42 3

Lang. Teach.
(2009), 42:3, 287–315

c Cambridge University Press
doi:10.1017/S0261444809005758
Annual Research Review
Review of research on language teaching, learning and policy

published in 2007
Richard Johnstone University of Stirling, UK

r.m.johnstone@stir.ac.uk
My research review of 2007 is somewhat shorter than in earlier years in order to allow space
for the journal’s impressively increased number of other articles. This naturally adds to my
problems of selection, especially as 2007 witnessed the welcome appearance of new
international journals in the form of Innovation in Language Learning & Teaching and a
considerably re-vamped Language Learning Journal. Accordingly, my selection of articles is
not intended as a representative sample of the Applied Linguistics field but should be taken
as a personal judgement based on attempting an appropriate range of the following: journals,
languages, topics, countries, institutional settings, levels of proficiency, learner age, theory,
practice, and personal interest. My selection is organised under a number of headings, but
these offer only a general clue as to what a particular article is about, since most articles
reviewed have reverberations across a number of headings rather than one alone. In addition,
what I say about a particular article is not meant to be a summary. Those wishing to see a
summary should go to the article itself and read its abstract. My account of a particular article
may in fact reflect only one theme within the article which I have chosen to highlight.
1. Acquisition
1.1 Cognitive and social perspectives revisited
It was ten years ago that Firth & Wagner (1997, 1998) mounted a challenge to the
prevailing individual/cognitive view of second language acquisition (SLA), arguing for
a more social/contextual frame of reference. There was a clear implication in Firth &
Wagner’s arguments that SLA had become private property, owned by those subscribing to
the dominant individual/cognitive view, hence their provocative 1998 title: SLA property: No
trespassing! (Firth & Wagner 1998: 91). It seemed appropriate ten years later to reflect on this
debate, and a number of papers have been published, of which I single out Larsen-Freeman
(2007). She sets out the parameters of the initial debate and claims that Firth & Wagner were
‘challenging the foundational concepts of learner, non-native speaker, and interlanguage, on
which the field of SLA had been established three decades earlier’ (p. 776). Her authoritative
and well-balanced paper reviews the arguments in favour of Firth & Wagner, those offering
partial support for them, and those opposed. It provides also a helpful tabulation of the two
288 RICHARD JOHNSTONE: RESEARCH PUBLISHED IN 2007
views side by side, under headings such as ‘role of context’, ‘nature of language’, ‘nature
of learning’, ‘primary research focus’ and others. She makes no claim that during these
ten years the two views have been reconciled but offers chaos/complexity theory, in which
language is understood as a complex, adaptive system, as one possible means of reframing
our understandings of the two views. An excellent piece of scholarship, this should be read
by those wishing to inform themselves about the debate and its aftermath.
1.2 Sociocultural perspectives
Also taking stock of SLA theory since Firth & Wagner (1997, 1998) are Swain & Peters (2007).
They set out four concepts which they claim are compatible with a socially-oriented view of
SLA: sociocultural theory of mind, situated learning, post-structuralism, and dialogism. The
development of socioculturally-informed notions such as these respond well to the challenge
set by Firth & Wagner of enlarging the ontological and empirical parameters of SLA. What
they call ‘New SLA theory’ offers a ‘broader perspective of the nature of language itself, by
having a broader database’ (p. 831) and calls on researchers to pay attention to the stories
of learners and to observe them as they proceed through their complex worlds.
1.3 Explicit positive assessment
Another study reflecting a sociocultural perspective is by Waring (2007), who argues that
in sociocultural theory ‘participation’ plays a major role in learning – hence the particular
interest in instructional practices which enhance or inhibit opportunities for student
participation in their lessons. The study is set in adult ESL (English as a Second Language)
classrooms, and the specific focus is on ‘use of explicit positive assessment’ (EPA) while
commenting on the homework the students had done. Given the problems of motivating L2
learners in many different contexts, one can readily understand that many teachers consider
it important to praise their students for coming up with a correct utterance. However,
although not disputing the potential value of EPA, Waring’s study sounds a cautionary note,
since it was found that EPA could in fact deny students opportunities for expressing problems
or exploring alternative correct answers. In short, EPA could signal something like ‘Case
closed’ (p. 580), nothing further to say on this matter. Where this occurred, the students’
subsequent utterances might well have shown that, although receiving praise from the tutor,
they had in fact not fully understood, so EPA might have closed the case prematurely. The
writer surmises that one way forward might be to treat correct answers as being almost as
problematical as incorrect ones, e.g. by asking students to explain their thinking behind their
(correct) answer. If the explanation were convincing, this might benefit the class as a whole;
if it were unconvincing, then the student would have more to learn.
1.4 Noticing
‘Noticing’ has attracted the attention of researchers for several years, e.g. Schmidt (1990),
who viewed noticing as an important process for interlanguage development, not necessarily
ANNUAL RESEARCH REVIEW 289
always conscious but requiring attention to form. The excellent study of ‘noticing’ by Mennim
(2007) is set in a real leaning context of Japanese EFL (English as a Foreign Language) students
taking their course at university. It allowed the students to make their own decisions as to
which forms to attend to, and is longitudinal in nature, covering a period of nine months. This
allows time for particular forms to develop, which Mennim rightly considers superior for this
purpose to research which is short-term and cross-sectional. The report contains valuable
sections on noticing oral output, noticing in learner autonomy and (in relation to the study’s
own findings) noticing and language development. The students were given some initial
training in how to notice, records of their noticing were kept over the nine-month period, as
were periodic recordings of their output. Over the period in question their accuracy in the
use of their chosen forms improved considerably.
Also investigating ‘noticing’ was Hanaoka (2007) in respect of two groups of Japanese
EFL students at a women’s university in Japan, in relation to the students’ own (written)
output. One group was high-proficiency and the other intermediate. The students were
engaged in four-phase writing tasks consisting of writing a story in response to a picture
prompt, comparing their writing to two native-speaker models, immediate revision,
and delayed revision. At issue was what the students would notice in their own written
output and in that of the native speakers (NS), and the extent to which they would be
able to take positive account of such ‘noticing’ in their revisions. Both groups showed
themselves capable of useful ‘noticing’ but the high-proficiency students noticed significantly
more features than did the intermediate students when comparing their original output
with that of the NS. It was concluded that ‘output might play a useful role in helping
learners identify the language features they need and facilitate subsequent learning of
these features’ (p. 476) through their spontaneous focus-on-form activity in meaningful L2
writing.
