941288

editorial2020
LTR0010.1177/1362168820941288Language Teaching ResearchNassaji

LANGUAGE
TEACHING
Editorial RESEARCH

Language Teaching Research

2020, Vol. 24(4) 427–431
Good qualitative research © The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1362168820941288
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820941288
journals.sagepub.com/home/ltr

Hossein Nassaji
University of Victoria, Canada

This issue of Language Teaching Research (LTR) includes six articles, each examining a
particular aspect of second language teaching and learning, ranging from the use of
classroom resources to different kinds of instructional approaches to the development of
different language skills. Three of the studies have used a quantitative approach while the
other three have used a qualitative one. This suggests that the number of qualitative stud-
ies is increasing in second language (L2) research and that LTR welcomes publishing
them. Given that half of the studies are qualitative, I would like to take the opportunity
to discuss some of the characteristics of qualitative research and also the criteria and
principles that could be used to assess their quality.
Qualitative research can be broadly defined as a kind of inquiry that is naturalistic
and deals with non-numerical data. It seeks to understand and explore rather than to
explain and manipulate variables. It is contextualized and interpretive, emphasizing
the process or patterns of development rather than the product or outcome of the
research. In L2 research, qualitative methods can be used to explore an array of ques-
tions for which a quantitative method may not be suitable. In qualitative research, data
are collected through qualitative data collection tools such as interviews, field notes,
diaries, observations, etc. In pure qualitative research, data are both collected and ana-
lysed qualitatively. However, qualitative data can also be analysed quantitatively
through assigning numerical values to the whole or sections of the data, which can then
help to identify general patterns or, in some cases, to evaluate specific predictions. Two
of the qualitative studies in this issue of LTR have also used quantification in their
analysis.
Good qualitative research is robust, well informed, and thoroughly documented.
Although naturalistic and interpretive, similar to quantitative research, qualitative
research is also systematic, involving a careful process of identifying the problem, col-
lecting, analysing, explaining, evaluating, and interpreting the data. Thus, when doing
qualitative research, it is essential to ensure its rigor and quality.

Corresponding author:
Hossein Nassaji, University of Victoria, BC, Canada.
Email: [email protected]
428 Language Teaching Research 24(4)

Various types of validity and reliability criteria have been discussed in the literature
for assessing the soundness of quantitative research. Although qualitative research is dif-
ferent from quantitative research, researchers in the field of qualitative research have
also developed quality standards to judge the rigor of qualitative research. The notions of
reliability and validity in quantitative research have always been used in relation to con-
sistency or accuracy of tests or measurements used. In qualitative research, they are
defined in terms of the trustworthiness of the findings or, as Lincoln and Guba (1985, p.
290) stated, to address the question of ‘How can an inquirer persuade his or her audi-
ences that the research findings of an inquiry are worth paying attention to?’ (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985, p. 290). Lincoln and Guba discussed four such trustworthiness principles,
which have been accepted and considered important by many qualitative researchers.
These include credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability, and have
been considered as parallel substitutions to conventional notions of internal validity,
external validity, reliability, and objectivity used in quantitative research. I will briefly
discuss these principles below and, when possible, explain how they are met in the quali-
tative studies in this issue of the journal.
The principle of credibility in qualitative research concerns the extent to which the
research findings and conclusions can be viewed to be believable. In other words, it con-
cerns the truthfulness of the findings and the extent to which they reflect the reality of the
phenomenon investigated. To achieve this, the researcher needs to ensure that his or her
understanding of the research participants, context, and processes are as accurate and
complete as possible and that the interpretations are inclusive. Depending on the data,
one useful strategy is member checking or participant validation, which is sharing the
data and interpretations with the research participants to see if they agree. Another is
triangulation, which involves using multiple data collection methods, sources, explana-
tions, or perspectives. Triangulation helps to achieve a more accurate and complete
understanding of the issue under investigation, thus increasing the validity and credibil-
ity of the findings. Transferability concerns the extent to which the researchers’ interpre-
tation or conclusions are transferable to other similar contexts. This requires thorough
and rich description of the research activities and assumptions. Transferability looks
analogous to generalizability in quantitative research. However, since qualitative research
is interpretive and the participants are often small in number and not representative of the
population, the findings cannot be generalizable in the sense used in quantitative research.
Thus, as Lincoln and Guba (1985) noted, transferability should not be meant for the
researcher to make generalizable claims but instead to provide sufficient details that
make transfer possible in case readers wish to do so. Dependability is an alternative
notion to reliability in quantitative research. In quantitative research, reliability refers to
the consistency of data collection tools or measures. In qualitative research, this principle
indicates that the study should be reported in such a way that others could arrive at simi-
lar interpretations if they review the data. This can be enhanced by carefully document-
ing all the research activities and the conclusions or any changes that may occur as the
research evolves. Such documentations can then be reviewed by an outside researcher to
examine their accuracy and the extent to which the conclusions are grounded in the data.
Confirmability concerns the extent to which others confirm the researcher’s interpreta-
tions and conclusions. This standard is considered a parallel to objectivity in quantitative
Nassaji 429

