6691 Quantitative Research Feb 28

Krishna K. Bista PSE 6691: RM/Quantitative Study Dr. Janet McNellis 02/28/2008 Evaluation of a Quantitative Research Paper on the Basis of Methods, Results and Conclusions Selected Article: The effect of code-switching in interactional language on task performance in the English class, by Jonathan Sell (UA, 2002) Introduction: The author, Jonathan Sell, in this short research paper analyzes the effect of codeswitching in interactional language while performing task in English class. For this research Spanish is L1 and English is L2. Of his two days’ of research classes with 34 students, he draws a conclusion that students want and expect their teachers to talk about and to introduce discussion of non-curricular matters. He finds that code-switching has no effect on “favorable disposition of students, the creation of a positive classroom mood and production of effective work” (Sell, 196). Discussion of Methods, Results and Conclusions: The researcher, Jonathan Sell, undergoes following steps in his research project. 1. Methods: (Jonathan clearly defines his variables and sets his research boundary. Focusing his major four issues of code-switching of the research namely, degree of affective involvement, students’ reaction, reaction to language and students’ performance, he wisely forms groups, fixes teaching hours and level of students. Though he doesn’t carry any pilot study, his questionnaire and procedure are enough for the research. He works tactfully with L1 group and L2 group alternatively. What I

1

mostly appreciate is the selection of subject matter for class interaction as his topic requires in the classes.) Major points in this section are--He did not indicate to the students that research was under way in the class -He chose 34 students dividing into 2 groups in which L1 was Spanish and L2 was English. -He used one variable at one time for interaction in the class and switched the codes as needed. -He conducted questionnaire including effective involvement, interactional speech acts and student performance. 2. Results: (For procedure and results, the researcher keeps on making his students busy participating different activities. All such activities indicate students’ diligence, memories and competence in English and Spanish, and show the need and effect of code-switching. For his results, he compares and contrasts all collected data in various levels of his research—interactional speech act, working environment, teacher’s objective and interests of students. Using results in table, he analyzes data and responses of students to draw a conclusion. He notices that some questions of the questionnaire give fairly same kind of responses. He also explains ways in which his samples are not completely representative, for instance two last questions of his questionnaire). Major points in this section are-Students’ enjoyment and involvement in both classes are closely related. -Majority of students are happy when a teacher talks matters not directly related to classroom activities (Sell, 192).

2

-Students expect their teachers to speak Spanish. -Students responses vary for effectiveness of class and students’ performance. 3. Conclusions: (The researcher proves the effect of code-switching in interactional language on task performance in the English class quite opposite from what he said in the hypothesis. It does not have as such remarkable effect in code-switching between English and Spanish language. However there is strong role of code-switching between these two language, and he identifies some loopholes in this research. He identifies the reason that the level of language of his students was not suitable in this research (Shell, 196). He concludes very remarkably that teachers first teach the target language (L2 English) to let students understand rather than mother tongue (L1 Spanish). Some of the facts in this section are--His premises do not help to come out with results. The hypothesis has not been proven. -L2 class is not more successfully fulfilled when the language of interaction is L1 than when it is L2.

3