1.5 Form- and meaning-focused instruction
For many years an aspiration of SLA research has been to integrate or at least link form-
focused and meaning-focused instruction. The route chosen by Zhao & Bitchener (2007) was
through an investigation of focus-on-form during meaning-focused activities, with a particular
interest in what they called incidental form-focused episodes (FFEs). The students were adult
ESL learners in New Zealand from a variety of ethnic and L1 backgrounds, and data were
collected from both teacher–learner (T–L) and learner–learner (L–L) interactions. Their
study did indeed show that incidental FFEs occurred regularly in both T–L and L–L meaning-
focused interactions. Teachers and learners provided roughly similar amounts of information
on language difficulties encountered during FFEs, but uptake occurred more frequently in
L–L interactions. It was concluded that students of this sort were well able to respond to
each other’s errors, to show a high level of ‘uptake’ and of ‘acknowledgement’ in FFEs, and
to be ‘able to initiate opportunities for accessing target-language data for the immediate
resolution of their language difficulties as well as for their L2 acquisition and learning’
(p. 446).
1.6 Processing instruction
It is over 25 years since the input hypothesis gained prominence – e.g. Krashen (1982).
According to Sheen (2007) most innovations based on this have not led to learners’
acquisition of accurate grammar, except in the case of VanPatten and colleagues – e.g.
VanPatten & Cadierno (1993) – through their research on processing instruction (PI).
Sheen does not seek to add anything new to our knowledge of PI. A different purpose is
to provide a clear summary of the essential components of PI and the empirical evidence
which supports it, and in this I believe it succeeds admirably. In addition, in its conclusions
it leaves proper room for teachers’ own judgement. If busy teachers are able to find the
time to read summaries of relevant research, then I would recommend this article for their
attention.
1.7 Memorisation and imitation
‘Good learners’ is a topic which under one name or another features regularly in SLA
research. A salutary contribution to this field is provided by Ding (2007), who interviewed
three highly successful, prize-winning Chinese learners of English in China. All three attached
high importance to text memorisation and imitation (e.g. of teachers or voices on tape). When
at school, these methods were forced upon them, but over time they came to appreciate their
merit. They ascribed their high achievement not to high aptitude but to hard work. They
considered that learning by heart and imitation increased their awareness of collocations and
sequences of words, and helped them to make use of these in their output and to attend to
detail. The writer concluded that it helps considerably if learners develop a rich repertoire
of formulaic expressions.
1.8 Elicitation and reformulation
Two strategies of feedback in interaction – elicitation and reformulation – were the object
of Nassaji’s (2007) study, in the case of adult intermediate-level students who had arrived in
Canada from a variety of different countries. Reformulation implies re-phrasing the learner’s
utterance into an acceptable form, while elicitation implies not providing a reformulation
but instead pushing the learner to reformulate. It was found that the students were able
to successfully modify their output roughly one third of the time, following reformulations
and elicitations, though reformulations occurred roughly twice as often. The likelihood
of both strategies being associated with accurate reporting was increased when they were
accompanied by explicit verbal or intonational prompts, and also if there was a sense of
saliency. It was concluded that ‘the usefulness of interactional feedback depends to a large
degree on its explicitness and the extent to which it is able to draw the learner’s attention to
form’ (p. 539).
2. Motivation
2.1 Motivating
Much of the research on motivation has focused on its nature and on the extent to which
it is present in particular individuals. The study by Cheng & Dörnyei (2007), however,
is concerned with the process of ‘motivating’. The instrument which they used with 387
Taiwanese teachers of EFL drew on the one developed by Dörnyei & Csizér (1998) in
Hungary. The Taiwanese teachers were asked to consider a list of motivational strategies
and to state how important or otherwise they felt these were and how often they made
use of them. The strategies fell into a number of categories, e.g. ‘proper teacher behaviour’,
‘recognise students’ effort’, ‘promote learners’ self-confidence’, ‘creating a pleasant classroom
climate’, ‘present tasks properly’, ‘increase learners’ goal-orientedness’, ‘make the learning
tasks stimulating’, ‘familiarise learners with L2-related values’, ‘promote group cohesiveness
and group norms’, ‘promote learner autonomy’ – each of which is instanced by a number
of specific examples. It was found that there was a consistent pattern of response across
both the Taiwanese and Hungarian studies which the researchers considered to imply that
motivational practices can operate across cultures. On the other hand, the similarity across
cultures was not uniform, in that ‘promoting learner autonomy’ was considered unimportant
and ‘recognising students’ efforts and hard work’ was considered highly important by the
Taiwanese teachers to a greater extent than those in Hungary. A thoughtful discussion is
provided of these areas of difference, and of other strategies on which Taiwanese teachers
reported relatively low frequency of use.
2.2 Self-efficacy and self-regulation
In their research on intermediate-level students of French at College in the USA, Mills,

Pajares & Herron (2007) were particularly interested in the concept of self-efficacy and its
relation to attainment in French. Self-efficacy and other motivational self-beliefs had come
into prominence in the 1980s, e.g. Bandura (1986), and have been of interest in language-
motivation research ever since. The paper by Mills and colleagues provides a helpful overview
of self-efficacy in the research literature, in relation to concepts such as social cognitive
theory, gender, academic achievement and foreign language learning. A number of possible
predictors of French attainment were drawn up, including self-efficacy to obtain grades in
French, anxiety in listening to and reading French, French-learning self-concept, and self-
efficacy for self-regulation. It was in fact the latter which was found to be the best predictor
of intermediate-level French language attainment. Encouragement could be taken from the
general self-efficacy research which claims that self-regulation is in fact teachable, and the
study conveys a positive message for the potential value of language-strategy training, in that
if learners can be trained in self-regulation, this will feed positively into their self-efficacy,
and the combination of self-efficacy and self-regulation will enable them to achieve higher
attainment in the foreign language they are learning.
2.3 Falling numbers
The large-scale survey by Coleman, Galaczi & Astruc (2007) is set in the context of sharply
declining numbers at secondary school in England taking a foreign language beyond the
compulsory stage, which ends at Grade 9. Data were collected from over 10,000 students
at Grades 7, 8 and 9, which constitute the only three years in which at the time of writing
FL education is compulsory in English state schools. The components of motivation
which emerged most clearly from the survey were instrumental, integrative, achievement
orientation, effort and perceived language aptitude. Although the level of motivation shown
by the students was considered by the researchers as modestly positive, they surmised that if
the decline in numbers is to be halted, then a higher level of motivation is likely to be needed
while a language is compulsory at Grades 7–9 – all the more so, since motivation fell from
Grade 7 to Grade 8 and (less sharply) from Grade 8 to Grade 9. The report identifies some
important factors which seemed associated with positive motivation, e.g. schools ‘which
have formally opted to implement a mission for language learning’ (p. 270) and also those
which had volunteered to take part in a key national initiative. This led the writers to the
conclusion that ‘declining motivation is a slightly less worrying phenomenon where the
school environment supports language learning’ (p. 270).
