Introduction
It may go unchallenged to assert that the
process of Second Language Acquisition
(SLA) is enormously complex. It is complex
both in the literal sense of the word and in
the technical and metaphorical sense which
is realized in a Complexity Theory approach
to SLA. The essential prerequisite of
unraveling this complexity is embracing and
coming to grips with constant flux as well as
non-linear, dynamic, and emergent behavior.
This might involve a change of perspective
and seems to be inevitable; in that the study
of second language acquisition is the study
of a complex developmental phenomenon
which is, by its very nature, interwoven with
change, variation, and non-linearity. Viewed
from this vantage point, a macro-developmental approach (embodied in
conventional cross-sectional and
longitudinal methods) may not afford
comprehensive and adequate descriptions
and explanations of the SLA-related
phenomena. This is because, as useful as it
may be for depicting the products of a
process of change, a macro-developmental
approach (e.g., longitudinal research) is like
taking snapshots with certain intervals in
between (Siegler & Crowley, 1991) and thus
cannot provide detailed information about
how developmental changes occur (Lee &
Karmiloff-Smith, 2002; Siegler & Crowley,
1991). To the contrary, a micro-developmental approach (embodied in
microgenetic method and dynamic systems
method), which resembles making a movie
(Siegler & Crowley, 1991), helps observing
developmental changes directly as they
occur.
Microgenetic method could be defined as a
specific method for studying change in
abilities, knowledge, and understanding
during short time spans, through dense
observations, and over a relatively long
period of time. The findings obtained from
this method of research bear potential
significance for both SLA researchers and
language teachers. As regards researchers,
this provides answers to such (longstanding)
questions as: Whether the provision of
written corrective feedback leads to L2
acquisition, and if so, how (a highly
controversial issue since 1996 which will be
further discussed in this article)? This
research method could also yield findings,
or perhaps “provisional specifications”
(Stenhouse, 1975) for that matter, which are
more readily accessible to teachers in a wide
range of contexts, since through this method
“researchers can identify when interventions
may work and when teaching may become
beneficial; [and thus] they can provide more
accurate predictions, and contribute to
improved teaching” (Granott & Parziale,
2002, p. 14). Furthermore, microgenetic
researchers are assumed to “[simulate] real
agents of change” and thus manipulations in
the laboratory have to do with what happens
in the real world (in this case, language
classrooms) (Thelen & Corbetta, 2002, p.
60). This being the case, one of the problems
inherent in laboratory research – namely the
lack of ecological validity – may be
overcome.
In this paper, I will attempt to provide a
brief overview of microgenetic method and
will point out its potential advantages and
disadvantages in the context of SLA. To
illustrate the utility of microgenetic method
in SLA research, I will then discuss a SLA-related issue which could be addressed via
this research method, namely the effects of
written corrective feedback on L2
acquisition.
Microgenetic method: Brief history and
general overview
The concept of microgenetic method was
coined by the Austrian developmental
psychologist Heinz Werner in the mid 1920s
during his experiments which aimed to
investigate the unfolding of successive
representations that comprised
psychological events. He hypothesized that
cognitive changes over various timescales –
ranging from milliseconds to a year – share
important commonalities (Siegler, 2006) and
this very hypothesis has turned into a
fundamental assumption underlying
microgenetic method. Microgenetic method
was later approved by Vygotsky (1978) and
further adopted by Piagetian, Vygotskyan,
and information-processing-oriented
researchers working in the area of
developmental psychology (see Siegler &
Crowley, 1991 for a brief review). This
method aims to (artificially) expedite the
natural process of change by providing
participants with frequent instances of a
stimulus (or a particular exercise/instruction)
which is hypothesized to drive the cognitive
development so as to enable the researcher
to observe the change process as it transpires
(Kuhn, 1995).
Microgenetic method is identified with three
essential properties which distinguish it
from conventional longitudinal methods
(Granott & Parziale, 2002; Siegler, 2006):
(a) observations span a period from the
beginning of a process of change until a
relatively stable state; (b) within this period
the density of observations is high relative to
the rate and the period of change; and (c)
observations are analyzed intensively via
trial-by-trial analyses which zero in on
inferring the processes that gave rise to
qualitative or quantitative changes. It is
important to note, however, that both micro-
and macro- developmental approaches (i.e.
both conventional longitudinal and
microgenetic methods) subscribe to the
same epistemological position which, as Lee
and Karmiloff-Smith (2002) point out,
allows for the objective observations and
independent replications of the
developmental phenomena, quantification of
the developmental phenomena in terms of
meaningful units, manipulation of the
developmental phenomena so as to identify
the underlying factors which drive specific
developments, and the application of
scientific reasoning to the description and
explanation of the developmental
phenomena in question.
