Second Creswell Posting

Creswell, John W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3^rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2009. Print.

(Blog entry based on 129-226.)

I appreciated the pragmatic approach of this book. Creswell’s suggestions and plans for the different research designs made research seem all the more approachable and possible, though he was often quick to point out the amount labor involved. Furthermore, I found the discussions here quite generative. I began thinking ahead to what I want to accomplish with my dissertation and which research designs may help in this.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

As I want to emphasize the procedures for research designs, I only will raise two questions on this chapter. Creswell is seems rather adamant about what to use (research questions or hypotheses) in what types of studies. In his discussion of qualitative studies, he only addresses the use of research questions, stating that hypotheses are not to be used (129). I understand that qualitative studies are exploratory in nature, but does making some assumptions about possible outcomes necessarily constrain the study and limit its ability to be exploratory? Quantitative studies, he says, can use both research questions and hypotheses but only if the hypotheses build from the research questions (133). What strikes me here is that I understood hypotheses as natural outgrowths of a study’s research questions. Are there instances in which the hypotheses are not extensions of the research questions?

Quantitative Procedures

I was glad to see half of the chapter on quantitative procedures dedicated to advice on survey methods. I have been considering a survey for my dissertation, so learning about some issues to consider prompted me to begin considering the forms and questions my survey(s) may take. In terms of population samples, Creswell suggests that random sampling yields more generalizable data (148), but I think I might be more likely to use the purposeful selection common in qualitative studies (178). This will allow me to craft targeted questions/prompts and receive some richer data. As my survey develops, I will undoubtedly be returning to Creswell’s discussions on validity (the possibility to draw reasonable inferences from the data) and reliability (the consistency of the results) of my instruments. At this point, I’m not entirely sure what validity and reliability issues I will have to address, but this section will be a useful reference point for me.

Also helpful in my thinking about research design were the steps on data analysis and interpretation, especially when considering response bias. This refers to the bias created because of non-respondents. Creswell suggests using wave analysis to mitigate response bias—i.e., analyzing returns weekly (or at least frequently) to see how the responses are affecting the outcomes and then using this to determine what the non-responses might have contributed (151-52). Prior to reading this, I expected to deal with non-responses, but I hadn’t considered how it might bias the study or how to respond to it.

Questions on Quantitative Procedures

I am still a little fuzzy about some of the terminology and statistical methods used in quantitative procedures, and given Creswell’s goals here, I didn’t expect him to detail these at length. But I am wondering a little bit about the power analysis model (157). How does one establish values for the three elements (alpha, power, effect size)? This may not play into my work, but some more knowledge of these types of determinations may be of use in my own reading.

Qualitative Procedures

These I am a little more comfortable with—at least in terms of documentary studies. Creswell identifies nine characteristics of qualitative studies. I’ll not cover them all here, but some characteristics include a “natural setting” (i.e., not a lab), the researcher as the tool to interpret data, numerous types of data, and inductive analysis (175-76). These fit quite well with my experiences and strengths regarding research. Again, Creswell does well to provide a series of steps one might use to interpret and analyze the data collected. These are clear and valuable to anyone engaging in this process. Most meaning to me is his discussion on coding data. This is a process I have engaged with only in some unsystematic ways (in terms of how I understood approaching the process at least), so his explanation of the coding process (186), will be something that will be of considerable importance as I move ahead in my dissertation work (and it will help me organize my thoughts as I go along).

Question on Qualitative Procedures

This question has less to do with procedures and perhaps more to do with where Creswell locates some discussions. He discusses IRB considerations in the chapter on qualitative procedures but does not mention them in relation to quantitative procedures. Is there any particular reason for this?

Mixed Methods Procedures

As I stated in my previous posting on Creswell, a mixed methods research approach seemed most appealing and sensible to me, and this has not changed after reading more detailed accounts of all three research designs. To me, exploring my dissertation topic through a combination of survey results, interviews, and documentary research seems to be the most probable and most comprehensive approach.