2.4 Comparison over ten years
Many studies of L2 motivation are ‘one-off’, whereby the researcher(s) descend on an

educational establishment, obtain a sample of motivational data from a fairly small group,
depart in order to write up their report, and do not return. By contrast, a feature of the
paper by Heining-Boynton & Haitema (2007) is that, far from being one-off, it covers a
ten-year period and also a large sample, in this case FLES (Foreign Languages at Elementary
School) learners at elementary school in the USA. The ten-year span enabled motivational
dispositions of the same students to be compared. Analysis of the combined data showed that
students’ perceptions of languages other than English, of foreign cultures, and of the impact
of FL study on their education, tended to be favourable. At the same time, though, there
were some signs of increasing disenchantment with the notion of learning a foreign language.
Where such disenchantment occurred, for both female and male students it seemed associated
with a decline in liking the teacher, in inclination to continue FL study and in willingness to
use the FL outside the classroom. Also associated with disenchantment was the perception
that FL study at elementary school was less integral to the school curriculum than so-called
‘core’ subjects such as mathematics, language arts and science, making FL study by contrast
seem rather peripheral.
2.5 Perceived relevance
One important component of language-related motivation which may be implied by many

research studies but perhaps surprisingly does not seem to feature as a main topic is the notion
of ‘perceived relevance’. This, however, is the focus of a study by Rose (2007), who explored
what seemed relevant to her EFL students in Finland. Her notion of ‘relevance’ is taken
from Keller’s (1987) ARCS model of Attention, Relevance, Confidence and Satisfaction. The
context was a College which provides vocational education at upper secondary and adult
levels, in many cases for students with poor health, disabilities or social problems and thereby
in need of support. In her thoughtful study, some of the most interesting conclusions relate
to the researcher herself, who came to understand that ‘relevance’ is best understood as only
one component among others. For her, the study underlines the importance of taking student
views seriously and engaging them in regular dialogue.
3. Vocabulary
3.1 Benefit of retrieval
A good example of combining ‘experimental’ and ‘situated’ research is Barcroft’s (2007) study
involving L1-English students at university learning Spanish. They were presented with 24
word–picture pairs; then twelve pairs were viewed with a six-second gap between the visual
and its word, while there was no such gap for the other twelve pairs. The assumption was
that in the case of the twelve pairs where there was a gap, this would provide the students
with an opportunity to retrieve the words from memory, and the intention was to see if this
process of retrieval would bring benefit. Following three sets of post-test (immediate, one-
day and one-week delay) the retrieval condition was found to yield the higher scores. I find
this study impressive at two levels: first, it has a simple design, addresses a key pedagogical
issue and has clear pedagogical implications; and secondly, it also provides an authoritative
theoretical background to help the inquiring reader understand what the underlying processes
may be.
3.2 Emotional depth
Corrigan (2007) is surely right in arguing that ‘learning a word is not an all-or-nothing
proposition’ (p. 212). Words may be known superficially or more deeply; or they may be
known in terms of propositional or cultural or personal meaning, to give only some obvious
examples of the complexity of vocabulary knowledge. Her study focuses on the notion
of affective meaning within deep vocabulary knowledge. It provides a detailed theoretical
background to vocabulary knowledge and leads to conclusions which may have relevance
to language teaching. She claims, for example, that it suggests the importance not only
of teaching categories of vocabulary such as adjectives or verbs but also of focusing on
the emotional and other sorts of relationship between them. When students are learning
vocabulary in relation to narrative texts, for example, it can be beneficial if they try to think
of the different sorts of interactions in which the characters will engage and of ‘the types of
emotions or mental states they are likely to experience as they are interacting’(p. 236).
3.3 Understanding polysemous words
According to Morimoto & Loewen (2007), learners in the initial phase of their learning need
to come to terms with some 3,000 items of vocabulary, most of which are likely to be high-
frequency. They claim, however, that high-frequency words can pose problems of meaning
because they may have acquired a wide range of interpretations (hence the term ‘polysemous’).
In their quasi-experimental study there were 58 Japanese High School students of English,
and two polysemous terms were in focus: the verb ‘break’ and the preposition ‘over’. There
were two treatment groups: ISBI (image-schema-based instruction) and TBI (translation-
based instruction), plus one control group. Would ISBI, based on visualisation and cognitive
semantics, prevail over a more conventional TBI? Tests of acceptability judgement and of
production were set at three stages: pre-test, post-test 1 (after two days) and post-test 2 (after
two weeks). The results showed a positive effect for instruction, in that both ISBI and TBI
were superior to the control group, but there was little difference between the two treatment
groups. This prompts me to surmise that if each of the two treatments has something to offer,
then maybe there might be a Treatment 3 consisting of ISBI + TBI?
3.4 De-contextualised and contextualised approaches
To what extent does context make it easier to learn L2 vocabulary? Webb (2007a) claims that
there is little research evidence to suggest that it does. Indeed, he claims that de-contextualised
tasks such as learning L1–L2 word pairs have proved more successful than contextualised
tasks such as incidental reading. However, he also argues that maybe this is because those
aspects of learning through context have rarely been measured, and his study is designed to
investigate the effects of context not only on vocabulary learning but also on grammatical
functions, syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations, orthography, and meaning and form.
The students were Japanese learning EFL in Japan. Central to the study was a comparison
between learning from L1–L2 word pairs (de-contextualised) and learning from glossed
sentences (contextualised). The de-contextualised approach was not found to be inferior. It
was surmised that a benefit of word pairs might be that they help adult learners make a link
between L1 meaning and L2 forms, whereas a more contextualised approach might direct
them more to meaning at the expense of form. However, a concluding thought was that
the two modes are not necessarily antagonistic – e.g. learning word pairs might help adult
learners at Beginners level acquire high-frequency vocabulary in order to reach the stage at
which they could acquire further vocabulary through more contextualised approaches.
3.5 Effect of repetition
In a study closely related to, and nicely building on, Webb (2007a) above, Webb (2007b)
focuses on the effects of repetition on incidental vocabulary learning (comparing 1, 3, 7 and
10 exposures). The results clearly showed a favourable effect, and it was concluded that ‘if
learners encounter unknown words ten times in context, sizeable gains may occur. However,
to develop full knowledge of a word, more than ten encounters may be needed’ (p. 46).
