CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER 3 

 METHODOLOGY

3.1  Introduction

            In this study, I used mixed research methods to examine the notions of play, agency and positive emotion within the context of Internet-mediated second language activity.  However, my research is primarily qualitative, with quantified data being used mostly to shed light on any differences or similarities between English or Thai L2 learners and their activity, and to “substantiate patterns observed in and interpretations suggested by the qualitative data” (Nunan & Bailey, 2009,  p. 454)  Therefore, greater weight is given in this study to qualitative data.

            The qualitative portion of the research comprises both data obtained through interviews of Thai and English learners regarding their online L2 activity, and a first-person ethnographic study of my own personal online Thai language activity.  As noted in Chapter Two, a number of theories or frameworks were put in place prior to undertaking either endeavor, in line with advice on Vanderbuit University’s webpage concerning qualitative research: “Before beginning your observation, interview, survey, or other fieldwork, be sure to identify the theories, concepts, and themes that you are investigating.  Formulating a fieldwork hypothesis is akin to a developing a research question. Identify your own ideas and expectations about the situation. Being aware of these will help you as you observe, allowing you to collect data more neutrally, instead of fitting the data to match your expectations.” (Vanderbuilt Univ.)

            Cresswell (2003) describes qualitative research as being emergent and interpretive, using a variety of research instruments, and taking place in the subject’s natural setting. He further states that there is “a cycling back and forth from data collection and analysis to problem reformulation and back.” (p. 183) Thus, while I began my research with a set of frameworks to guide me, feedback from survey results, as well as my personal experiences in conducting a first person ethnography led me to new insights which served to further inform the direction taken in subsequent interviews, as well as to new perspectives from which to examine the multiple instruments of the ethnography – language log, chat transcripts, and online blog. This falls in line with Orlikowski and Hoffman’s (1997) observation regarding technological change, that while research must be planned, any such plan should be regarded not as a blueprint but as a guide.  Similarly, Vanderbuilt University’s website states:  “Sometimes, writing ethnographies requires us to have a research question or hypothesis before doing research. Other times, we might develop a hypothesis out of the research we have done.” (Vanderbuilt Univ.)

            The foremost tool of the ethnography, employed in my learning log, is that of ‘thick description’ (Geertz, 1973; Ponterotto, 2006; Ryle, 1971). “This type of description aims to give readers a sense of the emotions, thoughts and perceptions that research participants experience. It deals not only with the meaning and interpretations of people in a culture but also with their intentions. Thick description builds up a clear picture of the individuals and groups in the context of their culture and the setting in which they live” (Holloway, 1997, p. 154)  In the case of first-person ethnography, the instrument of ‘thick description’ becomes all the more natural and intuitive, as my emotions, thoughts and perceptions as a subject, are immediately accessible.

            This leads to the possibility that interpretation of emotions, thoughts and perceptions in this case becomes purely subjective, resulting in either greater validity, or greater subjectivity, which ostensibly infers an equal loss of objectivity.  Ponterotto (2006, p. 542) contends that “a central component of “thick description” is the interpretation of what is being observed or witnessed.” Likewise, he states, “thick description refers to the researcher’s task of both describing and interpreting observed social action (or behavior) within its particular context …” (p.543)  If a central component is interpretation, as a participant-observer, the process of interpretation is de facto, entirely subjective.  Geertz (1973, cited in Ponterotto, 2006, p.539 ) believed that the data of anthropological writing was “really our own constructions of other people’s constructions of what they and their compatriots are up to.”   If this is the case, then the position of participant-observer potentially garners greater validity, in that it removes one layer of construction in arriving at its interpretations.  And interpretation is the end-point of description in qualitative research.  As Ponterotto (2006, p. 543) states: “Thick description leads to thick interpretation, which in turns leads to thick meaning of the research findings for the researchers and participants themselves, and for the report’s intended readership.”

