Research

For language learners, the research of a language or the context and content is just as important as the methods for language teaching. Whether it is reviewing, critiquing, analyzing, or evaluating, the data collected from journals, articles, and peer-reviewed pieces of work assists educators in redeveloping techniques that can help improve the quality of learning and teaching. Before the LTS program, I lacked experience when it came to having to actively explore documents and papers and present an article critique or draft a research proposal or literature review. This area of proficiency reflects what I have been able to accomplish during my time in the program: from drafting a proposal on the effects of different framework motivation techniques in the classroom to critiquing articles on interlanguage pragmatics transitioning to second language acquisition (SLA) and creating data collecting instruments and applying those methods for a collaborative interview regarding an internship program. 

         The artifacts I have selected as part of this reflection portfolio range from linguistic courses to language teaching focusing on research and analysis are LING 544 and LING 530, and LT 611. This reflection on each of these artifacts reflects the methods and ways that data was used to collect information for researching language learning, teaching, or the efficiency of a method or program.

LING 544 was Second Language Acquisition (SLA), which focused on the research and methods used by language teachers and learners when applying to the context of acquiring a second or additional language based on learner environment and behavior. The artifact from LING 544 was a critique of a published article by Likun Cai and Yingli Wang (2013) titled Interlanguage Pragmatics in SLA which examined the errors found within L2 learners being unaware of their pragmatic knowledge of their target language. The critique explores how interlanguage pragmatics in SLA from L1 to L2 is expanded and illustrated within the language learning process. The results from the article critique concluded with the results on how longitudinal studies will aid researchers in finding evidence of the importance of interlanguage pragmatics in SLA through observations and research (Cai & Wang, 2013). Context plays an important part in intercultural communication, and errors could create discourse between the speaker and listener. For example, if a Japanese language learner were to speak to someone of a higher social status in basic Japanese, it would be considered rude due to the intercultural pragmatics that are honorifics to be used when speaking, which would cause issues within the conversation. The question that I had asked in the article where there was not enough sufficient evidence in the research was what role does gender play in SLA and which gender benefits more. One of the reasons I selected this artifact as part of my reflection was due to the possible concept of gender playing a role in how a person can acquire a second language (Ortega, 2014). Since the focus is not on sex but gender, the research behind looking at the rate of acquisition of a second or additional language could be observed and analyzed through multiple studies of various languages with participants ranging from those who identify themselves as either cisgender or transgender. There could also be research extending errors with pragmatics for learners who, like myself, are neurodivergent. I have experience with pragmatic errors due to thinking too literally when communicating in English or Japanese and having the translation lost to me because I am not aware of the target language environment. Having taken this course and worked on this article critique, with my own experience, I would like to have the chance to review other pieces of literature and professional journals that explore findings between language learning and communication with genetics and neurodiversity.

LING 530 was Research Methods for Applied Linguistics, where we investigated quantitative and qualitative data in the field of languages and the methods behind gathering data. The artifact from LING 530 was a research proposal in which I proposed questions regarding the statement on how particular motivation techniques used by teachers in the classroom affect student motivation: How will teachers recognize and approach learner-specific variables that are not as easily recognizable in the classroom, and does the frequency of the number of times motivation techniques create a drawback in how effective they can become? The research proposal explores the relationship between the motivation of students in and out of the classroom, and how that affects their accomplishments and achievements regarding their L2. The coursework of this class was one that I struggled with throughout the term, having difficulties in analyzing and computing quantitative data and deciphering it. This proposal, on the other hand, I enjoyed working on more since it dwells on the motivational techniques and methods that are used to motivate L2 English learners and what the implications are because of it. My experience with this proposal and why I selected this artifact as part of my portfolio was because it expanded my awareness towards researching a specific context or content with language learning and research, as well as had me set up questions for my research and attempt to expand it further. I have a greater appreciation for learners in the field of research and linguistics, as LT 530 was the most challenging course I have ever taken. I had to understand how to effectively use coding software like R Studio, and analyze graphs and coding, having no experience before taking this course. It was extremely stressful, requiring assistance from some of my fellow cohorts on multiple occasions; however, I felt like I have a deeper appreciation and understanding of qualitative data, and I would use the research methods for that data to research areas of motivation and break down the successes and failures for each area.

         LT 611 was a Master’s Project course where we evaluated an internship program based on various sets of data collected, created a literature review based on a teaching context of our choice, and are working on this LTS MA Capstone Project Portfolio. My final artifact reviews the work that I had completed along with my other LTS cohorts in LT 611, to evaluate the Oregon International Internship Program (OIIP). My fellow LTS classmates Kaleb Stubbs, Ramona “Aissa” Canteras, and I interviewed the program director, Li-Hsien Yang, who oversees the student's arrival, assisting with their internship questions and schools, and who contacts the Eugene secondary schools for the Japanese students to intern at. The interview was conducted through the interview guide approach with the source questions prioritizing the history of the internship program and questions related to the schools and the interns during and after their internship (Davis &McKay, 2018). Before the interview, we had created the instruments we would use to interview her to ask about specificities within the program: what was the history of the program and who are/were the students that would be interning, the information regarding the schools they would work at and the various experiences with their internships, and what are the expectations of Li-Hsien, the interns, the Eugene schools, and Tamagawa University (the interns home university in Tokyo), after the program had finished. For each section that we worked on, we researched what was already explained within the OIIP handbook and what Li-Hsien had told us during a short conference call during the spring, drafting and revising questions and statements we would ask that would be able to be answered within at least an hour. The method of interviewing was an interview-guided approach (Davis & McKay, 2018), where we had a predetermined set of questions to ask Li-Hsien but was able to improvise certain questions or expand answers for more details and information regarding the program or the students. The interview took over an hour, alternating between different sets of questions while taking notes and recording the interview with her permission. The significance of this needs analysis and the research collecting was to create a skill set for analyzing a program. The intent was to evaluate the overall design, comments, questions, and desires of the stakeholders of the program, while simultaneously creating a literature review that had us expand on the context of learning we were interested in. From there, the next step would be to evaluate a course, curriculum, or teaching method for language learning. The process of creating the recording instruments and questions and engaging in the interview with Li-Hsien was something that I enjoyed from this course. When it comes to evaluation, it makes more sense to me to be able to ask questions and comments regarding the topic of evaluation from an expert in that context. The time and materials it took to conduct the interview also clarified my understanding of analyzing reported data and breaking it down into sections, such as positive responses from former interns of the program to questions and concerns regarding how to cooperate with their students. Aissa and I also had the opportunity to interview one of the secondary school teachers. While the interview was not as extensive as our first interview, it was still an enjoyable experience for learning about their experience with the interns of the program.