A pedagogical implication was that learners would be likely to benefit from an extensive
reading programme with graded readers designed to include sufficient repetition in context
for significant vocabulary growth to occur.
4. Listening and speaking
4.1 Digitally-supported listening
The majority of research articles on ICT have featured lessons in secondary or post-school
education. It is pleasing therefore to encounter a study by Verdugo & Belmonte (2007) based
on the listening comprehension of Spanish children aged 6 learning EFL. The study drew
on six state primary schools in Madrid, in each of which there was a control group receiving
conventional EFL teaching and an experimental group whose instruction included an ICT-
supported component making use of a website featuring 69 stories. Each story was analysed
according to the language functions and the main points of grammar, vocabulary and sound-
system it contained. Evaluation of both groups’ progress was by means of a pre- and post-test
arrangement. The pre-test showed both groups to be similar in English, though with the
experimental group slightly behind, but in the post-test there were significant though not
massive differences in favour of the experimental group. The writers offer some interesting
thoughts to account for the superiority of the ICT-enhanced group, e.g. that the use of digital
stories may have promoted concentration and helped focus the children’s attention on the
oral input; and possibly also that each child would play the story several times. Although
there were some initial difficulties in making autonomous use of the web-facility, these were
fairly quickly resolved with the co-operation of teachers and fellow students.
4.2 Beyond prefabrication
Surveys of research on languages at primary school across the European Union – e.g. Blondin
et al. (1999) – have indicated that a feature of children’s foreign language has often been the
extensive production of prefabricated phrases but with little manipulation of the constituent
elements. The study by Pinter (2007) shows nonetheless that children even with a relatively
low level of FL proficiency can show creativity and spontaneity. Her subjects were two boys
aged 10 who had been learning English at primary school in Hungary for two years, and the
study focuses on their interactions and their expressed views about this. A key to spontaneity
and creativity was task repetition, but with the task varied slightly each time. The children
were asked to do several sets of ‘spot the differences’ tasks, and the changes in their behaviour
were observed and analysed from their first to their final attempts over a period of three
weeks. They showed that they could engage spontaneously with each other, provide mutual
assistance, and learn to appreciate what the task was really about. They proved capable of
going beyond the production of fixed phrases in order to express meanings fluently in a less
restricted manner, so that their interactions ‘became a fast-moving game that they tackled
with confidence’ (p. 201). It was concluded that this type of task can work well with children
at a relatively low level of FL proficiency and with little or no intervention from the teacher.
4.3 Outcomes of different types of pairing
Also interested in pair interactions were Watanabe & Swain (2007), this time with adult
Japanese learners of ESL in Canada. An aim was to ascertain what sorts of outcome might
arise from different types of pairing according to the learners’ ESL proficiency. Four core
participants interacted in pairs with higher-proficiency and lower-proficiency partners. The
analysis was of pair interactions and also language-related episodes (LREs). It was found that
pairs learn more if the intention is collaborative. Different benefits of the pair-work arose,
depending on whether the interaction was core + higher or core + lower proficiency partner.
The core + higher pairs produced a higher frequency of LREs, but the core + lower pairs
generated the higher post-test scores. It was also concluded that teachers should not assume
that the only way of pairing students is by the same level of proficiency. On the contrary,
grouping learners at different levels of proficiency can support their L2 learning – in which
case it becomes important for teachers to be aware of the sorts of outcome that might arise
from the different types of pairing which might occur.
4.4 Task familiarity
Also working with children in pairs (in this case 40 ESL children aged 7–8 years at elementary
school) were Mackey, Kanganas & Oliver (2007). Their interest was in how the children
would perform in pairs when doing different sorts of task, in particular those that were
familiar or unfamiliar in respect of content and procedures. It was found that tasks which
were unfamiliar in both content and procedures were associated with more clarification
requests, more confirmation checks and more corrective feedback; tasks that were familiar
in procedures were associated with more opportunities to use feedback; and tasks that were
familiar in both content and procedures were associated with more actual use of feedback. In
order to help readers understand what might have been involved, there is a helpful discussion
of the concepts of content familiarity and procedure familiarity, each illuminated by examples
from actual classroom paired activity. The findings might possibly help teachers raise their
explicit awareness of task familiarity (in relation to both content and procedure) and the sorts
of outcome which might be anticipated.
4.5 Code-switching and identity
According to Ellwood (2007), the language-learning classroom is an excellent forum for

constructing and acting out new forms of the self. Her qualitative study of students from
Asian and European backgrounds learning English in Australia shows how identity issues
feature not only in the main business of teaching and learning as intended by the teacher, but
also in what she terms ‘instances of side-play’ (p. 553) which involved code-switching by the
students into their particular L1 and which tended to be concealed from the teacher. The
three main instances of code-switching were: expressing frustration with one’s own learning
and trying to get ‘on board’ in the lesson; criticising the teacher; and desiring to become
a global, international person (involving discourses of boundary-crossing, open-mindedness,
multilingualism and international understanding – an identity which seemed to gather little
recognition by the teacher). The writer points to ‘the importance of avoiding normative
positioning of students’ (p. 554) and to remain open to the complex and not-fixed nature of
students’ identities, which are influenced by a range of social and biographical factors.
4.6 Desktop videoconferencing
The study by Lee (2007) was based on one-to-one desktop videoconferencing between 18
different pairs of students at university level and an expert speaker. The aim was to use the
technology to create a supportive, non-threatening environment in which each pair would
co-construct meanings in real time in order to fulfil their allotted tasks. It was concluded
that desktop videoconferencing has great potential for the development of students’ oral
skills in that it draws on both audio and video, engages participants actively, and creates an
environment for genuine language use. At the same time, some useful lessons were learnt
as to how to make the process work effectively. These included careful design of tasks,
appropriate selection of linguistic context and inclusion of sufficient network training, e.g.
teaching students how to project their voice and to make good use of body language and
facial expression, in order to realise the potential which the medium offered.