Advantages and disadvantages
Overall, microgenetic method has the
potential to help SLA researchers deepen
their understanding of L2 acquisition and is
applicable to both laboratory and classroom
contexts (Siegler, 2006). The advantages of
microgenetic method are diverse. Drawing
on Granott and Parziale (2002), I will
summarize and categorize these advantages
under three main headings and will attempt
to discuss them in the context of L2
acquisition:
(a) Data: The dense observations during
short time-spans provide us with valuable
information regarding the processes and
mechanisms of change that trigger learning
and the development of language. In effect,
despite conventional longitudinal research
methods which normally adopt a state-oriented perspective, microgenetic method
approaches language development from a
process-oriented perspective and thus
affords a comprehensive and dynamic
picture of L2 acquisition. Some four decades
ago, Selinker (1972) argued that the data
that would be relevant for the study of SLA
are those that deepen our understanding of
the psycholinguistic mechanisms and
processes which underlie L2 performance
and by extension L2 acquisition.
Microgenetic method has the potential to
yield such data. This method is particularly
useful for studying L2 acquisition precisely
because it is geared towards identifying
dynamic and self-constructive processes of
change (Parziale, 2002) – two features with
which interlanguage is increasingly being
identified (Larsen-Freeman, 2006).
(b) Analysis: Analyzing the data
obtained through microgenetic method could
potentially reveal important attributes of
change (Siegler, 1996), namely its path
(sequence of development); rate; variability
(individual difference); and sources (i.e.
causes which give rise to change). As it
happens, all these issues have featured in
SLA research over the last three decades or
so (see Ellis, 2008 for an excellent account),
nevertheless our current understanding
regarding these concepts is, to a
considerable extent, based on inferences
drawn from data obtained under rigorously
controlled (quasi)experimental conditions.
For example, the source(s) of second
language production, Gass and Mackey
(2000) rightly point out, is not clear at all as
there are often numerous explanations for
the language that learners produce and these
explanations could only be explored if we
adopt a process-oriented perspective. In
addition to providing the opportunity for
direct observation of change processes, such
analyses can illuminate how instructions
actually bring about their effects (Siegler,
2002) which could be of paramount
importance to applied SLA researchers.
(c) Implications: The rich data and
detailed analyses which are the hallmarks of
microgenetic method can assist applied SLA
researchers to predict when teaching and
pedagogical interventions can be beneficial.
Within the context of SLA, for instance, the
erroneous forms that learners produce after a
period of accurate production are perhaps
precursors of a change process in their
interlanguage systems and indicators of an
appropriate time for the provision of
(intensive) pedagogical feedback, for, from
a microdevelopmental perspective,
participants are more prone to positive
change when they lose stability (Thelen &
Corbetta, 2002) or when backward
transitions are manifest in their
developmental behavior. This, of course, is
not a new idea. Even a cursory examination
of the SLA literature reveals that such
notions as U-shaped or Omega-shaped
patterns of learning have been around for
decades now and several empirical studies
have testified to the fact that the initial
appearance of a new grammatical feature
does not necessarily mark its consistent use.
But, surprisingly, this very fact is all too
often simply ignored – a case in point is the
way language development and accurate
production of language are viewed and dealt
with in the majority of studies conducted on
the effects of written corrective feedback on
L2 acquisition. Microgenetic method has
proved a useful tool for studying
developmental phenomena which exhibit
such characteristics (see Kuhn, 1995). In
addition, and more importantly, it “can
reveal the steps and circumstances that
precede a [developmental] change, the
change itself, and the generalization of
change beyond its initial context” (Siegler &
Crowley, 1991, p. 608).
These positive points notwithstanding, a
number of disadvantages stand out. In fact,
not unlike any other research method,
microgenetic method is very much easier
described and discussed than actually done!
Succinctly put, microgenetic method is
difficult and time-consuming and
participants’ linguistic abilities and
developments need to be assessed
individually so as to glean the kind of
detailed data with the properties delineated
above (Siegler & Crowley, 1991). Apart
from cumbersome data collection
procedures and in turn coding problems
which may in part result from the
researchers’ attempts to artificially
accelerate the change processes, the
statistical tools with which to analyze such
data are perplexing and may necessitate
team-based research endeavors. However,
the high-quality and detailed data that this
research method yields is certainly worth all
the trouble.
