Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-b4m5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-20T06:06:14.401Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning: Opportunities, issues and challenges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2014

A. Mehdi Riazi  and
Christopher N. Candlin
A. Mehdi Riazi
Affiliation:
Macquarie University, [email protected]
Christopher N. Candlin
Affiliation:
Macquarie University, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This state-of-the-art paper foregrounds mixed-methods research (MMR) in language teaching and learning by discussing and critically reviewing issues related to this newly developed research paradigm. The paper has six sections. The first provides a context for the discussion of MMR through an introductory review of quantitative and qualitative paradigms. In the second section we discuss the nature and scope of MMR, its underlying principles, and its techniques and procedures. In the third section we discuss trends in MMR in language teaching and learning, and review 40 published papers in 30 journals related to this field, covering one decade (2002–2011). Issues and challenges facing MMR and its researchers are discussed in the fourth section, while in the fifth we discuss the significance of replicating MMR studies in language teaching and learning. Finally, we conclude by presenting prospects and avenues for further developing mixed-methods research.

Type
State-of-the-Art Article
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 135 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdel Latif, M. (2009). Toward a new process-based indicator for measuring writing fluency: Evidence from L2 writers’ think-aloud protocols. Canadian Modern Language Review 65.4, 531–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alise, M. A. & Teddlie, C. (2010). A continuation of the paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 4.2, 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. (2004). Research guidelines in TESOL: Alternative perspectives linking observations to interpretations and uses in TESOL Research. TESOL Quarterly 38.4, 723–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. (2006). Generalizability: A journey into the nature of empirical research in applied linguistics. In Chalhoub-Deville, M., Chapelle, C. A. & Duff, P. (eds.), Inference and generalizability in applied linguistics: Multiple perspectives. Dordrecht: John Benjamins, 165–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkaoui, K. (2010). Do ESL essay raters’ evaluation criteria change with experience? A mixed-methods, cross-sectional study. TESOL Quarterly 44.1, 31–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazeley, P. (2004). Issues in mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. In Buber, R., Gadner, J. & Richards, L. (eds.), Applying qualitative methods to marketing management research. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 141–156.Google Scholar
Benson, P., Chik, A., Gao, X., Huang, J. & Wang, W. (2009). Qualitative research in language teaching and learning journals, 1997–2006. The Modern Language Journal 93.1, 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergman, M. M. (2008). Advances in mixed methods research: Theories and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brannen, J. (2005). Mixing methods: The entry of qualitative and quantitative approaches into the research process. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8.3, 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, J. & Hunter, A. (2005). Foundations of multimethod research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Brook, L. (2009). Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance. Language Testing 26.3, 341–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. D. & Rodgers, T. (2002). Doing second language research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Candlin, C. N. & Crichton, J. (2013). From ontology to methodology: Exploring the discursive landscape of trust. In Candlin, C. N. & Crichton, J. (eds.), Discourses of trust. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caracelli, V. J. & Greene, J. C. (1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. In Greene, J. C. & Caracelli, V. J. (eds), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 19–32.Google Scholar
Casanave, C. P. (2012). Heading in the wrong direction? A response to Porte and Richards. Journal of Second Language Writing 21.3, 296–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. & Duff, P. A. (2003). Some guidelines for conducting quantitative and qualitative research in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 37, 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y. L. (2008). A mixed-method study of EFL teachers’ Internet use in language instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education 24, 1015–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chou, M. (2011). The influence of learner strategies on oral presentations: A comparison between group and individual performance. English for Specific Purposes 30, 272–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christ, T. W. & Makarani, S. A. (2009). Teachers’ attitudes about teaching English in India: An embedded mixed methods study. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches 3, 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicourel, A. (1992). The interpenetration of communicative contexts: Examples from medical encounters. In Duranti, A. & Goodwin, C. (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 291–310.Google Scholar