3.2  Participants and Research Instruments

3.2.1 Part I – Study of Thai and English Language Learners

            The first portion of the research had two participant pools.  The first pool of participants consisted of English language learners, of varying nationalities, for whom English is a foreign language. They ranged in age from mid teens to over fifty, with 50% of participants in the 26 – 35 year age range.  Participants were self-chosen (volunteer) and obtained through convenience sampling.  Contrary to the traditional view of convenience sampling, in which participants chosen are “the nearest individuals” (Nunan & Bailey, 2009, p. 128), convenience in this case occurred through Internet-mediated proximity. The survey was promulgated through my network of friends, former students, and former and current colleagues.  As a result, the majority of participants were located in Southeast Asia, primarily in Indonesia and Thailand, but also included Burmese (Myanmar) and Iranian nationals.  . 

The second pool of participants consisted of Thai language learners, of varying nationalities, for whom Thai is a  second language.  They ranged in age from eighteen to fifty, and were primarily native speakers of English, with the addition of one native speaker of Khmer, one of French, and one of Hmong.  These participants were primarily self-chosen (volunteer) and obtained through similar convenience sampling.  The survey was promulgated through former Thai language classmates, as well as the Thai and Southeast Asian Studies Program  at Payap University and the Thai language program at A.U.A. (American Alumni Association, Chiang Mai).  While most participants were located in Thailand, one was in Cambodia, and one in the US.  The salient characteristic of all participants, in addition to their being non-native speakers of either Thai or English, is that they are Internet-users.  This characteristic was assured through the nature of the research instruments – surveys which were only accessible online. 

Participants were selected for interviews based on a number of factors.  From the first pool of volunteer participants (English language learners), I made selection giving preference to those who indicated the greatest number of years learning English, the greatest number of hours spent in online English activity, and use of the greatest variety of Internet-mediated modalities.  Additionally, those most forthcoming with detailed responses to open-ended questions received preference. 

Research Instruments

               The research instruments for the first portion of the research are two highly similar online surveys (questionnaires), followed, in a number of cases, by interviews.  I initially created the survey for English language learners based on a number of factors.  These include theories and technologies presented in the literature review, and personal experience as an Internet user, as a language learner, and as a language teacher.  The survey for Thai language learners was then modeled on the first survey for English language learners.  Print copies are provided in Appendix A.  As can be seen from the questions in the surveys, their purpose was to determine the various ways in which users (learners) make use of different Internet-mediated activities in English or Thai, respectively, and the degree to which they experience positive affect (“fun”) in relation to those differing activities.  These surveys were trialed for feedback with over ten different people, including professional academics, students and teachers, and were then modified according to feedback.  Adding further to the reliability of the surveys, the Internet based system hosting the surveys prevented any individual from taking any survey more than once.  It also randomly shifted the order of multiple-choice answers in order to counteract potential answer preference based on layout location.  

These surveys were followed by a limited number of online and live interviews.  From among the first pool of volunteer participants, I chose  three individuals to interview regarding their Internet-mediated English language activity.  The interviews were conducted in English.  They were informal and semi-structured, and generally followed the topics of the online survey in roughly the same order, while probing into specifics for more detail.  Interviews were conducted by means of synchronous chat (CMC), through either MSN, Facebook or Skype, and included usage of emoticons in order to allow participants to better convey emotion.

The same set of factors was applied in selecting the second pool of volunteer participants (Thai language learners) to be interviewed, reflecting Thai language activity respectively. The interviews were conducted in English.  As with the first set of interviews, these too were informal and semi-structured, and generally followed the topics of the online survey in roughly the same order, while probing into specifics for more detail.  However, these interviews were conducted by either in person or via Skype, utilized spoken word rather than CMC, and were video recorded.  The purpose for doing so was to provide greater insight into the emotional tone of the participants as they recounted various aspects of their Internet-mediated Thai language activity.   