An illustration: Written corrective
feedback and L2 acquisition
Since the publication of John Truscott’s
(1996) critical article on the futility and
harmfulness of written corrective feedback
(WCF) in L2 writing classes, the area of
second language writing has witnessed a
burst of interest in investigating the issue of
WCF as a popular practice in L2 writing
classrooms (Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener &
Knoch, 2008, 2009, 2010; Chandler, 2003;
Sheen, 2007, to name but a few). Yet, after
more than a decade, reviewing the WCF
literature reveals that researchers have as not
yet reached a consensus as to the
effectiveness of WCF for L2 development
(Ferris, 2004; Guénette, 2007; Truscott,
2007, 2010). There is also a considerable
debate on which type or combination of
different types of WCF the best is.
Second language writing researchers now
agree that to move towards a complete
dismissal of claims made by Truscott (1996,
1999, 2007, 2010), there is a need for more
systematic and replicable research studies to
examine both short-term and long-term
benefits of distinct types and combination of
various types of WCF under different
circumstances and in both ESL and EFL
contexts. Inspired by Ferris (2004), Guénette
(2007) claims that the existing controversy
on the effectiveness of WCF is to a very
large extent attributable to the fact that
research studies conducted so far have
indeed made use of so different (and in most
cases somewhat problematic) research
designs and methodologies. At times,
according to Guénette (2007), the internal
validity of such research is subject to doubt
since quite rarely have researchers
controlled for the potential confounding
variables such as participants’ differential
motivation and a myriad of contextual
factors. Thus, as Guénette (2007) and Ferris
(1999, 2003, 2004) maintain, if we are to
reach any consensus as to the efficacy of
WCF, the first step is to follow tightly
controlled procedures which help
conducting systematic and replicable
research studies.
Therefore, based on this account, one may
argue that the complex nature of WCF
would warrant studying this phenomenon
via conventional, albeit methodologically
rigorous, longitudinal studies (e.g.,
Bitchener & Knoch, 2010). However, results
of such studies, per se, provide but an
incomplete picture of L2 acquisition and
may not be readily of use for language
pedagogy and thus, this article argues, they
need to be complemented with the results of
process-oriented research (e.g. microgenetic
method). This is because there are,
undoubtedly, innumerable factors which
influence L2 acquisition and in the long run
it would be tremendously difficult, if not
impossible, to isolate the effects of WCF on
L2 development. Also, note that teaching is
essentially a ‘contingent act’ (Larsen-Freeman, personal correspondence) and thus
the more we control for
extraneous/confounding variables the less
ecologically and externally valid our study
will be.
This paper argues that microgenetic method
has the potential to enable us to examine not
only the effects of WCF on L2 acquisition
but, more importantly, when, where, and
how to supply WCF in order for it to
efficiently exercise its effects. The rationale
behind this argument is twofold: (1) as it
was noted in the previous section,
microgenetic method accelerates the change
processes by providing participants with
frequent provisions of instruction/stimulus
in a way that would not occur in normal
experience and this would place us in a
position to argue that the accelerated process
of change is to a very large extent a function
of the intensive treatment given to learners
(cf. Kuhn, 1995); and (2) since microgenetic
method yields detailed information about
both inter- and intra-individual variability,
we can ascertain, with some degree of
certainty, when, where, and how participants
lose stability or exhibit backward transition
in their developmental behavior. As it was
pointed out, participants are more prone to
developmental change when variability or
backward transition surface in their
linguistic functioning and these points in
time may constitute appropriate
opportunities for the provision of WCF.
From this illustration it may become clear
how viewing L2 acquisition from a
microdevelopmental perspective benefits
both SLA research and L2 pedagogy: SLA
researchers deepen their understanding of
the nature of interlanguage systems and the
variables which may affect its development,
and since such studies are ecologically valid
and explore the underlying acquisitional
processes, which are essentially the same in
all human beings, results could be used as a
basis for empirically-informed decision
making in the classrooms.
Conclusion
This short paper aimed to introduce
microgenetic method and justify its utility as
a viable tool for investigating SLA-related
phenomena. Microgenetic method is very
difficult to conduct, nevertheless, given the
high-quality and detailed data that this
research method yields and in light of the
increasing ease with which to analyze
complex data – thanks to the advancements
in designing versatile statistical software – it
is not irrational to envisage a future in which
microgenetic studies have proliferated in the
field of SLA. This may make it imperative
for SLA researchers to not only keep
abreast of the cutting edge language-related
developments made in the field of
psychology using this research method but
to consider this method as a useful option in
their research tool kit.
