Introduction
The article under consideration is “Second language learning: conscious or unconscious” written by Yang Chaochun and Cheng Lian (2005). The article is focused on the problem of whether the process of second language learning is conscious or unconscious. The main purpose of the paper is to evaluate critically the article under analysis from the following point, internal and external validity as well as explanatory and descriptive power.
Positives
The main idea of the article is stated at the very beginning. Reading the abstract, the reader can understand the center of the discussion, which is the nature of the process of second language learning, whether it is consciousness or unconsciousness. The authors of the article try to cast light on each idea they describe supporting them with the information that was stated by different authors. Chaochun and Lian (2005), the authors of the article, emphasize several theories that either support or reject the idea that the second language learning process is an unconscious one. The authors took the theory, considered it, and presented some reasons that made this theory reasonable.
The external validity of the article is seen in the authors’ emphasis on the conscious and unconscious theories of second language learning directed to other people and situations. The authors of the article tried to distinguish between those who usually learn a second language consciously (adults) and those who usually learn it unconsciously (children). The main positive feature in the relation to the external validity is that the authors managed to generalize the findings of their research, presented in the article, and show that the study is “relevant not only to the research population, but also to the wider population of language learners” (Mackey, & Gass 2005, p. 119)
The authors tried to present the main idea of the article in the conclusion. They managed to restate the idea that adults learn a second language consciously while children do it unconsciously. Furthermore, the conclusion of the article stresses the two directions of researching the nature of the second language learning process, those for children and adults.
Limitations
Nevertheless, the abstract of the article is rather general. The authors failed to express their opinion on the problem and did not include the hypothesis of the paper. Considering the article, the reader is unable to understand the use of the theories and the relation to different scholars and scientists who researched the problem of conscious and unconscious in the second language learning as there is no strict thesis statement in the work. Furthermore, the introduction of the paper just presents two opinions of the second language learning nature without highlighting the main purpose of the paper and the methods this purpose is going to be reached.
At the same time, the authors did not try hard. There is an impression that the theories are just enumerated without any conclusions and summary of the written. The examples of the theories which are not connected to the main idea of the article are numerous in the paper. The authors collected good material but failed to direct it to the necessary stream. It is crucial to mention that reading the article the disbalance between descriptive and explanatory is noticed. It leads to some confusion and may be related to the limitations of the article, as the authors failed to express their ideas clearly and in a proper way. At the same time, according to Rakover and Cahlon (2001), “an increase in the descriptive power does not necessarily imply an increase in the explanatory power” (p. 235) and vice versa.
Though, if the authors wanted to have strong external validity, they would have to reduce the personal attitude to the subject of the research, which is impossible. IT is significant to notice that the main threat of the external validity is that “attitudes and feelings of the participants that develop during a study may influence the generalizability of the finding and another setting” (Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh & Sorensen 2009 p. 293) Still, the authors failed to represent it properly. They just expressed their surmises, without supporting them with any information from credible sources. Relating the second language learning to native language learning, Chaochun and Lian (2005) just suggest that children learn the second language according to the principle of native language learning, unconsciously.
The conclusions of the article do not relate to the main focus of the article. Throughout the whole article, the authors of the article tried to dwell upon different opinions and theories whether the second language learning is conscious or not supporting the facts with information from different sources, but writing the conclusion, the authors failed to summary the information they gathered. The conclusion does not match any theory described in the article.
The authors of the article just restated the idea they expressed in the abstract, but this idea was not closely considered while the discussion. Dealing with internal validity and the influence it caused to the limitation of the study, it is crucial to mention the selection threat. The authors cannot be sure that the sources for discussion they chosen are equivalent, and if “the bare not equivalent before the study, we cannot know whether any difference observed later is due to the experiment or the pretreatment difference” (Ary et al 2009, p. 278).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the article under analysis is of low quality if consider from internal and external validity, and explanatory and descriptive power. The main focus of the article is unclear, as well as the conclusion which does not summary the information that was discussed in the article. The authors of the article also failed to address the external validity as the facts devoted to the common sense of the ideas are not supported with the information from credible sources. Conclusively, the article just enumerates the main ideas researched by different scholars without authors’ expressing their personal opinion on the discussed facts and failing to summarize the facts mentioned.
References
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A. & Sorensen, C., 2009. Introduction to Research in Education. Stamford: Cengage Learning.
Chaochun, Y. & Lian, C., 2005. Second language learning: conscious or unconscious. CELEA Journal, 28(4), pp. 24-31.
Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M., 2005. Second Language Research: Methodology and Design. Oxford: Routledge.
Rakover, S. S. & Cahlon, B., 2001. Face recognition: cognitive and computational processes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.