Sampling and randomisation in experimental and quasi-experimental CALL studies: Issues and recommendations for design, reporting, review, and interpretation

IF 4.6 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Recall Pub Date : 2023-06-26 DOI:10.1017/s0958344023000162
O. Ballance
{"title":"Sampling and randomisation in experimental and quasi-experimental CALL studies: Issues and recommendations for design, reporting, review, and interpretation","authors":"O. Ballance","doi":"10.1017/s0958344023000162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The majority of research papers in computer-assisted language learning (CALL) report on primarily quantitative studies measuring the effectiveness of pedagogical interventions in relation to language learning outcomes. These studies are frequently referred to in the literature as experiments, although this designation is often incorrect because of the approach to sampling that has been used. This methodological discussion paper provides a broad overview of the current CALL literature, examining reported trends in the field that relate to experimental research and the recommendations made for improving practice. It finds that little attention is given to sampling, even in review articles. This indicates that sampling problems are widespread and that there may be limited awareness of the role of formal sampling procedures in experimental reasoning. The paper then reviews the roles of two key aspects of sampling in experiments: random selection of participants and random assignation of participants to control and experimental conditions. The corresponding differences between experimental and quasi-experimental studies are discussed, along with the implications for interpreting a study’s results. Acknowledging that genuine experimental sampling procedures will not be possible for many CALL researchers, the final section of the paper presents practical recommendations for improved design, reporting, review, and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in the field.","PeriodicalId":47046,"journal":{"name":"Recall","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Recall","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0958344023000162","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The majority of research papers in computer-assisted language learning (CALL) report on primarily quantitative studies measuring the effectiveness of pedagogical interventions in relation to language learning outcomes. These studies are frequently referred to in the literature as experiments, although this designation is often incorrect because of the approach to sampling that has been used. This methodological discussion paper provides a broad overview of the current CALL literature, examining reported trends in the field that relate to experimental research and the recommendations made for improving practice. It finds that little attention is given to sampling, even in review articles. This indicates that sampling problems are widespread and that there may be limited awareness of the role of formal sampling procedures in experimental reasoning. The paper then reviews the roles of two key aspects of sampling in experiments: random selection of participants and random assignation of participants to control and experimental conditions. The corresponding differences between experimental and quasi-experimental studies are discussed, along with the implications for interpreting a study’s results. Acknowledging that genuine experimental sampling procedures will not be possible for many CALL researchers, the final section of the paper presents practical recommendations for improved design, reporting, review, and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in the field.
实验和准实验CALL研究中的抽样和随机化:设计、报告、审查和解释的问题和建议
计算机辅助语言学习(CALL)的大多数研究论文主要报道了衡量教学干预措施与语言学习结果之间有效性的定量研究。这些研究在文献中经常被称为实验,尽管由于所使用的采样方法,这种指定通常是不正确的。这篇方法论讨论论文对当前的CALL文献进行了广泛的概述,研究了该领域与实验研究相关的报告趋势以及为改进实践提出的建议。它发现很少注意抽样,即使在评论文章中也是如此。这表明抽样问题普遍存在,对正式抽样程序在实验推理中的作用的认识可能有限。然后,本文回顾了抽样在实验中的两个关键方面的作用:参与者的随机选择和参与者对控制和实验条件的随机分配。讨论了实验研究和准实验研究之间的相应差异,以及对解释研究结果的启示。承认对许多CALL研究人员来说,真正的实验采样程序是不可能的,论文的最后一部分提出了改进该领域准实验研究的设计、报告、审查和解释的实用建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Recall
Recall Multiple-
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
4.40%
发文量
17
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信