What I have yet to determine is the type of mixed method model this will take. Creswell identifies six types of mixed methods designs:  

• sequential explanatory: a quantitative study followed by a qualitative study that extends the quantitative data; 
• sequential exploratory: a qualitative study followed by a quantitative one that builds on the qualitative data;
• sequential transformative: one type of study followed by another, both framed by a particular theory; 
• concurrent triangulation: both types conducted at once with comparisons between the data sets; 
• concurrent embedded: both types conducted at once but with one method more prominent than the other;
• concurrent transformative: both types conducted at once with a particular theory guiding the data collection and interpretation (211-16).

Here again, I think Creswell explains the possibilities clearly—I just need to begin thinking about which of these might best suit my needs. My hunch at this point is that I will lean more toward a concurrent model because of time constraints that I may experience.

On the First Half of Creswell

Creswell, John W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3^rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2009. Print.

(Blog entry based on 1-128.)

Having little experience with research methods, I have been finding that the definitions in this text have been improving my understanding of these different methods. I had often thought of numbers versus words as the key distinction between quantitative and qualitative research, but as Creswell notes, the differences lie more in philosophical/theoretical underpinnings as well as in more complex methodological approaches (e.g., Fig. 1.1, 5). I was particularly interested in the different “philosophical worldviews” Creswell discusses in the first chapter, not so much because I found myself fitting into a particular category more than the others but because the four worldviews he presents—postpositivism, constructivism, advocacy/participatory, and pragmatism—are tools one might use to address different types of research questions. This allowed me to begin viewing research methodologies less as a static set of practices and more as adaptable tools to be applied differently in different contexts.   

In his chapter on literature reviews, Creswell didn’t present any information that I found especially ground-breaking: I am familiar with the uses and purposes of the literature review. However, his discussions of it as a way to explore a topic was a good reminder for me that the literature review is not an end in itself but a component of the larger research process, as a staging process for one’s topic to discover if it should be researched (24). In the past few months, I have been thinking about my dissertation topic in rather broad terms, and the ideas I have on it are all ones that can be researched. But as Creswell reminded me, the topic needs to be one that adds to the existing conversations instead of simply reiterating those conversations. This has forced me to begin looking more deeply into the nuances of my topic in the hopes of finding those angles that will add to the conversations surrounding my topic.

The role of theory is also something I knew I would need to consider in my dissertation project, but I had not yet considered fully what that role would be. Creswell identifies several different uses of theories in the various research methods. One such use in qualitative work is the generation of theory. Given the nature of my project, I doubt theory will be the end, but it will certainly play a role in understanding the potential roles of a composition-rhetoric generalist in a small English department. In the quantitative context, Creswell defines theory as “an interrelated set of constructs (or variables) formed into propositions, or hypotheses, that specify the relationship among variables (typically in terms of magnitude or direction)” (51). Understanding my own variables—including ones like faculty interests and desire for greater development, student goals and needs, departmental resources and goals—and their interconnectedness will be critical to explore my dissertation topic effectively. And as Creswell notes, qualitative use of theory also addresses relationships among variables and serves as a tool to ground other discussions (61). This sense of theory as a tool to understand and explain phenomena or other ideas fits quite well with my sense of how theory will work in my dissertation. Finally, positioning the theory/ies is something I have not attended much to at this point but will now thanks to Creswell’s discussions—but that is some time down the road.

More immediate, though, will be to make writing and work on my dissertation more habitual. I routinely do a good amount of writing as it is, but I am often guilty of procrastinating, finding it easy to put off some smaller work on research when my schedule gets hectic. I also valued his discussion on ethical matters as a reminder of issues to consider early on. Similar to what Creswell suggests here, I have always had the view that the researcher should approach her or his subjects in a Hippocratic fashion, avoiding doing any harm to my subjects first and foremost, and keeping this in mind early on will allow me to limit ethical issues throughout my research process.

Another general discussion I found useful for my ends was his chapter on the purpose statement. Again, Creswell didn’t offer an abundance of new information to me here about the importance of the purpose statement, but he does distinguish it from other, similar parts of the project, including the research problem and research questions. The research problem is “the problem or issue leading to a need for the study” and the research questions represent “those questions that the data will attempt to answer.” The purpose statement, however, “sets the objectives, the intent, or the major idea of a proposal or a study” (111-12). Having such distinctions in mind will help me draw sharper distinctions between these different parts of the project.

