Chapter published in:
Complex Dynamic Systems Theory and L2 Writing Development
Edited by Gary G. Fogal and Marjolijn H. Verspoor
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 54] 2020
► pp. 183–206

Chapter 8
Investigating complexity in L2 writing with mixed methods approaches

| University of Tokyo
| University of Essex
This chapter examines L2 writing from a complex systems perspective, viewing text construction as a process operating over multiple, interconnected timescales and levels. Any attempt to capture the full complexity of the system needs to be able to identify the different components in play, the timescales and levels of social organization at which they operate, the relationships between the components, and how the components and their relationships change over time. We argue, similarly to Dörnyei (2009), that mixed methods research “suits the multi-level analysis of complex issues, because it allows investigators to obtain data about both the individual and the broader societal context” (p. 109) and discuss some of the affordances and challenges of this approach with respect to L2 writing.
Keywords: complex dynamic systems, L2 writing, mixed methods, triangulation, interdisciplinarity
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • A complex systems perspective on L2 writing
  • Mixed methods research and the study of complex dynamic systems
    • A brief history of mixed methods research
    • Mixed methods and their relationship to complex dynamic systems
    • The challenges associated with mixed methods research
  • Applying a mixed methods approach to the investigation of L2 writing processes
  • Methodological affordances: Investigating different levels of the complex system
    • The macro-level
    • The meso-level
    • The micro-level
    • Example 1
    • Example 2
  • Methodological challenges
    • The preparation stage
    • The implementation stage
    • The analytical stage
    • The dissemination stage
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 04 June 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.54.08gil
References
Austin, W., Park, C., & Goble, E.
(2008) From interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary research: A case study. Qualitative Health Research, 18(4), 557–564. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bazerman, C.
(1988) Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M.
(1987) The psychology of written composition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum associates.Google Scholar
Bryman, A.
(2006) Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1, 8–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clift, R.
(2016) Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z.
(2009) The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feilzer, M. Y.
(2010) Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4, 6–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fogal, G. G.
(2019) Tracking microgenetic changes in authorial voice development from a complexity theory perspective. Applied Linguistics 40(3), 432–455. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ganém-Gutiérrez, A.
(2008) Microgenesis, method and object: A study of collaborative activity in a Spanish as a foreign language classroom, Applied Linguistics 29(1), 120–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A., & Gilmore, A.
(2018a) Expert-novice interaction as the basis for L2 developmental activity: A SCT perspective. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 5(1), 21–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A. & Gilmore, A.
(2018b) Tracking the real-time evolution of a writing event: Second language writers at different proficiency levels. Language Learning, 68(2), 469–506. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, A.
(2007) Getting real in the language classroom: Developing Japanese students’ communicative competence with authentic materials (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nottingham University, UK.Google Scholar
(2011) “I prefer not text”: Developing Japanese learners’ communicative competence with authentic materials. Language Learning, 61(3), 786–819. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J. & Graham, W. F.
(1989) Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hanlon, R. E., & Brown, J. W.
(1989) Microgenesis: Historical review and current studies. In A. Ardila & F. Ostrosky-Solis (Eds.), Brain organization of language and cognitive processes (pp. 3–15). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K.
(1995) Understanding communication in second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A.
(2007) Towards a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods, 1(2), 112–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. H.
(2008) Good sex and bad karma: discourse and the historical body. In V. K. Bhatia, J. Flowerdew, & R. H. Jones (Eds.), Advances in discourse studies (pp. 245–57). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kress, G.
(2010) Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L.
(2008) Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M., Roca de Larios, J. & Murphy, L.
(2009) The temporal dimension and problem-solving nature of foreign language composing processes: Implications for theory. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 102–129). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, K. S., Lindgren, E., & Sullivan, K. P.
(2008) The psycholinguistic dimension in second language writing: Opportunities for research and pedagogy using computer keystroke logging. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 433–454. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Munro, A.
(2001, February 19). Go ask Alice: Alice Munro interviewed by the New Yorker fiction and poetry editor, Alice Quinn. The New Yorker, https://​www​.newyorker​.com/> (7 January 2020).
Newman, I., & Benz, C. R.
(1998) Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Nishino, T., & Atkinson, D.
(2015) Second language writing as sociocognitive alignment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 37–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Onwuegbuzie, A. J.
2003 Effect sizes in qualitative research: A prolegomenon Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology 37 393 409 Crossref
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L.
(2005) On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375–387. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scollon, R.
(2001) Mediated discourse: The nexus of practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W.
(2004) Nexus analysis: Discourse and the emerging internet. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sieber, S. D.
(1973) The integration of fieldwork and survey methods. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1335–1359. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.
(2010) ‘Talking-it-through’: Languaging as a source of learning. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 112–130). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A.
(2009) Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Trend, M. G.
(1978) ‘On the reconciliation of qualitative and quantitative analyses: A case study’. Human Organization, 37(4), 345–354. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Willems, E. P., & Raush, H. L.
(1969) Naturalistic viewpoints in psychological research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Wittenburg, P., Brugman, H., Russel, A., Klassmann, A. & Sloetjes, H.
(2006) ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, A. Gagemi, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, & D. Tapias (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 1556–1559). www​.lrec​-conf​.org​/proceedings​/lrec2006​/pdf​/153​_pdf​.pdf> (4 January 2019).
Wong Scollon, S., & de Saint George, I.
(2012) Mediated discourse analysis. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 66–78). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Gánem-Gutiérrez, Gabriela Adela & Alexander Gilmore
2021. A mixed methods case study on the use and impact of web-based lexicographic tools on L2 writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 03 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.