Alternatives in TESOL Research: Descriptive, Interpretive, and Ideological Orientations

Abstract

Seven noted researchers each describe a different orientation to research exemplified in their own studies and currently predominant in TESOL, highlighting the value of each research orientation as well as its limitations. The seven statements consider (a) aspects of language behavior such as learners' language, verbal reports of learning strategies, or text structures; (b) frameworks for interpreting curricula or culture such as classroom interaction or ethnography; or (c) ideological orientations such as critical pedagogy or participatory action research.

TESOLas a Professional Community: A Half‐Century of Pedagogy, Research, and Theory

“…The approaches were perhaps so novel that special introductions were sponsored by the journal to explain their rationale and validity. For example, a featured symposium (Cumming et al., ), a special topic issue in 1995 (see Qualitative Research in ESOL , Vol. 29, No.…”

Mixed Methods Research in TESOL: Procedures Combined or Epistemology Confused?

“…This is well illustrated by the numerous specific books and journals on research in these disciplines. On the other hand, within the area of TESOL, the notion of (quantitative or qualitative) TESOL research is an established one (e.g., Cumming, ; Kasper & Prior, ; Lazaraton & Dufon, ). Moreover, the very idea of TESOL‐specific mixed methods research discussions has already emerged as a scholarly subarea in the field, as seen later in this article.…”

An Invitation to the Less‐Treaded Path of Autoethnography in TESOL Research

“…Chaudron's () methodological consideration of the interaction of qualitative and quantitative second language education research was among the first instances of addressing this concern. Later, the TESOL Quarterly special section on Alternatives in TESOL Research (Cumming, ) and the special issue of the journal on qualitative research (Davis & Lazaraton, ) shaped landmarks in this regard. Since then, in addition to the mainstream quantitative methodological discussions, other research perspectives have continued to be debated under the rubrics of qualitative and narrative approaches (e.g., Barkhuizen, ; Richards, ), critical perspectives (e.g., Canagarajah, ; Davis, ), and, more recently, mixed‐methods research (e.g., Hashemi & Babaii, ; Riazi & Candlin, ).…”