MIXED METHODS CRITIQUE 1
Research Critique: Applied, Mixed Methods, or Program Evaluation Assignment
Anna Laura Ruiz
School of Education, Liberty University
Author Note
I have no known conflict of interest to disclose. Correspondence concerning this article
should be addressed to Anna Laura Ruiz
Email:
MIXED METHODS CRITIQUE 2
Research Critique: Applied, Mixed Methods, or Program Evaluation Assignment
The purpose of this review is to assess the mixed methods research conducted by Choi et
al. (2023) titled "Preschool language exposure and use: A comparison study of dual-language
learners and English monolingual children." The review will include an overview as well as a
summary and critique of the research study. The final paragraph encompasses an examination of
my professional background, views, and perspectives in relation to the subject matter of the
study.
Summary
Purpose
The main goal of the study by Choi et al. (2023) was to investigate the language
experiences of English monolinguals and dual language learners in preschool classes where
English was the primary language of instruction and there were multiple home languages
present. The study showed that, in the context of a non-typical preschool day, dual language
learners (DLLs) exhibited similar levels of verbal communication as English monolinguals
(EMs). However, DLLs got less total adult interaction and had more instances where there were
no interactions between adults and children lasting for 5 minutes or more, compared to their EM
counterparts. Using the Language Environment Analysis system as a primary tool, the
quantitative results of the assessment scores were used to determine how preschoolers-initiated
conversations (adult-initiated vs. child-initiated). The study addresses the disparities in language
experiences between Dual Language Learners (DLLs) and English Monolinguals (EMs) during
conversations between adults and children.
Participants/Sample
MIXED METHODS CRITIQUE 3
The participants of the study came from three preschool centers and six classrooms
located in the Midwestern US. Employing a purposive sampling methodology, 32 3- to 5-year-
olds were initially recruited. Choi et al. (2023) narrowed it down to 4 to 6 children per class, in
which there were at least 2 English monolinguals and 2 dual language learners. Students who had
an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) were excluded from the study. The teachers in the
classrooms were all EM's, and HeadStart programs had an additional Spanish-English bilingual
teacher.
Research Design
The study utilized a "mixed-methods" methodology; casual-comparative research
because it retrospectively examines causality and its consequences. As per Check and Schutt
(2012) this can aid in discerning the ramifications or origins of disparities already present among
distinct groups of individuals. The study also includes qualitative data from interviews which
were also utilized to gather information to complete a survey on teacher and classroom
characteristics, which is also part of descriptive statistics within the research design. Choi et al.
(2023) gathered surveys with information on students' characteristics and parental consent forms,
and participating parents were also given surveys with child and family characteristics questions.
Parents' responses to the survey included child and family characteristics, including child age,
gender, parent education, and the type of home language use. Choi et al. (2023) explained that it
was important for teachers to note and become familiar with what language of the day the
children were verbally agile in and if it correlated with the initial survey done by them and their
parents.
Method of Data Collection
MIXED METHODS CRITIQUE 4
The surveys collected from both teachers and parents consisted of descriptive statistics of
the characteristics of the participants (children). Choi et al. (2023) gathered child audio recording
data for 1–2 weeks over 2.5 months in spring. The data was collected over 5 days for each
participating child in the full-day classrooms and over 4 days per week for 2 weeks in the half-
day Head Start classrooms. Two graduate research assistants provided support to instructors in
the process of collecting data. Participating teachers and families were correspondingly provided
with gift cards valued at $20 and $5. As per Check & Schutt (2012), incentives for participation
can help the researcher increase diversity and inclusion.
Method of Analysis
The Language Environment Analysis (LENA) system is a tool that can quantitatively
assess language exposure and usage in a real context, irrespective of the language being spoken.
The children who took part in the study were equipped with a LENA Digital Language Processor
(DLP), which is a compact audio recording device. The DLP was placed inside a pocket of a
custom-designed vest. The audio recordings underwent computer processing and were then
analyzed using LENA techniques. The LENA DLP has been shown to exhibit a reliability of over
85% when compared to human transcription of the same tape. Additionally, it has a high level of
validity when compared to other measures of the linguistic environment (Gilkerson & Richards,
2008). Qualitatively, the researchers utilized the responses from the open-ended surveys from the
parental interviews.
Results
The results revealed that as student’s language exposure and use during adult–child
conversations had no significant change for DLL vs. EM difference during adult–child
conversations. The estimated marginal mean of Adult Word Count (AWC) during each
MIXED METHODS CRITIQUE 5
conversation was 41.19 for DLLs (SE = 1.29) and 43.94 for EMs (SE = 1.61). The researchers
also found that, as part of the ex post facto design, when it came to answering does language
exposure and the use during adult- vs. child-initiated conversations differ in results, it was
concluded that there was a significant interaction effect between children's DLL status and the
person who initiated the conversation (IRR = 0.81, p < 0.001). The testing showed that EMs,
relative to DLLs, were exposed to about 22% more words from adults during the child-initiated
conversations. When children initiated the conversation, the estimated mean of AWC was
significantly lower for DLLs (M = 20.77, SE = 0.73) than EMs (M = 25.25, SE = 1.05) with
about a 5-word difference.
Critical Analysis
Further Research
Future research should include a possible drawback that Dual Language Learners (DLLs)
may have in their acquisition of English within Early Childhood Education (ECE) programs and
its disadvantages. Although additional research is necessary to validate such drawback, it is
possible that a decrease in opportunities for children to listen to adults and engage in
conversations with teachers, may lead to a reduction in exposure to advanced vocabulary and
intricate sentence structures. These factors play a crucial role in forecasting the progress of early
language development (Choi et al.,2023).
Threat to Validity
Factors that influenced the study included data in which showed children talking over
twice as much when they, not teachers, initiate the conversation than when adults initiate the
conversation. These results showed evidence in those individuals overall, prefer to talk about the
topic of their choice when conversing with others. Finally, it is important to consider the
MIXED METHODS CRITIQUE 6
quantitative limitations of LENA when interpreting the findings. LENA has garnered growing
interest in early childhood education (ECE) research; nonetheless, several researchers have
expressed reservations about its ability to effectively differentiate language content and
communicative function (Wood et al., 2016).
Original Insight/Criticism
If a thorough literature review had been conducted, the researchers would have
acknowledged that the preschool classes were predominantly taught in English as the primary
language. However, the children in these classrooms had diverse home language origins that
were not exclusively Spanish. This phenomenon is prevalent in several preschools across the
United States, yet it has not been extensively investigated in academic studies. Therefore, critics
may undermine the importance of a dual-language curriculum in early childhood.
Implications of Findings
This research can be used to educate and assist educators in creating engaging, if not fair,
learning environments for children from linguistically varied backgrounds during this crucial
developmental stage. It is important to support child-initiated discussion, as proven in the study,
because when instructors or kids started the conversation, they spoke more and for longer
periods of time. The skill of conversing is taken for granted, especially for dual language learners
who need opportunities to speak their second language (L2).
Discussion
I am continuing to investigate strategies for promoting fair language settings in the
classroom when English is the predominant language of teaching for linguistically diverse DLLs.
In my region, 99.8% of students in early childhood are from a home of Spanish speaking
members and unfortunate transitioning programs such as the Texas English Language
MIXED METHODS CRITIQUE 7
Proficiency Assessment System, take little to no consideration child-initiated conversations. This
research has guided my continued study on how US early childhood education has either aided
or hindered the current development of our future global citizens. Deuteronomy 11:19 reminds
us that " You shall teach them to your children, talking of them when you are sitting in your
house, and when you are walking by the way, and when you lie down, and when you
rise”(English Standard Version, 2001). Understanding how the upbringing of our children will
affect their path in life, is an essential responsibility of a parent, teacher, and influential person.
MIXED METHODS CRITIQUE 8
References
Check, J., & Schutt, R. (2012). Research in education. SAGE Publications, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781544307725
Choi, J. Y., Van Pay, C. K., & Beecher, C. C. (2023). Preschool language exposure and use: A
comparison study of dual‐language learners and English monolingual children. Infant
and Child Development, 32(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2420
English Standard Version. (2001). ESV Online.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/
Gilkerson, J., & Richards, J. A. (2008). The LENA™ Natural Language Study.
http://lena.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/LTR-02-2_Natural_Language_Study.pdf
Wood, C., Diehm, E. A., & Callender, M. F. (2016). An investigation of language environment
analysis measures for Spanish–English bilingual preschoolers from migrant low-
socioeconomic-status backgrounds. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services
in Schools, 47(2), 123–134.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