research. While quantitative research seeks objectivity by dissociating the researcher

from the research process, qualitative research emphasizes the researcher’s active role
and engagement in the research. It also resembles replicability, which concerns the extent
to which a study can be reproduced. In qualitative research, Confirmability can be estab-
lished by describing the data and the findings in such a way that their accuracy can be
confirmed by others. One useful strategy is ‘audit trail’ where the researcher records and
rationalizes all the steps taken and the decisions made regarding the data coding and
analysis. These records become then available for any further evaluation and
confirmation.
As noted earlier, three of the studies in this issue have used qualitative research meth-
ods. In examining these studies, I can say that many of the criteria described above have
been met, which can be taken as evidence for the robustness of the research reported. The
first article by van Batenburg et al. examines the interactional opportunities provided in
Dutch course books for English as a foreign language (EFL). The research aims to dis-
cover the extent to which the course books’ activities provide opportunities for enhanc-
ing learners’ English knowledge and their ability to use that knowledge in real interactional
contexts. The data is based on three course books used with third-year students in a four-
year pre-vocational Business and Administration program in the Netherlands. The study
is well conducted with the topic, research procedures, context, and analysis thoroughly
and sufficiently described, which enhances its credibility, accuracy, and rigor. For the
analysis, first, a three-level coding scheme with well-defined categories was developed,
which allowed for both objective descriptions and subjective inferences of experts about
how the activities affected learning. The coding scheme was checked and rechecked
against samples of the data and was then used by trained experts to identify the interac-
tion opportunities in each chapter. The findings showed that, while all the three books
taught language forms in relation to language functions, they included few real interac-
tional and task-specific activities. In addition, language forms were often practiced in
decontextualized activities instead of being incorporated into extended spontaneous dis-
course. Based on these findings, the authors conclude that there is a gap between the
content of the course books and current L2 theories regarding how to develop interac-
tional abilities.
Henry and Thorsen explored disaffection and lack of participation in response to lan-
guage activities in an EFL classroom. This study was based on the premise that language
learning takes place as a result of social interaction and investment of the self. Lack of
investment can thus lead to non-participation, which can then hamper language develop-
ment. The study seeks to gain insights into why learners in language classrooms some-
times respond positively and sometimes negatively to a particular classroom activity. To
examine these issues, the study analysed data from field notes and observations of les-
sons in a multiple case study conducted in language classrooms in Sweden. Field notes
and observations are two data collection tools often used in qualitative research. For this
particular article, the study focused on two cases that involved learners’ negative
responses or disaffection. They were a Study Abroad project with 9-grade students and a
Visiting India activity with 7th grade students. The research methodology and proce-
dures are thoroughly described. Also, since the study used a case study approach, there
was an in-depth and detailed analysis of the cases. The data were analysed using a
430 Language Teaching Research 24(4)

