Ecological point of view: quantitative to qualitative

Blyth's article demonstrated the entire flow reveled in the development of technology research, which ultimately showed the direction towards which ongoing and future research will be oriented--ecological approach. However, what I encountered at the several conferences that I attended runs counter to this transitional movement. I went to the SLRF (Second Language Research Forum), considered one of major conferences in terms of second language acquisition (SLA), and found that the prevalent methods that are commonly used by researchers are quantitative methods involving statistical analysis--trying to give input embedded in a set teaching model which is predicated upon each researcher's own theoretical frameworks (typically, psycholinguistics models), then compared with a control group, and investigating whether the differences found in pre- and post-test scores between those two groups are statistically significant. If so (significant), then the researchers would finally be qualifed to have inflated opinions that the teaching model that they applied to the target class is so beneficial that it should be incorporated soon. However, that quantitative method that plays out with numbers cannot be comprehensive and inclusive since it does not take into account what kinds of input are noticed and internalized in class, and how those input is processed in parellel with the individual attitude and perception that are shaped in phylogenetic, ontogentic, sociocultural, and microgenetic history. In other words, the improved score in the post-test can be attributed to other hidden factors that potentially affect the result, which countervails the ostensible vailidity of the teaching model--the validity based on "numbers." In fact, how could we measure human, the most complex creatures, with numbers?? It is not the case that psycholinguistic methods (here, quantitative methods) are not of value in SLA, but to cogently illustrate what is going on in the tech-world, or the classroom world in general, wouldn't it be wonderful for researchers to move out of their narrow lens and integrate ecological perspective into their own framework? I was one of a few of presenters who took on sociocultural perspective in the research project at the SLRF conference and was a lot shocked to see SLA is still remaining in the realm of the quantitative world. It was an eye-opening moment to me to see where SLA is now and where I should head to.

Negotiation in Cyberspace

I just have several issues about CMC chatting with NNSs. The proposition revealed through the Pellettieri's article is that the development of grammatical competence can be improved by negotiation of meaning that occur in online chatting. Of course, before this kind of chatting is incorporated in classroom activities, it should iron out potential factors that are expected to matter such as level of students' FL, task types, the goal of chatting actitivies. etc. With that in case, however, CMC chatting has to encouter problems that actually take place. I agree that students are provided with chances to hypothetically "open their mouths" and "say something" online, which ultimately put them in a situation where they notice the "hole" of their linguistic repertoir and fill it drawing on other sources. However, it is very slow and time-consuming. Nobody can guerantee when they would recognize their mistakes and how much noticing would work. To obtain a certain amount of input that can be obtained in one-hour class, they would have to be put in an online space for 3 hours. What is worse, NNSs are not likely to correct the grammatical mistakes commited by other NNSs unless those mistakes threaten the existing communication. Sometimes it is better for students to get input from instructors directly. I am only talking about the chatting between NNSs who are particulary beginners. It may be different if they are advanced enough to get things cross in FL; however, they are still being exposed to where grammatical mistakes are prevalent. I think I have been long-winded on this but the gist of this writing is that grammatical competence shouldn't be (or cannot be) the focus of the chatting.