5. Reading and writing
5.1 Theoretical background to reading research
Reading in an additional language is a complex process, and there could be no more

distinguished a guide than Koda’s (2007) outstanding text which sets out the theoretical
background to L2 reading on the basis of extensive published research evidence. Unlike L1
reading, L2 reading, it is argued, involves two languages which continuously interact with
each other and which constantly require the reader to make adjustments in accordance with
the demands of each particular language. The article considers the specific ways in which L2
reading is constrained by language-specific demands both within and between languages, but
it also discusses reading universals which set the framework for all learners in all languages and
which circumscribe the amount of variation in learning-to-read which learners have available
to them. A comprehensive list of topics relevant to L2 reading is addressed, each supported
by a range of recent research studies. Examples of such topics are: linguistic knowledge in
reading development, linguistic knowledge in text-information-handling, linguistic knowledge
in reader-model-building, reading universals, metalinguistic awareness in reading acquisition,
facilitation benefits from prior literacy experience, interaction between L1 and L2 literacy
experiences, linguistic distance between the two languages, and several more. This is not an
easy read but is well worth the effort.
5.2 Topic familiarity and working memory
Two concepts which have to be taken into account when trying to understand L2 reading
are ‘topic familiarity’ (TF) and ‘working memory’ (WM), the object of Leeser’s (2007) study
featuring 94 adults learners engaging with future tense morphology in L2 Spanish. TF was
found to play a strong role in helping the learners come to terms with the target structures,
and this applied to all three measures that were used: comprehension, form recognition and
tense identification. WM was also shown to be associated with comprehension and form
recognition, but in interestingly divergent ways. It benefited comprehension if the learners
were familiar with the particular topic. On the other hand, it benefited form recognition, only
if the learners were not familiar with the topic. It seemed that familiarity with the particular
topic was obstructing WM from helping the learners recognise the target forms. The writer
offers some insightful thoughts on why this might be so.
5.3 Topic familiarity and incidental vocabulary acquisition
Topic familiarity is also a focus of the study by Pulido (2007a), in which she considers the
potential of TF for facilitating the relationship between text comprehension and incidental
vocabulary acquisition. In other words: what role does background knowledge play in the
relationship between the comprehension of a passage and those activities which serve to
process input and retain word-meanings? She concludes that learners develop a greater
retention of linguistic elements such as orthographic forms and the meanings of new items
of vocabulary insofar as they become more efficient in converting input to intake during
their L2 reading. However, this is not a straightforward matter, since a daunting series of
activities are at play at more or less the same time, such as pattern recognition, lexical access,
concept activation, syntactic analysis, propositional encoding, prior knowledge activation,
information storage and comprehension monitoring. In view of such a challenge, one might
ask, how do we manage? Pulido’s authoritative article helps. A brief pedagogical section is
included, in which it is argued that the study lends support to the provision of comprehensible
input and to the promotion of comprehended input, on the grounds that ‘the greater the level
of comprehension, the greater the chances of making form–meaning connections for new
items encountered through reading’ (p. 185). As a consequence, she argues, it would make
sense to design reading activities which activated strategies for the processing of texts at the
macro- and micro-levels.
Pulido (2007b) also features topic familiarity along with passage sight vocabulary in relation
to their impact on lexical inferencing. By ‘passage sight vocabulary’ is meant vocabulary
knowledge associated with the particular text that is being read. If learners have a large
passage sight vocabulary and are able to decode efficiently, then they can focus their mind
on those elements in the passage that are new. This enables the construction and integration
of ideas from context and the utilisation of their long-term memory, which in turn increases
the chances of making successful inferences as to the meaning of new words which they
encounter in the text.
5.4 Learning to read totally different script systems
It is quite an achievement to learn to read in another language, even if that language shares
a similar if not identical romanised script (e.g. learners with L1 English learning to read
German). What, then, is the situation with those learning an L2 which has both a sound
system and a written system which are based on completely different principles from their L1?
The fascinating study by Cheung, Chan & Chong (2007) features Grade 4 pupils in six Hong
Kong primary schools learning English. The fascination is all the greater in that Cantonese,
the main language of Hong Kong, has more tones and more elaborated written characters
than does the Mandarin Chinese of Mainland China. In reading aloud in Cantonese and
in English, for example, in what ways can children proceed from the two very different sets
of written symbol to the two very different modes of pronunciation (Cantonese having seven
different tones)? This excellent article reveals what was achieved and suggests where the
problems lay.
5.5 Speech act recognition
It is plausible to assume that NS of a particular language are often, though not necessarily
always, able to understand the intentional speech acts which underlie utterances which they
hear or read. The study by Holtgraves (2007) was designed to establish the extent to which this
is possible in the case of an additional language which an individual is learning. Participants
were aged 19–20 at university in the USA, representing a range of different countries and
L1s. A key difference between the NS and the NNS group lay in their capacity to achieve
quick online comprehension, which meant that ‘recognition of the speaker’s intention occurs
when the utterance is comprehended rather than reflects a post-comprehension process’
(p. 598). NS were able to recognise the speech acts online whereas the NNS were not,
though this could be achieved later in the post-comprehension process, suggesting a degree
of automaticity for L1 recognition that L2 learners find difficult. However, as the writer
claims, context is important, and possibly recognition can be speeded up if L2 learners are
enabled to extract meaning of speech acts both from the utterance and the context.
5.6 Types of feedback
Working with EFL students at university in Japan, Murphy (2007) made use of an online
reading programme which contained two key features, each offering two possibilities. These
were: ‘manner of study’ with a choice of pair or individual work; and ‘type of feedback’ with
a choice of evaluative feedback (EF) or knowledge of correct response (KCR). EF consisted of

providing online hints about correct answers so as to stimulate reflection and/or discussion.
Judging ‘type of feedback’ on its own, there were no statistically significant differences between
the two types in terms of reading performance. However, there were interesting interactions
between ‘manner of study’ and ‘type of feedback’. Students receiving EF benefited most when
working in pairs, while students receiving KCR benefited most when working individually,
and the lowest scores were by students receiving EF and working alone. Given the potential
value of EF, there is a thoughtful discussion of how this might best be provided in online
reading activity.
5.7 Transfer of reading attitudes
Yamashita’s (2007) study focuses on the extent to which reading attitudes (RAs) transfer from
L1 to L2 and on the role played by L2 proficiency in this, in the case of adult EFL learners in
Japan. L1 and L2 RAs were found to be different but L1 RAs significantly influenced those
for L2. There was, however, no clear indication that L1 RAs increased as L2 proficiency
rose. It was not surprising that in respect of emotional variables such as comfort and anxiety
the learners showed more positive feelings when reading L1 than L2, and there is a useful
discussion of likely differences between L1 and L2 reading, e.g. L1 readers being more able to
focus on content while L2 readers need to concentrate on processing the linguistic elements
and as a result tend to read more slowly and cover less ground. In addition, there is an
exemplary section conveying the pedagogical implications of the research.
