3.2.2.1 Why not experiment?
In the field of language teaching and learning research, seeking an appropriate research method for testing the research question might lead to consideration of pure or quasi-experimental projects. This is partially because the pure experimental approach may be ‘specially designed to enable the researcher to extrapolate the outcomes of the research from the sample to the broader population’ (Nunan, 1992: 49). Experimental projects are originated from quantitative research, which is aimed at ‘assessing the strength of relationships between variables’ and based on ‘control and manipulate’ (Nunan, 2004: 516). In the initial stage of designing this research project, I considered taking the experimental research method in my study. According to Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007), an experiment involves making a change in the value of one variable (treatment or intervention) – called the independent variable – and observing the effect of that change on another variable – called the dependent variable. Since the purpose of my research project is to develop students’ intercultural competence with the intervention of a comparatively new language teaching approach, it could be regarded as matching the characteristics of an experimental research project. In other words, by applying an experiment in the language class, I can realize the straightforward results of the cause-and-effect relationship between the ILT approach (the independent variable) and the learners’ intercultural competence (the dependent variable).
However, to apply the experiment in the language teaching and learning context is not as simple as I have just suggested. The use of the experimental method for research on language teaching and learning involves a long and complex causal chain involving many conditions. Experiments are designed to provide answers to precise question under strict circumstances and they generally emphasize the outcome but not the process. Bearing in mind that my research revolves around learners’ intercultural development accompanied with their language learning, this development is definitely an important process in their understanding. For the
above reasons I considered experimental research less suitable for my study since attempting to analyse the specific learning process of the language learner would lead to a simplification of the reality of teaching and learning processes, especially when trying to incorporate and measure the development of cultural aspects and competences.
Moreover, language classrooms are by their nature dynamic, complex and a miniature of society (Burns, 1999; Holliday, 2002). The researcher cannot isolate the language classroom, as in a laboratory approach, with all the interactions between teachers and learners closely defined prior to the experiment. Similarly, I considered it very difficult to be able to investigate all the complex social interactions in a language-teaching environment using an experimental research method because of the ever-changing and complex characteristics found there. If the experimental research method is not appropriate, which one can be more effectively applied to this study? Action research is the approach I pursued and the justifications for this choice are given below.
3.2.2.2 Why action research?
Action research was initiated by one of the most influential social psychologists Kurt Lewin, who coined the term ‘action research’ in 1948 and explained it as a process of a self-reflective spiral of cycles of planning, acting, observing and reflecting (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988). Action research is characterized by spiralling cycles of problem identification, systematic data collection, reflection, analysis, data-driven action taken, and finally problem redefinition (ibid.).
McNiff and Whitehead (2002) further illustrated the education philosophy that action research involves learning in and through action and reflection; the process of action research involves a practitioner presenting a specific philosophy or purpose in their teaching and then engaging a cyclical course of events to show that this can be put into operation with the desired results. In terms of my programme, the initial stage of action research will be applied and analysed with
additional cycles being implemented after the thesis. I argue that this approach will lead to a sustainable model of research and evaluation that will be effective in underpinning and helping to secure the development of learners’ intercultural communicative competence.
Moreover, in the action research project, the linking of ‘action’ and ‘research’ highlights the essential features of this method: trying out ideas in practice as a means of increasing knowledge about or improving curriculum, teaching, and learning (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988). Consistent with the statement above, action research is suitable for my study as I am attempting to develop an ‘intercultural language teaching approach’ in my teaching practice as a means of increasing students’ intercultural knowledge and improving their intercultural competence.
For Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007), action research is the small-scale intervention in the functioning of the real world and a close examination of the effects of such intervention. This principle is best applied to my study for it is initiated in the Chinese EFL educational context, and concerned with how the ILT pedagogy embodied in educational philosophy can be implemented in a real world classroom – my own language teaching class. Just as McDonough and McDonough (1997) argued, ‘teacher-initiated research is in essence action research’ and, action research provides insights for improvement in the teaching practice from a teacher’s perspective, and can form the basis for further research including experimental research or large scale survey later.