3.2.2        Part 2 - Ethnography

In the ethnographic portion of the research, I was both the sole participant and sole observer, that is to say, a participant-observer.  As participant, I conducted research (which is to say, engaged in internet-mediated Thai language learning/usage activity) daily through the use of various internet platforms, both mobile device (Samsung galaxy Y) and computer.  I had predicted that the platforms I would most frequently use would consist of sites designed specifically for language learning, such as thai-language.com (http://www.thai-language.com), Google translate (http://translate.google.com), chat, as available through Facebook (http://www.facebook.com), MSN (www.hotmail.com), and camfrog (www.camfrog.com).  These platforms seemed to be the ones most suited my learning level at the time I conceived my research, and I therefore predicted they would be most likely be the sites I would use with the greatest frequency.  However, I also predicted that as my ability increased, I might also include use of Facebook games, blogging (both for reading and writing), and possible MMORPGs (of which WoW is only one example).  In order to maintain the greatest sense of agency and play, it was important that I not be prescriptive in regards to which variety of platforms I might use, but rather, pick and choose and naturally gravitate towards whichever seemed to suit my language level and mood at any particular time.  Nonetheless, I kept a regular minimal level of daily activity of  three hours per day, totaling over 160 hours.

            Prior to beginning my study, I had written the following background on myself as participant: I consider myself to be multi-lingual, having learned and at certain points in my life spoken fluently a number of languages, including French, Mandarin, Japanese, and Indonesian.  I learned all of these languages through instructed study, with the exception of Indonesian, which I seemed to ‘pick up’ (acquire) rather naturally, without any formal instruction, and with very little self study, over a period of eleven years living in Bali.  While I do not actively use any of the other languages at this point (although I rather passively watch a good deal of subtitled French TV and film), I continue to use Indonesian on a very regular (almost daily) basis through chatting and text messaging.  Presently, I have lived in Thailand for one and a half years, and have had 180 hours of classroom instruction in Thai listening and speaking, and approximately 60 hours of classroom instruction in Thai reading and writing. Primarily because of the drastic differences between the phonemic systems of English and Thai, I can say without hesitation that I have found Thai to be by far the most difficult of any languages I have ever learned. As a result, my attitude towards the learning of Thai has not been as optimistic, or at times enthusiastic, as my learning of other languages has been.  Socially, I have found friendship with non-English speaking Thais to be elusive, and so, although I live in Thailand, I have very few friends with whom I speak in Thai on even as much as a weekly basis.   While I have found it difficult to befriend Thais in person, I have found them more eager to (text) chat online, provided they can speak a bit of English, or I can type and read a bit of Thai.

            In retrospect, I should also add that I have never been a ‘gamer.’ That is to say, I have never really spent any time playing computer games, aside from the occasional game of solitaire, since the time I was in junior high school, at which point the most sophisticated game available for play in one’s home was Pong.  This in turn had implications for my study, which I discuss in more detail in the Results of the Study.

Research Instruments

As a researcher I tracked my activity through a number of instruments.  First of all, I kept a daily learning log, in which I made notes focusing on my internet-mediated experience, particularly in relation to the elements of agency, positive affect and play, and, of course, any clear evidence of learning.  I also kept records (transcripts) of chat activity.  Within two weeks into my study I started my own blog, and posted blogs in Thai or about Thai.  Many of my earlier posts were trilingual, in Thai, English, and Indonesian.  This was an activity and instrument which served purposes of both participant and observer at the same time.

An additional element of instrumentation used was an entry and exit proficiency test of my Thai ability.  While progress in my ability level should have become evident through improvement in the quality of my chat dialogs and blog posts, in order to add greater validity and reliability to any assessment of my language ability, an additional instrument was included.  Entry and exit tests were standard tests used at Payap in their Thai language program, and consisted of both a reading test and an oral interview.  It should be noted here that any such tests serve only as an addendum, rather than as core instruments of my study, as the primary foci of my study are not actual progress in language ability, but rather the technological platforms that make such progress possible, and the learner’s experiences of agency, positive affect, and play as generated through interaction with such platforms.