5.8 Formative feedback
The main focus of McGarrell & Verbeem’s (2007) paper is ‘between-draft revision’, in the
case of students’ L2 writing. They see this as a deep-level process in comparison with merely
drawing attention to surface errors. Essential to ‘between-draft revision’ are teachers who
adopt an inquiring stance which encourages students to negotiate meanings as these emerge.
The type of feedback thereby provided is formative, dialogic and within a process view of
writing, as opposed to feedback that is evaluative, end-point and based on writing-as-product.
A range of good examples of this type of feedback are provided, leading to the claim that it
motivates students towards revising their initial drafts.
5.9 The old and the new
The paper on children’s ESL writing in Hong Kong by Lo & Hyndland (2007) is a well-
conducted action research study of an important topic which offers a balanced perspective.
The setting was an all-girls primary school with L2 English as medium of instruction. The
focus is the introduction of a new writing programme which differed from the traditional
one in that it took more account of the children’s own socio-cultural context, sought to
provide a genuine audience, linked writing to other language skills, and aimed at stimulating
the children’s writing motivation and engagement. It was found that the new programme
was indeed associated with increased motivation and engagement, and also that hitherto
underachieving pupils’ achievement was raised. Of particular interest, though, were the
high-achieving pupils, because they experienced some loss of accuracy. The writers were
aware of the desirability of helping students achieve greater accuracy but they did not
consider that what had happened was necessarily undesirable. They surmised that perhaps
the high-achieving students were so used to the traditional formula of learning and practising
towards the tests that ‘the removal of a form of language scaffolding they knew how to
manipulate represented a threat to them’ (p. 231), and they went on to surmise that in fact
these high-achieving students were learning how to experiment and become flexible with
their written language, in which case some initial drop in accuracy might be expected.
5.10 Literacy in bilingual children
In professional forums I have often heard it claimed that bilingualism promotes children’s
general literacy development. Perhaps, however, this over-simplifies the matter. Fortunately,
clarification is to hand in the form of Bialystok’s (2007) authoritative overview of the
acquisition of literacy in bilingual children. Three pre-requisites are posited for the acquisition
of literacy: competence in the spoken language, understanding of the symbolic concept of
print and metalinguistic awareness. By reviewing a number of studies of the extent to which
literacy development is similar or different between monolingual and bilingual children,
she claims that bilingualism is sometimes an advantage (concepts of print), sometimes a
disadvantage (spoken competence) and sometimes makes little difference (metalinguistic
awareness). She concludes that ‘bilingualism is clearly a factor in children’s development of
literacy but the effect of the factor is neither simple nor unitary’ (Bialystok 2007: 45).
6. Strategies
In this section the term ‘strategies’ refers not only to learners and learning but also to teachers
and teaching and to provision (e.g. how best to distribute the time that is available).
6.1 Integration
In his overview of strategy research, mainly in the UK, Grenfell (2007) argues that ‘ideas and
concepts derived from strategy research have tended to be used in a rather ad hoc way – often
with confusing results’ (p. 18). He points to a range of factors which have contributed to the
confusion, including a mistaken view of communicative language teaching, much of which
was not in fact based on communicative activity at all but was behavioural. He recommends
that strategy instruction should not be treated as an additional component that somehow
has to be fitted into an already busy schedule but that it should be integrated into a strategic
way of thinking and of teaching. In this, there would be a move beyond teaching a particular
quantity of strategies towards a greater emphasis on quality, and it would be important to
take account both of learner cognition and also of the social dimension so as to reflect the
learner’s environment.
6.2 Strategy research
One of the reasons for the confusion about strategies referred to by Grenfell (above), according
to Macaro (2007), has been their loose definition, with terms such as ‘strategies’ and ‘processes’
used almost interchangeably. Rather than seeking to establish a definitive list of strategies
which exist in their own right and can be applied across all contexts, it is preferable to think of
strategies in relation to particular skills and to the tasks which reflect these, and then to seek
to gauge the extent to which strategies are transferrable. Some valuable thoughts are offered
on the extent to which the relationship between strategies and variables such as proficiency,
attainments and success can be viewed as causal, and on how such relationships might
be investigated. A further important point for further research is raised – the relationship
between knowledge and strategy development.
6.3 Self-efficacy
A main focus of Graham’s (2007) study was self-efficacy in the listening comprehension
of students of French aged 16–17 in ten UK secondary schools. There were three
conditions: an HS (high-scaffolding) group which received strategy-training (ST) plus
detailed feedback on their listening strategies and on their reflective diaries; an LS
(low-scaffolding) group which received ST; and a comparison group which received no
ST. There was some evidence that the ST was helpful and that the HS group benefited
most in their self-efficacy for listening, but not by as much as had been anticipated. The
report contains brief but pertinent sections on ‘assessing self-efficacy’, ‘initial awareness-
raising’ and ‘reflection and strategy feedback’. It also reaches a balanced conclusion
that ST plus feedback focusing on the relationship between strategy use and successful
listening ‘is a promising method for improving both listening performance and students’
deep-seated feelings about listening. Giving such feedback, however, is time-consuming
and requires a detailed understanding on the part of the person giving the feedback . . .’
(p. 91). The report concludes with some highly useful suggestions for classroom pedagogy.
6.4 A learning community
Coyle’s (2007a) perceptive study of the development of learner strategies is sociocultural

in essence, assuming the interdependence of social and individual processes as learning is
co-constructed by teacher and students. While working with 11-year-old children beginning
German at secondary school in England, it proved possible to identify three components
of learning strategies: classroom culture, scaffolded learning and creation of learning
opportunities. The research led to a set of factors being developed which seemed to contribute
to these. For example, ‘classroom culture’ was supported by high teacher expectations,
humour, particular ways of dealing with error, and time (e.g. for thinking out loud, supporting
others, or inventing new language). Scaffolded learning was supported by individual spaces,
modelling, progression/recycling and asking questions. Creating learning opportunities was
supported by spontaneity, transfer (using what one already knows) and explanation.
6.5 Beginner teachers
Beginner L2 teachers is an under-researched topic, but an admirable contribution is made

by Watzke (2007) in his study of nine FL teachers in the initial stage of their career. Using a
grounded theory approach, the writer is able to explain change in the teachers’ FL pedagogical
knowledge by reference to four main categories: prior knowledge that frames instructional
decisions, attitudes towards teacher control in the classroom, instructional goals for daily
lessons, and responding to student affect. The beginner teachers felt a priority need to control
their classes and to come to terms with the school curriculum, and for those reasons to try
out practices which ran counter to those advocated in their professional preparation. There
is an excellent discussion of how teachers might develop professionally beyond this position.