framework that focused on students’ interactional identity. The findings revealed that
disaffection was derived mainly from students’ negative feelings towards the activities
and the mindset that they threatened their authentic participation. For example, in the
first project, dissatisfaction was seen to originate from students’ impression of being
depicted as deficient speakers of English, and in the second, it was caused by feelings of
performing an unauthentic activity. Based on these findings, the authors conclude that
disaffection in language classrooms could be partly prevented by redesigning activities
so that they can provide opportunities for authentic engagement.
Spenader et al. explored the use of content-based instruction (CBI) in World Language
teaching in the USA. The focus was on planning stages and the techniques and resources
the teachers used, the challenges and opportunities they faced, and the approach they
took to meet those challenges. The study was conducted on 36 CBI units that the teachers
developed for these courses. The analysis was thorough, involving a number of stages,
including preliminary examination of selected units, developing and verifying guidelines
for the analysis, fine-tuning categories, and coding lessons based on the categories. The
analyses revealed that the lessons involved both content and language but the focus was
more on content than language, and that when choosing content, the teachers used more
cultural than academic contents. In addition, they relied on contents that were related to
their prior experience and training, which then suggests that the teachers tended to use
areas they were familiar with when designing CBI unit plans.
The other three studies were quantitative. Lai et al. investigated the usefulness of
guided inductive instruction versus deductive instruction on helping learners develop
semantic radical knowledge of Chinese characters. The participants were 46 learners of
Chinese from two intact intermediate classes assigned to either a deductive or a guided
inductive instruction. The study used a pretest/posttest experimental research design
involving five intervention sessions over a three-week period. A t-test was initially used
to compare the two groups and found no significant difference between their placement
test scores. Semantic category judgment and lexical inference tests were used as pretests/
posttests, with two levels of item complexity. The findings showed an advantage for the
guided inductive instruction. However, these effects were mediated by the complexity of
the radical characters. The learners in the inductive group performed better on both sim-
ple and more complex test items in the lexical inference test. However, they performed
better only on more complex items in the semantic category judgment test. This finding
was explained in terms of differences in the nature of processing involved in the two
tests.
Karim and Nassaji examined the effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback on
learners’ accuracy of revision and new writings. The study used an experimental research
design involving 53 intermediate level learners of English as a second language (ESL),
who were divided into three experimental groups (i.e. a direct feedback group, an indi-
rect underlining only group and an indirect underlining + metalinguistic feedback group)
and a control group. Students produced several writings and revised them over a three-
week period. To examine the effect of feedback, analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with
post-hoc multiple comparison tests were used. The results showed a significant effect on
revision for all the three feedback groups and also some notable but non-significant
Nassaji 431

effect on new pieces of writing for direct and underlining plus metalinguistics
feedback.
The last study by Uchihara and Clenton investigated the role of receptive vocabulary
size in L2 oral proficiency. The data were collected individually from 46 advanced L2
learners who completed a test of receptive vocabulary size and also produced spontane-
ous speech samples elicited through picture narrative tasks. The learners’ speaking abil-
ity was rated by three experts in terms of vocabulary features using the vocabulary
descriptor of IELTS speaking band, and also measured in terms of lexical sophistication
based on a word frequency index. The results showed a complex pattern. While a signifi-
cant correlation was found between vocabulary size and the subjective measure of
vocabulary rating, such a correlation was not found between vocabulary size and meas-
ures of lexical sophistication. The former finding was taken to suggest that learners with
a larger vocabulary size are more likely to be perceived as lexically proficient speakers
while the latter finding was taken to suggest that larger vocabulary size may not neces-
sarily lead to the production of more sophisticated words in speech.
In conclusion, the articles in this issue of LTR report findings from six original studies
addressing a range of topics using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. All
the studies are well conducted, including the three qualitative studies, which are of high
quality therefore offering excellent examples of robust qualitative research. Good quali-
tative research is important and needs to be encouraged as it allows for in-depth explora-
tion of topics, providing valuable and rich insights into the processes of teaching and
learning as they occur in naturalistic settings. LTR has been publishing both quantitative
and qualitative studies and continues to do so.

Reference
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.