3.3  Procedure of  Data Collection

3.3.1 Surveys and Interviews

            The online survey portion of the research was conducted during the month of August, followed by online and in-person interviews during the month of Septe[H1] mber.  [For further details regarding promulgation of surveys and conducting interviews, please see section 3.1].

3.3.2        Ethnography

            I began the ethnographic portion of my study with an entry test assessing my Thai language proficiency (as mentioned above).  Following this, I engaged in a prolonged period of Internet-mediated Thai learning and Thai usage activities.  I add emphasis to usage (rather than learning) activities here, as an important element of my study regards the experience of learning as it takes place through usage, particularly in instances when the learner does not regard himself as being or feeling as a learner, but rather as a user of language.  I maintained a minimum activity period of three hours per day, with NO maximum – (although I never ended up spending more than four hours in a day engaging in online Thai language activity).  I placed an emphasis on interacting with and through language primarily in Thai, and always sought to do what was most motivating at any particular moment. Details regarding the activities I pursued and clearly delineated in the following chapter, Results and Discussion.

Soares (2010) in her dissertation, notes several days where she spent up to nine hours online and in game-play (p. 1), without even noticing the passage of time.  Although I was intrigued by the possibility of such activity, and the language learning progress it might engender, and thus set no upward limit for myself, I encountered a very different experience.  I found that I personally have a rather limited upward tolerance for time spent online and in front of a computer screen, which I discuss further in the following chapter.

During this period I also acted as observer, utilizing the instruments described in section 2.9.  During the months of August and September I processed data, as described in 2.9.  At the end of September I underwent an exit proficiency test.

3.4              Data Analysis

            Data from the surveys (questionnaire) is both quantitative and qualitative.  Data was collected automatically through the system provided by esurveycreator (http://www.esurveycreator.com).  Data was then analyzed in order to indicate frequency of responses, general themes and trends.  Response frequency is presented in numeric and pictographic format, while themes and trends are discussed qualitatively, in prose format, in the following chapter, Results and Discussion. 

Data from the interviews is qualitative, and was analyzed for themes, utilizing the coding system presented below, as well as for outliers.  I examined both similarities and differences with regards to learners’ subjective experiences, both between individual learners of the same L2, and between the two groups of language learners with differing target L2s.

I conducted data analysis of the ethnography portion of the research by means of examining the results of all instruments (learning logs, chat dialogs and blog posts), and filtering them for various themes, as well as outliers.  In order to provide a framework and cohesion to analysis, I utilized a number of frameworks, as identified in Chapter Two, already assembled by other authors.   First of all, the five freedoms (Klopfer, Osterwell & Salen, 2009), serve as means of analyzing experiences recorded in regard to play.  To this I have added agency as a sixth freedom.  Also part of this framework are Csíkszentmihályi’s concepts of play as ‘situated midway between boredom and worry’ (1971), and of play as being typified by flow experience (2007).  Rod Ellis’s ‘Principles of Instructed Language Learning’ (2005) serve to analyse recorded experiences, particularly chat and blog activity, but also notes made in my learning log, from a language learning perspective.  Reality is Broken  by Jane McGonigal (2011), provides a framework for examining the ways in which games (and by extension, a wider variety of Internet-mediated experiences) activate positive affect.  Finally, I refer to J.P. Gee (2004, 2005) with regard to the mechanisms by which games (and by extension, a wider variety of Internet-mediated experiences) promote learning.  Utilizing these frameworks, I created a coding system which I then used to annotate all instruments of the ethnographic portion of the research, as well as transcripts of interviews with English and Thai language learners.  The coding system is provided in Appendix C.

            In order to draw conclusions, data from the two survey pools (English language learners and Thai language learners) was compared for any similarities and differences.  To the degree that Internet experience patterns and themes are similar across the two groups, it may be concluded that the Internet-mediated L2 experience is similar regardless of the target L2.  Additionally, Internet experience patterns and themes identified in the survey and interview data from the Thai language learners’ pool was compared with the Internet experience patterns and themes that I identified in ethnographic research section. 

---