Lost in state space?: Methodological considerations in Complex Dynamic Theory approaches to second language development research

Since we can only make the observations our method allows us, we will have to adjust our method of investigation to the phenomena and questions we are interested in within the context and timescale of our focus. If we want to test hypotheses about the grand sweep effects of factors affecting language use at one moment in time, traditional group studies using statistics based on the Gaussian distribution are the most appropriate method. But if we are interested in investigating the changing relations in complex adaptive or dynamical systems, we should use nonlinear analyses of longitudinal data in which the denseness of the observations is adjusted to the expected rate of development. The resulting time series can then be analyzed using techniques that allow nonlinearity of the relations and that value variability as containing meaningful information. However, while there is general consensus about the requirements for traditional research in terms of the choice of parametric or nonparametric statistics, desirable power, effect sizes, and other conventions, the requirements and conventions for complexity research are not set. With the increasing popularity of complex dynamic approaches to second language development, and with more and more researchers applying complexity methodology, there is an urgent need for quality norms for this type of research. In this contribution I will make a modest proposal to some quality criteria in complexity research.

[1]  John Todman,et al.  Single-case and Small-n Experimental Designs : A Practical Guide To Randomization Tests , 2001 .

[2]  Annette Karmiloff-Smith,et al.  Microdevelopment: Macro- and microdevelopmental research: Assumptions, research strategies, constraints, and utilities , 2002 .

[3]  Tracey M. Derwing,et al.  The Development of L2 Oral Language Skills in Two L1 Groups: A 7‐Year Study , 2013 .

[4]  S Pinker,et al.  Rules of language. , 1991, Science.

[5]  D. Larsen-Freeman Chaos/Complexity Science and Second Language Acquisition , 1997 .

[6]  Akira Murakami,et al.  Modeling Systematicity and Individuality in Nonlinear Second Language Development: The Case of English Grammatical Morphemes , 2016 .

[7]  Marjolijn H. Verspoor,et al.  Finding the key to successful L2 learning in groups and individuals , 2017 .

[8]  Wander Lowie,et al.  A Dynamic Approach to Second Language Development. Methods and Techniques. , 2011 .

[9]  Marjolijn Verspoor,et al.  Variability in Second Language Development From a Dynamic Systems Perspective , 2008 .

[10]  Kevin Crowley,et al.  The microgenetic method. A direct means for studying cognitive development. , 1991, The American psychologist.

[11]  Wander Lowie,et al.  A Dynamic Systems Theory approach to second language acquisition , 2007, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.

[12]  Jacob Cohen The earth is round (p < .05) , 1994 .

[13]  B. Mackey,et al.  Bayesian Approaches to Imputation, Hypothesis Testing, and Parameter Estimation , 2015 .

[14]  Henderien W. Steenbeek,et al.  The emergence of learning-teaching trajectories in education: a complex dynamic systems approach. , 2013, Nonlinear dynamics, psychology, and life sciences.

[15]  J. Hulstijn Discussion: How Different Can Perspectives on L2 Development Be? , 2015 .

[16]  R. Kirk Practical Significance: A Concept Whose Time Has Come , 1996 .

[17]  P. V. Geert,et al.  The Contribution of Complex Dynamic Systems to Development , 2011 .

[18]  J. Ioannidis Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2005, PLoS medicine.

[19]  Marianne Spoelman,et al.  Dynamic Patterns in Development of Accuracy and Complexity: A Longitudinal Case Study in the Acquisition of Finnish , 2010 .

[20]  Wander Lowie,et al.  Pink Noise in Language Production: A Nonlinear Approach to the Multilingual Lexicon , 2014 .

[21]  Ian Cunnings,et al.  The Utility and Application of Mixed-Effects Models in Second Language Research , 2015 .

[22]  Peter C. M. Molenaar,et al.  The New Person-Specific Paradigm in Psychology , 2009 .

[23]  Paul van Geert,et al.  The Dynamic Systems Approach in the Study of L1 and L2 Acquisition: An Introduction , 2008 .

[24]  D. Larsen-Freeman The Emergence of Complexity, Fluency, and Accuracy in the Oral and Written Production of Five Chinese Learners of English , 2006 .

[25]  K. Adolph,et al.  What is the shape of developmental change? , 2008, Psychological review.

[26]  R. Cattell The three basic factor-analytic research designs-their interrelations and derivatives. , 1952, Psychological bulletin.

[27]  Henderien W. Steenbeek,et al.  The Educated Brain: Understanding mind, brain, and education as a complex, dynamic developing system: Measurement, modeling, and research , 2008 .

[28]  J. Norris Statistical Significance Testing in Second Language Research: Basic Problems and Suggestions for Reform , 2015 .

[29]  Luke D Plonsky,et al.  Reporting and Interpreting Quantitative Research Findings: What Gets Reported and Recommendations for the Field. , 2015 .

[30]  Peter C. M. Molenaar,et al.  On the relation between person-oriented and subject-specific approaches , 2015 .