Cicourel, A. (1996). Ecological validity and ‘white room effects’: The interaction of cognitive and cultural models in the pragmatic analysis of elicited narratives from children. Pragmatics and Cognition 4.2, 221–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicourel, A. (2007). A personal, retrospective view on ecological validity. Text & Talk 27, 235–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colby-Kelly, C. & Turner, C. E. (2007). AFL research in the L2 classroom and evidence of usefulness: Taking formative assessment to the next level. Canadian Modern Language Review 64.1, 9–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Jiao, Q. G. (2006). Prevalence of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. Evaluation and Research in Education 19.2, 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Jiao, Q. G. (2007). A mixed methods investigation of mixed methods sampling designs in social and health science research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 3, 267–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creswell, J. W. (1995). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W., Shope, R., Plano Clark, V. I. & Green, D. O. (2006). How interpretive qualitative research extends mixed methods research. Research in the Schools 13.1, 1–11.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. I., Gutmann, M. & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 209–240.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. & Tashakkori, A. (2007). Differing perspectives on mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1, 303–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, A. (1994). Alternatives in TESOL research: Descriptive, interpretive, and ideological orientations. TESOL Quarterly 28.4, 673–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danermark, B., Ekstrom, M., Jakobsen, L. & Karlsson, J. Ch. (2002). Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Davis, K. A. (1995). Qualitative theory and methods in applied linguistics research. TESOL Quarterly 29, 427–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2010). Monitoring processes in Spanish as a second language during a study abroad program. Foreign Language Annals 43.1, 80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Morgado, M. F. (2009). Extensive reading: Students’ performance and perception. Reading Matrix 9.1, 31–43.Google Scholar
Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 6.2, 80–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J. & Thomson, R. I. (2007). A longitudinal study of ESL learners’ fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics 29.3, 359–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyle, L., Brady, A. M. & Bryne, G. (2009). An overview of mixed methods research. Journal of Research in Nursing 14.2, 175–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. A. (2010). Theoretical and historical perspectives on researching the sociology of language and education. In King, K. A. & Hornberger, N. H. (eds.), Research methods in language and education: Encyclopedia of language and education 10. New York: Springer, 3–15.Google Scholar
Flick, U. (2007). Designing qualitative research. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J. D. (2009). Moderating top-down policy impact and supporting EAP curricular renewal: Exploring the potential of diagnostic assessment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 8, 26–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In Shaw, R. & Bransford, J. (eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 67–82.Google Scholar
Giddings, L. S. (2006). Mixed methods research: Positivism dressed in drag? Journal of Research in Nursing 11, 195–203.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, 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grotjahn, R. (1987). On the methodological basis of introspective methods. In Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (eds.), Introspection in second language research. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 54–81.Google Scholar
Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (1998). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (eds.), The landscape of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 195–220.Google Scholar
Hammersley, M. (2009). Why critical realism fails to justify critical social research. Methodological Innovations Online 4.2, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Petska, K. S. & Creswell, K. S. (2005). Mixed methods research designs in counselling psychology. Journal of Counselling Psychology 52.2, 224–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hashemi, M. R. (2012). Forum: Reflections on mixing methods in applied linguistics research. Applied Linguistics 33.2, 206–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E. & Farhady, H. (1982). Research design and statistics for applied linguists. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hawkey, R. (2006). Teacher and learner perceptions of language learning activity. ELT Journal 60.3, 242–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, S. & Degand, L. (2008). Sequencers in different text genres: Academic writing, journalese and fiction. Journal of Pragmatics 40, 676–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinkel, E. (ed.) (2005). Handbook of research in second language learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holliday, A. (2002). Doing and writing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
House, E. R. & Howe, K. R. (1999). Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, K. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis (or dogmas die hard). Educational Researcher 17, 10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, K. R. (2012). Mixed methods, triangulation, and causal explanation. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 6.2, 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, G. & Lei, J. (2011). Investigating Chinese university students’ knowledge of and attitudes toward plagiarism from an integrated perspective. Language Learning 62.3, 813–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, S. (2006). Combining data, enhancing explanation. Real Life Methods working paper, University of Manchester. www.manchester.ac.uk/realities/resources/toolkitsGoogle Scholar
