Research Methods in Second Language Acquisition

Barış Kabak

WS 2008-2009

University of Konstanz

 

Article Critique

 

Who:   All students who need a Schein or credits for this course.

Grade distribution:   30%

Number of Pages:    8-10 (see “format” below for more information)

Due:                           08.01.2009, in class

 

Instructions

 

Please write a critical review of the following article:

 

Mackey, Alison. 2006. Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics 27(3), 405-430.

Format: 8 pages (excluding the references and any tables or figures you might want to use), typed, 1.5-spaced, 12 point font (Times New Roman).

Below is a list of some points that you may want to consider in your review paper.

 

(1) You need to have at least three sections in your review:

  • I. Introduction and summary: Summarize the article’s content, in a couple of pages, and explain the author’s goal in writing it, what it contributes to the field, how it fits in with other articles previously published, etc. Feel free to comment on any other aspects of the article that you consider important.
  • II. Critique: Analyze the success of the article as promised by its title, relevance, accuracy, thoroughness, etc. You should consider the following questions before writing this section (See also the questions provided in (3) below).

 

(i)                 Does the article achieve its main goals?

 

(ii)               Do you consider the arguments in the paper reasonable and the evidence provided sufficient and valid?

 

·        III. Suggestions for improvement:

 

(iii)             Briefly summarize the main strengths and weaknesses of the article. How (if at all) might it be improved? (See especially (vi) below).

 

 

(2) Overall, your review may be positive or negative, depending on your assessment of it. Your review should not be limited to a synopsis of the article. It should provide enough information about the content of the article so that a reader unfamiliar with the details of the original article should be able to understand your review. You may assume that that target audience of your review consists of readers who are knowledgeable in the field of second language acquisition, foreign language education, and psycholinguistics, but who may or may not have direct knowledge of the article.

 

You are encouraged to use any resources that might help you in writing your review (I especially recommend reading Chapter 4 of our textbook), other articles we have read or found in the library, or reliable sources on the world wide web, etc.  In that case, please do not forget to properly cite the source you have used. For referencing, use the style guide of the journal Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Please refer to “Guidelines for references: APA Manual (pp. 215-281)” by visiting the following webpage:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ssla/contributors.html

 

You are strongly advised to review and edit what you have written before submitting the paper (if someone (e.g., a native speaker) can proof-read your paper,  that would be ideal).

 

(3) The following questions are provided to guide your reading of the article. Do not submit a paper that simply answers these questions. Rather, use these questions to better structure your critique and organize your ideas and comments.

(i)           What was the aim of the treatment and how comparable the activities done in the experimental group with those in the control group? Does the author provide enough information on the nature and quality of the input provided in both groups? Please note any other aspect of the treatment that you think is positive or problematic.

 

(ii)          How is the effect of the treatment (i.e., development) measured? Were the tests effective?

 

(iii)      How can we reliably distinguish noticing from instructive feedback? Does the study ensure sufficient opportunities for noticing in the control group? How is noticing coded? State any issues with respect to reliability and validity of the way the noticing data were collected and coded.

 

(iv)       Which linguistic forms were the foci of the study? Comment on any negative or positive aspect of the use of these forms in the context of the functional and structural differences between these forms as well as the proficiency level and the L1 background of the subject group.

 

(v)         What possible problems can you identify in the methodology of the study? What can you say about the correlation between noticing and development? What can you make of those cases where subjects develop without noticing (as in the control group)?

 

(vi)        How else can you explain some of the findings? What can you do in order to have an improved experimental design that would address the similar kinds of research questions? (This part should be minimum 1 page).

Good luck!