6.6 Communicative language teaching (CLT)
In recent years there has been much argument against and for communicative language
teaching (CLT), e.g. Bax (2004) and Liao (2005). The study by Hiep (2007) is focused on
the beliefs held by teachers in Vietnam and who generally showed positive attitudes towards
CLT. They favoured it, not because it was modern and progressive, nor because it was what
the country’s educational policy-makers wanted, but because they considered it best reflected
their students’ needs. Certainly, CLT brought with it a range of problems, e.g. constraints
of high-stakes examinations, large-sized classes, cultural views of what teachers and students
should and should not be doing, and limited expertise in constructing communicative tasks.
However, these limitations were considered as not nearly sufficient to justify its demise. I feel
I should add a personal reflection here. In my view, the literature on CLT, whether about
it, or for it or against it, has never been entirely convincing, and for a note on the confusion
which can ensue, see Grenfell (2007) in section 6.1 above. Against that background, the views
of the teachers in Hiep’s admirable study are worthy of respect.
6.7 Autonomy through self-access
The Confucian view of education which is still evident in China, including Hong Kong,
implies top–down development as knowledge is passed down the generations. Nonetheless,
the Hong Kong government decided that secondary school students needed to learn to
become more autonomous, and L2 English was an obvious area. Miller, Shuk-Ching
& Hopkins (2007) provide an excellent small-scale study of the development of SALL
(self-access language learning) based initially in three schools. One chose to implement
SALL through classroom activity; a second chose project work; the third chose to develop
a SAC (self-access centre). The researchers concentrate on the SAC and outline how it
functioned. The data come from two teachers and nine students and show how key concepts
of inclusion, training and student involvement were addressed. The teachers had made
two key strategic decisions: one was to establish the SAC, and the other was to involve the
students in its running, with the consequence that an ethos of SALL quickly pervaded the
SAC and encouraged the students to develop a strong sense of equal ownership.
6.8 Time distribution
Overwhelmingly, the main approach to the distribution of time in L2 provision is ‘a lot of a

little’, sometimes called ‘drip feed’. However, the reason for adopting this mode is probably a
reflection of curricular timetabling necessity rather than pedagogical desirability. The study
by Serrano & Muñoz (2007) investigates this area by following closely three different time-
distributions with adult ESL learners attending a university language school in Spain. The
three distributions all had the same amount of time overall (110 hours) but differed in the
distribution of this time. They were ‘extensive’ over 7 months, at four hours per week; ‘semi
intensive’ over 3–4 months at 8–10 hours per week; and ‘intensive’ over five weeks at 25
hours per week. The students in all three distributions improved their performance over their
allotted time. However, ‘semi-intensive’ and ‘intensive’ proved clearly superior to ‘extended’,
showing significantly improved performance on all four tasks which were used as measures
of progress. There is a highly useful overview of the research literature on time distribution,
both in general education and then in L2 teaching. More studies of this are needed in a wider
variety of contexts.
6.9 Strategies and other variables
The study by Magogwe & Oliver (2007) focuses on strategies in relation to other variables
and, pleasingly, it is set in Botswana, a country which has not featured strongly thus
far in international Applied Linguistics research. According to the authors, English is
of major importance in Botswana for education and for careers, but many students
are not proficient in it as L2. Their investigation drew on three age-groups: students
at primary school, secondary school and in tertiary education, which allowed language
learning strategies to be related to age, with additional variables being proficiency
and self-efficacy beliefs. In fact, a dynamic relationship was found between students’
reported use of language learning strategies and these other variables. Unsurprisingly,
proficient students made most use of strategies and there was some relationship between
self-efficacy beliefs and overall use of strategies. In addition, however, there were some
interesting indications, e.g. that particular strategies (such as social strategies) might be
culturally more appropriate than others; and that low proficiency students possessing high
self-efficacy beliefs tended to use strategies more often than those with lower self-efficacy
beliefs, which might be a hopeful sign for improved proficiency in due course.
7. Information and communication technologies (ICT)
7.1 Telecollaboration
In Basharina’s (2007) study the students were Japanese, Mexican and Russian learners of
English at university, engaged in WebCT bulletin board telecollaboration with each other on
a 12-week project. Three sorts of issue arose which were interpreted by the writer as ‘contra-
dictions’ in terms of Activity theory. The three sorts of contradiction were: intracultural, inter-
cultural and technology-related. Within Activity theory, contradictions are viewed as potential
sources of collaborative development which can help create new forms of activity. In the event,
whereas the intracultural contradictions were quickly resolved, the intercultural ones were
not, and as a result some of the students formed negative attitudes, with interesting differences
becoming evident between the three nationalities. The writer concludes that it is not
reasonable to expect educational institutions in different countries to align their cultures-of-
use to the extent that all intercultural contradictions can be resolved, but considers it possible to
help students at least gain an awareness of how material conditions and educational paradigms
can influence the ways in which different groups perceive and interact with each other.
Also focusing on telecollaboration was O’Dowd (2007) in the case of EFL students at
university in Germany interacting with counterparts in Ireland and USA learning German.
The aims were to establish to what extent telecollaboration can facilitate intercultural
competence and to identify such skills and knowledge as students and teachers might need
in order to make the particular telecollaboration work effectively. It was concluded that
telecollaboration does have considerable potential in that it provides learners with inputs, e.g.
via email, web-based message boards and video-conferencing, which differ considerably from
what is found in textbooks. It was found to be helpful if the telecollaboration included explicit
dialogues which offered comparisons of the respective cultures and promoted a dynamic
exchange of student views. It was also helpful if a combination of different online tools
was used, rather than relying on one mode alone, e.g. email and video-conferencing could
usefully complement each other in various ways. In order to make the telecollaboration work
successfully, it would be important to provide students with explicit guidance and training
and to help teachers become familiar with the various roles which the new medium entailed
for them: for example, teacher as organiser, as intercultural partner, as model and coach and
as source or resource.