The most meaningful concept I have taken from Creswell at this point is the mixed methods approach. As the name suggests, this approach combines quantitative and qualitative methods, including the philosophical assumptions, strategies of inquiry, and methodologies of both (4). A particular study may emphasize one design over the other, but Creswell notes that such mixing may mitigate particular weaknesses in either quantitative or qualitative approaches (14). Creswell categorizes the combinations of quantitative and qualitative methods as sequential mixed methods (using one method to extend or more fully explore what insights came from the other method), concurrent mixed methods (collecting data using both methods at the same time and applying both methods to the findings), and transformative mixed methods (relying on particular theoretical viewpoints to frame and analyze qualitative and quantitative data) (14-15).  The mixed method approaches seem to be the most promising to my work at this point as they allow for some more openness of viewpoints and methods, which is rather liberating to my thinking at this early point in my dissertation work.

At this point, I feel Creswell’s writing is quite straightforward, he defines and explains the concepts clearly, and his examples illustrate the concepts effectively. I do not having any pressing questions after reading this first half of his text.

State of the Field

Based on my classmates’ blog postings, I think I can comfortably say that the field of second-language writing is in a state of flux. What I see occurring here, based on these discussions, is that the field is pushing and challenging conventional thinking and attempting to further develop its own practical and theoretical soundness. This suggests the field is healthy and growing--and seeking a stronger place for itself in the academy.


One of the first challenges of note to the field’s conventional wisdom is in how the field views students. Aaron’s third blog entry points to the challenge to the native speaker (NS)/non-native speaker (NNS) dichotomy that Canagarajah raises, arguing that the binary’s roots are in monolingualism and that privileging “native” speaking and speakers disadvantages L2 students. In addition Callie’s first blog entry on Song’s article discusses the globalization of English that is occurring and recognizes the loss of diversity signaled by the NS/NNS binary. These highlight discussions in the field concerning its commonplace definitions, challenging us to consider the consequences of the terms we use.

Furthermore, a number of the blogs address articles that ask to reconsider how we assess L2 writing practices. Anna-Liisa’s entire blog covers this quite well, but perhaps her second entry the focuses on the response patterns of teachers is particularly relevant. Based on the discussions in this article, Anna-Liisa asserts that teachers must have a strong sense of their reasons for assessing as they do. She furthers this line of thinking in her third blog entry by examining an article on students’ perceptions of feedback, especially error correction. As she notes, this article stresses the need to consider students’ needs. In sum, as teachers, not only do we need to have theoretical and practical reasons for assessing our students’ work as we do; we also need to consider our students’ need in that feedback.


Sharon’s blog also addresses issues of feedback and error correction. She, too, examines the importance of student perceptions. In her third entry, she covered the importance of aligning the goals of the curriculum with the goal of the feedback. As the article noted, curricula often rest on high-order, complex issues; typical feedback, conversely, often focuses on superficial matters. The solution, much as presented by Anna-Liisa, is to discover the individual needs of students and tailor feedback to those needs. But Sharon’s first blog entry points to the problems of simply carrying L1 feedback practices over into L2 contexts. Combining praises with critiques and hedging (common in L1 feedback) may only leave our L2 students wondering what we want of them. Therefore, we must consider in different terms what it is to be clear in our feedback.

While the field is challenging its more traditional views and practices, it is also working toward extending its scope and building upon its foundations. A key part of this is bringing L2 writing and its instruction closer to other disciplines, and perhaps the best place to begin is strengthening the relationship between L1 and L2. As Matsuda notes, a “a division of labor” has long existed between the two, and this division keeps the fields at arm’s length from one another--close but not connected (701). Aaron’s second blog entry notes that even the language used in the respective fields can serve to isolate the disciplines. Abandoning such terms and other separatist practices may better allow these fields to influence and be influenced by each other. In my blog postings, I also attempted to explore the need to unite L2 concepts with other disciplines more fully, particularly in my WAC entries. One example of this is my entry on Phillips, Stewart, and Stewart’s article, which highlighted the role L2 faculty can play in encouraging faculty across the university to approach L2 writing more conscientiously by raising awareness and conducting workshops.