Isaacs, T. (2008). Towards defining a valid assessment criterion of pronunciation proficiency in non-native English-speaking graduate students. Canadian Modern Language Review 64.4, 555–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. B. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher 33.7, 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, J. Y. (2009). Referencing in a second language: Korean EFL learners’ cohesive use of references in written narrative discourse. Discourse Processes 46.5, 439–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. H. (2009). An investigation into native and non-native teachers’ judgments of oral English performance: A mixed methods approach. Language Testing 26, 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, K. A. (2010). Introduction to Volume 10: Research methods in language and education. In King, K. A. & Hornberger, N. H. (eds.), Research methods in language and education: Encyclopedia of language and education (Vol. 10). New York: Springer, xiii–xviii.Google Scholar
Lamb, M. (2007). The impact of school on EFL learning motivation: An Indonesian case study. TESOL Quarterly 41.4, 757–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Language Teaching Review Panel (2008). Replication studies in language learning and teaching: Questions and answers. Language Teaching 41.1, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazaraton, A. (1995). Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A progress report. TESOL Quarterly 29, 455–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazaraton, A. (2000). Current trends in research methodology and statistics in applied linguistics. TESOL Quarterly 34.1, 175–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazaraton, A. (2003). Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in applied linguistics: Whose criteria and whose research? The Modern Language Journal 87, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazaraton, A. (2005). Quantitative research methods. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), 209–224.Google Scholar
Le Compte, M. D. & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research 52.1, 31–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Y. & Greene, J. (2007). The predictive validity of an ESL placement test: A mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1.4, 366–389.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P., Hsieh, H. C. & Moreno, N. (2008). Attention to form and meaning revisited. Language Learning 58.3, 665–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, L. & Walsh, S. (2010). Technology uptake in Chinese EFL classes. Language Teaching Research 15.1, 99–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, J. M. (2010). Commenting on research results in applied linguistics and education: A comparative genre-based investigation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9, 280–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahan, S. & Chen, X. (2009). Second language learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. The Modern Language Journal 93, 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mark, M. M. & Shortland, R. L. (1987). Alternative models for the use of multiple methods. In Mark, M. M. & Shotland, R. L. (eds.), Multiple methods in program evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 95–99.Google Scholar
Martinez, I. A., Beck, S. C. & Panza, C. B. (2009). Academic vocabulary in agriculture research articles: A corpus-based study. English for Specific Purposes 28, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, J. (2006). Six strategies for mixing methods and linking data in social science research. Real Life Methods working paper, University of Manchester. www.manchester.ac.uk/realities/resources/toolkitsGoogle Scholar
Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher 17, 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsuda, P. K. (2012). On the nature of second language writing: Replication in a postmodern field. Journal of Second Language Writing 21.3, 300–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, V. (2010). Realities Toolkit # 12: What to do with contradictory data? Real Life Methods, University of Manchester. www.manchester.ac.uk/realities/resources/toolkitsGoogle Scholar
Mazdayasna, G. & Tahririan, H. (2008). Developing a profile of the ESP needs of Iranian students: The case of students of nursing and midwifery. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7, 277–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, J. & McDonough, S. (1997). Research methods for English language teachers. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
McKay, S. L. (2006). Researching second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melzi, G. & Caspe, M. (2010). Research approaches to narrative, literacy, and education. In King, K. A. & Hornberger, N. H. (eds.), Research methods in language and education: Encyclopedia of language and education Vol. 10. New York: Springer,151–165.Google Scholar
Meraji, S. R. (2011). Planning time, strategy use, and written task production in a pedagogic vs. a testing context. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 2.2, 338–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, D. M. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The transformative-emancipatory perspective. In Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 135–164.Google Scholar
Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Mertens, D. M. (2007). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The transformative-emancipatory perspective. In Plano, V. L. Clark & Creswell, J. W. (eds.), The mixed methods reader. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, 68–104.Google Scholar
Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System 33, 293–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1.1, 48–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morse, J. & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed method design. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
Moses, M., Farley, A., Gaertner, M., Paguyo, C., Jackson, D. & Howe, K (2010). Investigating the defeat of Colorado's Amendment 46. New York: Public Interest Projects.Google Scholar
Niglas, K. (2004). The combined use of qualitative and quantitative methods in educational research. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tallinn Pedagogical University, Tallinn, Estonia.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O’Bryan, A. & Hegelheimer, V. (2008). Using a mixed methods approach to explore strategies, metacognitive awareness and the effects of task design on listening development. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics. www.aclacaal.org/Revue/vol-12-1_art-obryan-hegelheimer.pdfGoogle Scholar
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Collins, K. T. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. The Qualitative Report 12.2, 281–316.Google Scholar
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Johnson, R. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools 13.1, 48–63.Google Scholar
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Slate, J. R., Leech, N. L. & Collins, K. M. T. (2009). Mixed data analysis: Advanced integration techniques. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches 3, 13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. & Iberri-Shea, G. (2005). Longitudinal research in second language acquisition: Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25, 26–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paltridge, B. & Phakiti, A. (2010). Continuum companion to research methods in applied linguistics. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Park, G. (2010). Preference of corrective feedback approaches perceived by native English teachers and students. The Journal of Asia TEFL 7.4, 29–52.Google Scholar
Polat, N. (2009). Matches in beliefs between teachers and students, and success in L2 attainment: The Georgian example. Foreign Language Annals 42.2, 229–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polat, N. (2011). Gender differences in motivation and L2 accent attainment: An investigation of young Kurdish learners of Turkish. Language Learning Journal 39.1, 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polio, C. (2012). Replication in published applied linguistics research: A historical perspective. In Porte, G. (ed.), Replication research in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 47–91.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1970). Normal science and its dangers. In Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porte, G. (ed.) (2012). Replication research in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Porte, G. & Richards, K. (2012). Focus article: Replication in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing 21.3, 284–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, K. (2009). Trends in qualitative research in language teaching since 2000. Language Teaching 42.2, 147–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, K., Ross, S. & Seedhouse, P. (2012). Research methods for applied language studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rossman, G. B. & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combing quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review 9, 627–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarangi, S. & Candlin, C. N. (2001). Motivational relevancies: Some methodological reflections on sociolinguistic practice. In Coupland, N., Sarangi, S. & Candlin, C. N. (eds.), Sociolinguistics and social theory. London: Pearson, 350–388.Google Scholar
Sarangi, S. & Candlin, C. N. (2004). Editorial: Making applied linguistics matter. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1.1, 1–8.Google Scholar
Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shohamy, E. (2004). Reflections on research guidelines, categories and responsibilities. TESOL Quarterly 38, 728–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Small, M. L. (2011). How to conduct a mixed methods study: Recent trends in a rapidly growing literature. The Annual Review of Sociology 37, 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tashakkori, A. & Creswell, J. W. (2007). The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1.1, 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (eds.) (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (eds.) (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in the Schools 13.1, 12–28.Google Scholar
Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed method research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Vandergrift, L. (2003). Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled second language listener. Language Learning 53.3, 463–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wesely, P. M. (2010). Language learning motivation in early adolescents: Using mixed methods research to explore contradiction. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 4.4, 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yihong, G., Lichun, L. & Jun, L. (2001). Trends in research methods in applied linguistics: China and the West. English for Specific Purposes 20, 1–14.Google Scholar
Yoon, H. & Hirvela, A. (2004). ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 13, 257–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar