Contents of Research Proposal

A research proposal is put forwarded by a researcher to his supervisor/external examiner with a view to outline his proposed area of study. The basic goal of a research proposal is to justify about the feasibility of the research topic. The prospective researcher should keep in mind that his proposal would only be accepted if it is presented thoughtfully. A unique topic may also be rejected due to poor proposal writing skill. Therefore, it is the quality of writing rather than the quality of the topic that determines the viability of a project proposal. Therefore, in order to get a research proposal approved, the researcher must take care that his proposed methodology is outlined in a convincing manner.

Research proposal does not have any fixed format. Research content varies depending upon topic. Moreover, different disciplines, donor organisations and academic institutions adhere to different formats and requirements. However, every research proposal comprises several common components. The researcher has to opt the appropriate component based on his research problem. Regardless of one’s research area and the methodology he chooses, all research proposals must encompass the following points:

1. Introduction: This section should describe in clear terms the research area and findings from previous studies. Moreover, the research proposer should structure his Introduction in such a way that the supervisor may have a very good idea of what the central issue of his proposal will be. The introductory parts should include the following points –
   1. The justification or background of the study.
   2. A clear statement of the problem.
   3. What is the field of study about and what is missing from it.
2. The resources: This section should include all the information about various resources that the study will require:
   1. The source of the resources.
   2. Academic preparation for the research. It must be demonstrated that the groundwork has already been done.
   3. The proposed place of research.
3. The significance of the research project: In this segment the researcher has to provide appropriate rationale for choosing the particular place for his research. The significance of the study justifies why the research is important:
   1. in a particular field of study, and a wider field of study, and
   2. in the context of the country.
4. Plan after completion: This section should describe in detail about the benefits that the country or the place of work will receive after its completion.


5. The timeframe: A detailed timetable scheduling all aspects of the research should be prepared. This will include time taken to conduct background research, questionnaire or interview schedule development, data collection, data analysis and report writing.


6. Methodology: This section is very important because it tells the Research Committee how the proposer plans to tackle his research problem. This section should be quite detailed – many funding organisations find that the most common reason for proposal failure is the lack of methodological detail. In this section the proposer need to describe the following factors:
   1. Dependence on primary, secondary and other materials
   2. The steps to be followed
   3. The format of the paper
   4. Style sheet or the method of documentation to be followed
7. Bibliography: At the end of his paper, the researcher has to provide a list of all the sources he used to gather information for the paper. The list of the sources should be arranged in alphabetical order by the first word. The list should consist all the available –
   • Books
   • Journals, and
   • Other materials.

Differences between Behaviourism and Innatism

Introduction

The manner in which a child acquires language is a matter long debated by linguists and child psychologists alike. During the twentieth century there has been a great deal of psycholinguistic research into how this process takes place. These research findings have revolutionized the way many linguists regard the language learning process. However, the interpretation of these investigations has always been under dispute and it consequently divided linguists into adherents of two contradictory hypotheses: behaviorism on one side and innatism on the other. The following segment presents a comparative study between these two diametrically opposite theoretical accounts of language acquisition, along with a brief inquiry into their theoretical assumptions.

Behaviourism

The behaviourist perspective dominated the study of learning throughout the first half of the twentieth century. Behaviorism is an approach to language acquisition based on the proposition that behaviour can be researched scientifically without recourse to inner mental states. It is a form of materialism, denying any independent significance for mind. It stands on the basic premise that children learn a language in the way in which other habits are learned and that change in observable behaviours are crucial in language learning. The behaviourist perspective’s significance for psychological treatment has been profound, making it one of the pillars of psychological language acquisition theory.

Innatism

Two years later, however, behaviourism came under bitter criticism when the American linguist Noam Chomsky (1959) proposed a completely different view of language acquisition. His innatist view was a direct challenge to the established behaviourist theories of the time, rekindling the age-old debate over whether language exists in the mind before experience. He argued that every human child possesses innate knowledge of language structure to detect and reproduce language. That is, language acquisition depends on an unobservable mechanism called Language Acquisition Device or LAD. Young children learn and apply grammatical rules and vocabulary as they are exposed to them and do not require initial formal teaching. The theory, in fact, has laid out an explanation of human language faculties that has become the model for investigation in other areas of psychology.

Diametrically opposite Views

Considering the theoretical principles of Behaviourism and Innatism individually, it seems that each theory accounts for different aspects of language. Both the behaviourist and the innatist theory provided some fresh insights into the psychological theories of language learning. The proponents of both schools contributed much to explain the possible logical explanation for language acquisition. But they moulded their models from different standpoints. Skinner’s behaviourism and Chomsky’s innatism are very much contradictory when they are judged in terms of their individualistic theoretical bases. The theories, indeed, stress on two distinct hypotheses of language acquisition. This divergence has created a gulf between the theories. Several differences arise between the behaviourist and the innatist theories of language acquisition which can be encapsulated in the following way :

Behaviourism	Innatism
Acquisition is an outcome of experience	Acquisition is an outcome of condition
Acquisition is a stimulus response process	Acquisition is a congenital process
Children learn language by imitation	Children learn language by application
Language learning is practice-based	Language learning is rule-based
Language acquisition is the result of nurture	Language acquisition is the result of nature
Stresses on observable behavior	Stresses on internal thought processes
Human mind is a blank slate	Human mind is no tabula rasa
Knowledge exists outside of individuals	Knowledge exists inside individuals
Learning is determined by the environment	Learning is determined by the individual
Learning requires formal guidance	Learning requires no formal assistance
Considers the child as a passive recipient	Considers the child as an active participant
Language learning is a mechanical process	Language learning is a creative process
Is a theory of behaviour, not of knowledge	Is a theory of knowledge, not of behaviour
Language is akin to other forms of cognition	Language is a separate module

The Verdict

From the above comparative study it is obvious that the theories differ from each other in a myriad of ways. The study furthermore demonstrates that innatism is much more comprehensive and consistent than that of behaviourism.  The innatist perspective offers the promise of enhanced learning and creative thinking, both of which are vital for the child’s psycho-linguistic development.

Nowadays, however, it is hardly possible to espouse any of these two options directly. Psychological research has recently progressed in the direction of regarding the human being as a mixture of genetically determined capacities and knowledge gained by experience (Konieczna). The human child indeed, acquires language from his/her environment by imitating behaviours of other members of society. But the innatist theory exclusively ignored this issue and viewed language acquisition as the special product of LAD. Chomsky, the chief proponent of innatism opined that exposure to language is a marginal prerequisite for the activation of the LAD, and is irrelevant to the actual learning process. But this innatist claim is not entirely satisfying because history (e.g. Genie, Victor) evince that the child cannot learn language if he/she is isolated from society or human contact. Ruth Clark pointed out that:

“Situation has a fuller role to play in language learning than Chomsky implies, though not precisely the role assigned to it by the behaviourists” (Barman, Sultana, and Basu 31).

It might be possible that children are required a biological trigger for language acquisition but the genetic trigger could not be activated if there is nobody around them, from whom they could learn behaviour. That means language acquisition requires situational stimuli plus LAD:

In conclusion, neither account should be totally dismissed. They should be seen as complementary rather than contradictory. Statements about their validity should be examined carefully in the light of new available data.

References

Barman, Dr. Binoy, Zakia Sultana, and Bijoy Lal Basu. ELT: Theory and Practice. Dhaka:

FBC, 2006. 24-38.

“Behaviourism.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. CD-ROM. US: [Britannica Store], 2003.

 “Behaviorist Learning Theory.” Innovative Learning. 2008. InnovativeLearning.com. 20 Sep 2008

< http://www.innovativelearning.com/educational_psychology/behaviorism/index.html >.

Clark, Herbert H. and Eve V. Clark. Psychology and Language: An Introduction to Psychology.

n.p.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977. 258.

Cook, V[ivian] J[ames]. Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1988. 1-2.

Foley, Mary Ann. “Cognitive Psychology.” Microsoft Encarta. DVD-ROM. Redmond: Microsoft, 2005.

Harmer, Jeremy. The Practice of English Language Teaching. 3rd ed. England:

Longman-Pearson, 2001. 68-69.

“Innatism.” Wikipedia. 2008. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 20 September 2008

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innatism >.

Konieczna, Ewa. “First Language Acquisition”. Uniwersytet Rzeszowski. 2008.

univ.rzeszow.pl. 20 September 2008 <http:// www.univ.rzeszow.pl>.

“Learning Theories/Behavioralist Theories.” Wikibooks. 2008. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

20 September 2008 <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Learning_Theories/Behavioralist_Theories>.

Pinker, Steven. How the Mind Works. New York: Norton, 1997.

--- .The language instinct. New York: Perennial-Harper, 1995.

Scovel, Thomas. Psycholinguistics. Oxford: OUP, 1998. 17-18

 “Second Language Teaching and Learning.” Macquarie University: Australia’s Innovative University.

2008. Macquarie University. 20 September 2008 < http://www.ling.mq.edu.au>.

Varshney, Dr. R.L.  An Introduction of Linguistics & Phonetics. Dhaka: BOC, n.d. 306-311.

Yule, George. The Study of Language. 2nd ed.  Cambridge: CUP, 1996. 177.