Another area of expansion has been in the use of genre. Genre models of writing instruction have been growing in popularity in writing courses of all stripes, including L2 writing courses. Courses relying on genre models emphasize authentic writing situations and texts with the goal of providing students with meaningful and applicable instruction. As Naing notes in his fourth blog entry, through his discussion of Miller’s article, how texts are constructed has, in the past, received less attention than some of the more superficial matters. His entry examines how shifting the focus to genre and to how texts are constructed may be more beneficial to our students than focusing on the minutiae of sentence-level matters. Callie also examined genre in her fifth blog post. Though she had some concerns with the article, she noted that it did provide some useful discussions on the benefits of the genre approach: creating authentic texts, developing an understanding of discourse, communities, and maintaining the process approach in conjunction with genre.

Finally, the field’s concerns are moving beyond the classroom and into addressing political concerns that can marginalize L2 learners and instructors. The concerns about the politics and power differentials often arose in the contexts of the effects of valuing English as a lingua franca. Damien’s fifth blog entry discussed the influence of English on Spanish writing. As he notes, placing a higher value on a particular language is a political issue, as this threatens other languages. We should remember the political implications of how and why we teach English as this cannot but affect our students. In her fourth blog post, Cathryn addresses this issue in the context of the Polish education system. There, English has a privileged place and it also seems to threaten local languages. However, the article she reviewed here notes that some “Europeanizing” of English was also occurring, demonstrating a more bidirectional interaction of language. The implications here are that, as we consider our own classroom practices, we must consider such political implications if we are to create an equitable environment for our students.


These entries all point to a field that is attempting to negotiate its own position in ways that advance its disciplinary and institutional status. In other words, this highlights a field that is seeking to strengthen its legitimacy. And as it does so, it must work to transport its knowledge throughout the institution, for the students L2 education serves will still encounter linguistic struggles in other classes and disciplines. Thus, preparing faculty in English departments and departments across the university will be essential for ensuring success for L2 students. This has been the focus of my work in the blogs—as it has been for others (for example, Callie’s first blog and Damien’s fourth blog). It is vital for the field to question itself and develop itself theoretically and practically. But it must not do so in isolation if it hopes for this knowledge to be meaningful for L2 students. As I hope my blog entries have suggested, those involved in L2 education must diligently develop the knowledge of their colleagues to change the institutional culture to one that is more conscious of the needs of L2 students.

Work Cited

Matsuda, Paul Kei. “Composition Studies and ESL Writing: A Disciplinary Division of Labor.” CCC 50.4 (1999): 699-721. Print.

Dangers and Promise of the L2 Metaphor in WAC

Matsuda, Paul Kei and Jeffrey Jablonski. “Beyond the L2 Metaphor: Towards a Mutually Transformative Model of ESL/WAC Collaboration.” Academic Writing 1 (2000): n. pag. Rpt. in Writing across the Curriculum: A Critical Sourcebook. Ed. Terry Myers Zawacki and Paul M. Rogers. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012. 441-47, Print.

Even though this article is quite brief, Matsuda and Jablonski explore a worthwhile consideration regarding the relationship of WAC and ESL. They take up a common metaphor in WAC/WID: learning to write in different disciplines is like learning a new language. While this view of learning communicative practices in different disciplines and contexts has encouraged WAC scholars to develop their understanding of L2 practices, they argue this perspective may often be used without considering its effects on L2 students. As they claim, this view may simplify L2 learning and exclude these students and their needs in WAC programs. To remedy this, they advocate a closer connection of WAC and ESL instructors.

They begin by examining how the L2 metaphor has been used in composition studies, including Mina Shaughnessy’s work with basic writers. Shaughnessy’s work—and later work by other scholars—helped to establish that connection between work in ESL and in composition. The key benefit of the metaphor has been helping instructors in the disciplines recognize that their discourse is unique and that students may need helping understanding and using that discourse effectively. But as noted above, they also argue that the use of this metaphor has not reached its potential. The borrowing of L2 matters in composition studies has often been in the narrow form of error. It also fails to recognize the ethnic and cultural differences L2 students face, as well as the double difficulty they have in learning a new language and a new disciplinary language. These lapses suggest a separation of WAC and ESL (Matsuda’s notion of the division of labor) and cause missed opportunities for these fields to influence each other’s practices.

Fostering such a “mutually transformative” influence is their goal here. They argue that as the fields borrow knowledge from each other, they must recognize that the borrowing can and should change how they approach instruction. In the case of WAC borrowing from ESL, WAC scholars and teachers should recognize that the ideas they bring over should not just be for the benefit of the L1 students. Furthermore, they must understand that, though ESL courses may be separate from their own, the students who go through these programs will still face issues in WAC courses. Finally, they suggest a more collaborative approach of these programs from the outset. The programs, in other words, might consider joint efforts as opposed to working in isolation.

In spite of its brevity, this article superbly reminds us that we must consider the full implications of how we use any theories or practices in our classroom. In addition and more immediate to my concerns, I appreciate that the authors argue for a more meaningful collaboration between WAC initiatives and ESL writing programs on a campus to help keep visible the needs of L2 students as they move from their initial courses into later courses requiring different writing skills and strategies. Such collaborative efforts have the potential to bring faculty together in a common purpose of success for all students.

Collaborating beyond Peer Review

Storch, Neomy. “Collaborative Writing: Product, Process, and Students’ Reflections.” Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005): 153-73. Print.

As the academic and professional worlds students are entering become more collaborative in nature, writing instructors who offer students collaborative opportunities are likely providing them with necessary tools for their future work. Storch argues in this article that collaboration goes beyond providing students with useful tools; collaboration helps students produce better work.

She draws on the Vygotskyan roots of collaboration in education to argue that peers can play a role in scaffolding learning. These benefits, however, are underutilized. Typically, collaboration in the writing process is limited to peer review. Not only does this come late in the writing process, but, as she notes, peer review often emphasizes the final product and superficial matters. On the other hand, she also points to research that highlights the benefits of collaborative writing at earlier stages of the writing process. These earlier incorporations lead to a sense of shared responsibility (co-authoring) and fuller considerations of more meaningful issues (such as content and effectiveness).

While she agrees with these benefits, she also notes that the studies were often limited to surveys of students instead of interviews and often focused on group work generally as opposed to collaborative writing specifically. In her study, then, she tape recorded students working in pairs (she allowed them to self-select pair or individual work to reduce ethical conflicts of forcing students into group projects). She then interviewed the students who worked in pairs for their feelings about the usefulness/effectiveness of the collaborative task. Finally, she examined the texts produced by the pairs in relation to those produced by individuals to evaluate their accuracy (mostly grammatical correctness) and complexity (referring to use of more complex sentence structures). Using these three threads of information, she ultimately concluded that students in pairs produced more effective texts and valued collaborative writing, though they did have a few concerns about the process, stemming mostly from fears of hurting others’ feelings, concerns about one’s own English proficiency, and views of writing as an individual activity.

This study, then, mostly supports perspectives many writing teachers have: collaborative writing can be beneficial for students’ learning. I did have one main reservation about her methods. This was a timed, in-class activity, and she was making several judgments about the effectiveness of collaborative writing based on how they engaged in the writing process. While process is undoubtedly a part of in-class work, I think we might have better insight into the effectiveness of collaborative writing from a longer, multi-draft assignment, which she does recognize at the end. Nonetheless, I think Storch provides some evidence as to the value of collaborative writing and about the value of giving L2 students “the opportunity to give and receive immediate feedback on language” (168). Finally, she also reminds us that to implement such pedagogical practices effectively, we must prepare students for this work—something she admits was lacking in her own practices—and we must construct assignments that respect their ability to choose for themselves if they want to work alone or collaboratively.

The Institutional Depths of Monolingualism

Shuck, Gail. “Combating Monolingualism: A Novice Administrator’s Challenge.” WPA 30.1-2 (2006): 59-82. Print.

Shuck’s article begins by recognizing that the increase in numbers of L2 students in universities has led to the hiring of more second-language experts in universities. Yet beneath an apparent understanding of the needs of L2 students, monolingualism—or the notion of “the ideal speaker is [. . .] a monolingual native speaker of a prestige variety of English” (59)—is still pervasive and deeply engrained in the university structures and curriculum. Moreover, she claims that even the structures that seem to support and advance linguistic diversity play a part in perpetuating monolingualism.

To illustrate this, she examines the nature of her own position at Boise State University. She was hired to run the English program that supports L2 students. What she discovered was an L2 system that practiced Matsuda’s “linguistic containment” and isolated L2 students for a few classes and then thrust them into mainstream courses with the assumption that those few preparatory classes had “remediated” all of their “problems.” Placement in these preparatory courses was largely determined by placement exams. Often, academic assessment staff told students who had any hint of an accent to take the ESL placement tests regardless of their own sense of their English skills. And these exams were rated by staff that had little to no training in any form of writing assessment, let alone L2 writing assessment. She further discovered that her very presence on campus seemed to remove from other faculty the sense of responsibility to assist L2 students’ language development. Since she was the “ESL person,” some faculty felt she shouldered the responsibility for these students and their language development. In addition, because she was attached to the English department, faculty viewed L2 language development as the English department’s purview.

Despite these rather depressing discoveries about the depths of monolingualism, Shuck concludes the article by offering as exemplars two strategies she implemented to resolve some of these issues. The first includes “unmarking” L2 students in an administrative sense. Her attempts to do this consist of revising placement practices, making preparatory classes “credit-bearing and requirement-fulfilling” (69), changing the nature of preparatory courses, and adding cross-cultural sections of writing classes. The second strategy involves faculty development, starting with the composition instruction staff. She expands this strategy to other departments by conducting workshops and using a liaison program that dedicates one faculty member in a given department as the L2 point person for that department. She also makes public “the strengths and struggles that multilingual students bring to our classrooms” (72) by publishing multilingual student work and holding a public conference consisting of that work. While these changes do not reverse completely monolingualism, they do illustrate ways writing program administrators may begin to challenge it.

Assessing Assessment

Weigle, Sara Cushing. “Teaching Writing Teachers about Assessment.” Journal of Second Language Writing 16 (2007): 194-209. Print.

Although assessing writing is a key part of writing instruction, Weigle argues in this article that writing instructors often receive limited or no formal instruction in writing assessment practices. As a result, teachers may feel understanding assessment is not a vital part of their classroom practices and their construction of writing assignments. But as Weigle attempts to demonstrate, careful attention to assessment principles can result in more effective learning objectives and assignments and can offer students clearer paths to success in a given course.

Weigle’s piece is a bit of a primer in assessment principles. She provides general definitions of terms like reliability, validity, and practicality as they relate to constructing effective assessment tools. She also examines strategies for developing effective writing exams. Within her discussion of writing exams, she makes an especially valuable observation about objectives: Too often, the objectives writing instructors place in their syllabi do not offer clear criteria for meeting those objectives. Her example is a version of something many instructors likely place in their syllabi: “students will learn the basics of academic writing” (196). Without providing particular ways students might reach such vague objectives, instructors will have a difficult time assessing student progress. She asserts that clarifying these objectives result in improved assignment design, assessment choices, and rubric creation.

Another practice Weigle discusses in this piece, one that I have been reluctant to apply in my own practices, is the use of timed writing assignments. She claims these not only reflect real writing practices our students will likely have to endure (essay exams in other classes, exit exams, the GRE or TOFEL exams), but they also allow instructors to evaluate L2 students’ progress. Timed writing exercises call for a more automatized use of language, which may help students develop some more “natural” linguistic skills in the target language, and don’t allow students to rely on other support structures that may be hindering their development such as the overuse of tutors.

While this article’s focus on L2 students wasn’t as explicit as its placement in this journal might have suggested, it highlights the need to create clear and specific goals for our students as well as providing them with realistic and varied writing activities. Such practices certainly benefit L2 students in giving them multiple ways to practice their writing skills and making explicit the goals of the course and its assignments. But these are also reasonable considerations to make for all students. Furthermore, this article offered a number of possible exercises one could use in a workshop setting to help writing instructors engage with assessment-related issues (clarifying vague objectives, writing assignment specifications, etc.). For someone who has avoided assessment matters, like me, this provides some useful inroads into what seems like daunting territory.