systematically examined both constructs in the same situation” (Liu & Jackson, 2011). This provides a clue on the direction of the study.
Review of Literature
The review of literature in this study provides the defining variables while explaining how the variables relate to previous studies. In this case, such presentation and structuring of the literature review by use of sub-topics provide clarity on the theoretical as well as empirical perspectives (Ecevit & Şimşek, 2017). Such flow of presentation helps to gather a better understanding of the elaborate sources that informed the objectives of this study (Keçeli & Turanlı, 2013). As a matter of fact, information from previous research was elaborately cited to reveal the correlation between each variable in the study alongside understanding related theories in the field. For one to understand the influence of anxiety and reticence in L2 learning, one needs to consider theories and models from the language field and come up with a unified Model having a social-technical approach (Al-Qeisi, 2009).
However, the findings lack a detailed explanation of the mixture of the results as per the literature reviewed. It is not just enough to mention the gap, but also explain how this research would be different and expect how they would fill the existing gap. In this case, the findings, as shown through the literature, are mixed, therefore, the questions as framed in this article provides some direction on how to solve the contentious issues (Vogelmann, 2017). Importantly, counter-arguments always help when it comes to comprehending the overall circumstances that relate to the learning of the second language (L2). To modify this research, I would consider mentioning and inclusion of contradicting research studies on the same topic. This is since providing such information helps one understand the reason behind other authors’ choices and take a closer look at specific variables. In other words, the presence of contradictory research serves as a good rationale for the performance of such a study (Keçeli & Turanlı, 2013).
The literature review concludes with a brief summary concerning the literature alongside the various implications for the identified problem, which is good. However, there is slightly lack of critical analysis where the results of various studies are compared and contrasted (Vogelmann, 2017). The review is no more than just a series of annotations.
Methodology
This study’s findings answered the research questions as provided and further complemented the findings from other studies, specifically focusing on the influence of anxiety and reticence on L2 learning (Liu & Jackson, 2011). The application of classroom observations, reflective journals, and interviews helps provide different perspectives that effectively answer the research questions. In this case, the methods revealed that quite a number of students remained silent within the classroom owing to different reasons. However, the methodology should have provided justification for the choice of sample size for this study. The population could have been calculated by use of one of the various sample size determination formulas. Selection of appropriate study participants and ascertaining the sample size is always very important. This could have ensured accurate reporting of the research (Calmorin & Calmorin, 2007).
Concerning the real classroom scenarios, the concept of a qualitative approach to the research is well used to reveal theoretically level of student’s real participation in classrooms (Guest et al., 2020). The aspect of using video-taping and observation is well in order; however, there is the aspect of ignoring the change in student participation based on duration. Despite the significant results being noted in this study, there were limitations associated with these findings. For instance, the study utilized a small number of participants, “a total of 93 participants (78 males and 15 females) were used having an average age of 18.5 years” (Liu & Jackson, 2011). This made it hard the aspect of generalizing the findings to other contexts. The participants were also from one institution that limits the generalizability of the findings to an elaborate student population. However, the use of mixed-methodology allows for the provision of a comprehensive picture of issues that concerns learning situations. The researcher is guided to take as big a sample as possible for the study, that is, if resources for data collection permit. Such a process ensures that other researchers using a similar sample of the same size would develop similar or highly similar findings (Ravi & Larochelle, 2016).
The rationale for using such a design in this study is consistent with the pragmatic realist stance. In the process of utilizing these methods in answering the research questions of this study, the aim was to incorporate the strengths and, at the same time, minimize various limitations as pertains to each of the processes. Notably, the research yielded patterns that were deemed consistent with students’ reticence and anxiety in the area of study, however, further research is recommended for the purposes of establishing any pattern that is beyond the scope of this study (Guest et al., 2020).
The use of thematic and content analysis helped in revealing the nature of the response from informants. In this case, the respondents were encouraged to respond with self-encouragement, which allows for adequate preparation, and at the same time, the oral practice produces more oral output as well as promoting classroom interaction (Guest et al., 2020). However, the failure to provide a clear description of the process followed in carrying out thematic analysis denies other researchers the opportunity to replicate the study findings (Nowell et al., 2017).
Such research that uses complex constructs seems to sum up the research well. The conclusion is excellently laid out as a theory, whereby the author admits lack of no single best design that could provide ...