The Conceptualisation of a Research Study in Language Education

In a recent paper about the role of the theoretical framework in educational research (Troudi, 2010) I addressed the nature of this framework and how it is used to state the researchers’ view of the theories that inform his/ her understanding of the constructs involved in the study. Also known as conceptual framework (Holiday, 2002), it should not be confused with the researcher’s methodology or the overall paradigmatic nature of the study. In this paper I will address these research concepts and provide a research strategy for novice researchers to distinguish between these abstract terms in educational research. The paper will also provide examples from my own work to illustrate the first stages in the conceptualisation of a study. The nature and role of the conceptual framework A common area of difficulty for novice researchers such as doctoral students is developing and using a theoretical framework when conducting qualitative research. Leshman and Trafford (2007) who reviewed a large number of doctoral theses, using qualitative and quantitative research, surveyed doctoral candidates and conducted workshops on the nature of conceptual frameworks, conclude that a large number of researchers experienced difficulties with conceptual frameworks. In one of the very few books that directly address the issue of theoretical framework and the role of theory in qualitative research, Anfara and Mertz (2006) argue that there is still ambiguity and disagreement about the role theory plays in qualitative research. They suggest that the literature on theory in qualitative research offers the reader three positions: first, the view that theory is not related to qualitative research; second that theory is part of the overall methodology chosen by the researcher including the epistemological and ontological positions that inform that methodology (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003); and third, the view that theory is “broader and more pervasive in its role than methodology” (Anfara & Mertz, 2006, p. xix). This view is supported by a number of researchers such as Merriam (1998), and Schram (2003). One of the difficulties identified by Leshem and Traford is that although candidates were able to clarify research questions and providing relevant literature review they struggled with “visualising concepts within a framework” (p.95). Overall, the literature does not provide a consensus on the nature of what conceptual framework is, its function or where it needs to be located in a study report or a doctoral thesis. One established definition is offered by Miles and Huberman (1984) who describe it as “the current version of the researcher’s map of the territory being investigated” (p. 33). A more comprehensive definition is Maxwell’s whereby he presents a conceptual framework as a system made up of concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs and theories that inform one’s research. His definition suggests that “a concept map, like the theory it represents, is a picture of the territory you want to study, not of the study itself. It is a visual display of your current working theorya picture of what you think is going on with the phenomenon you’re studying” (Maxwell, 1996, p 37). For example, in the areas of language education and teaching English to speakers of other languages, (TESOL) familiarity with established language learning theories such as community of practice, Vygotskian socio cultural theory or communicative competence can be adopted, modified and applied as lenses to study certain phenomena. A theoretical/ conceptual framework based on any of these language theories can guide the researcher’s investigation of how for instance children learn foreign languages in formal settings or develop attitudes towards language learning and use. Such a theoretical framework is to be distinguished from what Guba and Lincoln (1994) call paradigm. A paradigm is a wider world view or research approach that informs the researcher’s choices of methodology based on one’s understanding of the nature of knowledge, epistemology, and the nature of social reality known as ontology. In a study on the role of parents’ language input in fostering children’s communicative competence, a researcher can be guided by a constructivist/ interepretivist research paradigm to decide on issues of methodology and study design while using a theoretical/conceptual framework based on Hyme’s notion of communicative competence. The selection of a particular theoretical framework can be the result of consultation of relevant theoretical perspectives found in relevant literature. This is often the case in unfolding inductive research. However, a theoretical framework can emerge from the collected data where it serves to “provide theoretical cohesion to the evidence and conclusions from theory-building research” (Leshem and Trafford, 2007, p. 100). Trafford and Leshem (2002) suggest that the researcher needs to explain and justify his/ her conceptual framework. This entails an elaboration on what has led the researcher to the selection of the framework, the theoretical components of the model, decisions on what elements to include, and how to use the framework to make sense of the data. In the following section of the paper I suggest a number of areas that a researcher needs to establish before embarking on data collection. The final written report will of course be done after data has been collected and analysed but it is helpful to have identified the elements of the theoretical conceptualisation of the study before the field work. These areas are: establishing the research area, identification of a gap in the literature, stating the problem, purpose of the study and research questions, theoretical framework, and the research approach (methodology). The examples are extracted from my doctoral thesis (Troudi, 1994). Establishing the research area Example: The area of this research project is classroom second language development, which has now been established as part of second language acquisition (SLA) research. Many SLA models and theories have ignored the significance of data extracted directly from classroom activities (Ellis, 1985, Van Lier, 1988). Ellis (1990) argues that until recently the only data used to build SLA models were taken from morpheme studies, error and contrastive analyses, and psycholinguistic research into learning styles and cognitive processes (Ellis, 1985). The study of classroom interaction is now established and recognized as a necessary step towards better understanding of second language development (Ellis, 1985; Allwright, 1988; Edwards and Westgate, 1987; Chaudron, 1988). Van Lier (1988) writes that “classroom ethnography takes the educational environment as the crucial data resource and thus strongly emphasizes the social context in which language development takes place” (p.24). Identification of gap in the literature This is one way of indentifying a gap in the field and establishing a rationale for the study: Example: In the fields of teaching English as a foreign language (hereafter TEFL) and teaching English as a second language (hereafter TESL) the emphasis has been mainly on product, i.e., the form or quality of linguistic performance rather than on the process of learning language skills. Product is the language output seen as the completed act of communication, whereas process is the underlying ability and skills used in producing this output. An instructional context is not a fixed or planned entity. Contexts are realized through interaction that takes place between participants (Green and Wallat, 1981). Erickson and Schultz (1981) define context as an environment constituted during social interaction. This context can change from moment to moment depending on what participants are doing and where and when they are doing it. There is therefore a need to study the instructional events and interactions learners participate in. Language skills are not only linguistic forms. They include the interactive process learners take part in various classroom situations. A considerable amount of research has been conducted in the areas of writing and reading in English as a second language (hereafter ESL) both at the theoretical and the practical levels (Carrell, 1989). Many studies have evaluated teaching techniques and methods mainly through learners’ performance using a variety of testing and observation instruments. These studies have an input-output design with a focus only on what learners knew before compared with what they knew after they had received some language content /materials through a given approach. Generally, preand post-tests were administered to measure learners’ performance (Aqeel, 1989). Those studies, however, have not taken into consideration the specific context of the classroom or the interactional process that takes place among students and between the teacher and students while lessons are being conducted. This study focused on the structure of interaction and the contexts created through conversational instruction to show the nature of speaking opportunities in an ESL speaking class. Statement of the Problem This section provides an example of a statement of a research problem and a rationale for the study based on literature: Example: Studies of classroom talk have not been able to identify the communicative potential of the ESL speaking class, the type or genre of discourse generally in use in such classrooms, or the role of the textbook in generating speaking opportunities. The purpose of this research project was therefore to examine an ESL speaking class from a particular social interaction perspective so that the social and academic processes in which the learners participate to reach the communicative goals of the lessons, and the instructional processes that create speaking opportunities, were taken into account. As Canale and Swain have argued: There is a need for a description of the manner in which and