7.2 Tracking different pathways according to personality type
Several of my previous annual surveys have featured reports which focus on the computer’s
ability to track the routes which learners take while working through language-learning
applications. Hwu’s (2007) report adds to this emerging body of knowledge. A distinguishing
feature was the highlighting of two key learner variables: language abilities as measured in a
placement test and personality preferences. The latter were located on a dimension ranging
from Sensing (calling for carefulness, thoroughness and sound understanding) to Intuition
(calling for quickness of insight and seeing relationships). The objective of the particular
application was to teach the use of two Spanish past-tense forms to fifth-semester students at
university in the USA. The two types of personality preference, as well as students’ differing
reading levels, were associated with differences in the ways in which the students preferred
to work through the application. Intuitive students were mainly found to favour a cognitive
learning strategy by developing their own understanding of the two tense forms, whereas
Sensing students tended to adopt a memory-based strategy. However, it was also found that
these differing behaviours did not significantly influence students’ attainment, suggesting
that a population of students with differing types of personality could indeed follow different
pathways in order to fulfil the same learning task. The writer suggests, however, that further
studies would be needed to ascertain whether or not one particular strategy was better in
the long run possibly because of deeper processing. The report concludes with some useful
implications for software design.
7.3 Culture-related ICT
The study by Levy (2007) does not so much present new research as suggest a research-based
pedagogical framework on to which different sorts of culture-related ICT activities may
be plotted. The framework embraces five different culture perspectives: (i) elemental, (ii)
relative, (iii) group membership, (iv) contested, and (v) individual. Each of these is amply
discussed and exemplified by reference to published research. The framework also illustrates
five specific projects which reflect a range of technologies such as email, discussion forum
and web-based. The framework brings these together into the one system, which also
incorporates pedagogical or learning strategies such as ‘explore stereotypes’, ‘compare C1
and C2’ (i.e. Culture 1 and Culture 2), ‘incremental refinement of understanding of C2’,
‘challenge the comfort zone relative to NS norms’, and ‘explore NS norms of interpretation
in relation to specific communicative events’. Thus, the framework allows teachers to locate
their own particular ICT cultural project and to see what it is likely and less likely to entail.
There can be little doubt concerning the potential of ICT for facilitating cultural learning, in
part through an L2, and I find this framework a helpful way of making sense of the challenge.
7.4 Keeping track of technologies
Already, an impressive range of technologies has been developed which carries the
potential to facilitate language learning. Stockwell (2007) lists these as interface design and
authoring; data management, access and portability; AI (artificial intelligence) and tutoring
systems; automatic speech recognition; natural language processing; speech synthesis; learner
profiling; and cognitive agent systems. In order to establish the extent to which such
technologies were in fact used, whether those using them were aware of the potential and
whether the particular technology was suitable for the particular purpose for which it had
been used, a comprehensive review was undertaken of all articles published in the four main
CALL research journals over a period of five years. The survey enabled a list to be drawn
up of the main language areas which had been covered (these were grammar, vocabulary,
pronunciation, reading, writing, listening and speaking) and of the particular technologies
which had been adopted in relation to each language area in turn. It also proved possible
to identify developments which occurred during the five years in question: the technologies
for supporting vocabulary learning, for example, had developed in the direction of complex
AI systems. An implication of the study was considered to be the importance of helping
busy language teachers keep abreast of the technologies which were becoming available and
make informed judgements on the suitability of such technologies for achieving particular
language-learning goals.
8. Diversity
8.1 Challenging a deficit model
In theory at least, minority language parents possess a linguistic, social and cultural capital
on which they might be able to draw in order to enhance the development of their children’s
literacy, but does this necessarily happen? In exploring this issue, the study by Peterson &
Heywood (2007) addresses the potential barriers, among which was a deficit model resting on
the assumption that culture and socio-economic status tend to create an environment inimical
to children’s literacy development. However, the participating schools successfully challenged
the deficit model and showed that minority language parents need not be impeded by their
culture or socio-economic status from exercising a positive influence. A number of practical
ideas were developed, such as the use of dual-language books, learning at least some aspects
of the languages of the students at school and encouraging minority language parents to read
to their children in the parents’ first (minority) language.
8.2 Cosmopolitan citizenship
Two valuable articles in their different ways address issues of cosmopolitan citizenship which
have implications for languages education. Guilherme’s (2007) main theme is the dominance
of World English and the conflicting ideologies which can accompany this, e.g. English viewed
as a basic tool for life which empowers those who learn it as L2; or English as an agent of
oppression which is antagonistic to linguistic, social and cultural diversity and as a loaded
language which gives its speakers greater access to power. A possible way forward, according
to the writer, is to view English as a common language (not as a lingua franca) from a Critical
Pedagogy perspective helping people to ‘become cosmopolitan citizens without implying
the loss of our cultural or ideological roots or the transformation of English into a neutral,
disengaged or unaffiliated medium’ (p. 72). I find the notion of critical pedagogy attractive,
as when schools which are linking with each other across a number of countries critically
assess which languages are to be used and for what purposes, rather than allow one dominant
language to take over.
Starkey (2007) focuses on a different sort of tension, this time in policies for language
education, between those that promote intercultural communication and those that identify
languages with particular national cultures. Quite often, for example, language teaching
materials reflect a stereotyped version of a national culture rather than intercultural values,
and may present an unreal and anaesthetised version of the society in question. Languages
teachers with personal experience of mobility, minorities and cultural diversity may feel
frustration if asked to work with such material. It is argued that there is good sense in language
teachers engaging in dialogue with teachers of citizenship and multicultural education, in
order that they may develop a notion of cosmopolitan citizenship which links the local, the
national and the global.
8.3 Community language provision
The survey of community languages at school level in England, Scotland and Wales by
McPake, Tinsley & James (2007) shows a situation of ‘super-diversity’ (p. 108) – an increasing
number of students with more than one language and a very wide range of these languages.
They define community languages as ‘all languages in use in a society, other than the
dominant, official or national language’ (p. 109), and in the UK examples are Urdu, Panjabi,
Cantonese, Polish, Italian and British Sign Language (BSL). Rightly, the writers claim that
this wide variety of languages is of potential benefit to each country, but the formal education
system makes provision for them only to a limited extent, and much may depend on particular
speech communities making their own provision at weekends or in the evening through
complementary education in order to pass at least some of their language and culture on to
their children. The survey finds that teachers have major professional development needs,
with many being untrained volunteers, particularly those in the complementary system.
Some promising signs were identified, e.g. attempts to link mainstream and complementary
provision and the emergence of a national awareness-raising campaign in order to help staff
in schools and the wider public better understand the benefits of multilingualism. However,
radical and potentially valuable developments such as Content and Language Integrated
Learning in particular community languages seemed only a distant prospect.
9. Immersion
9.1 Research overview
It was a pleasure to read Lazaruk’s (2007) excellent overview from Canada, the undisputed
home of immersion. Without seeking to break particularly new ground, the review presents
a balanced, well-informed, and up-to-date picture of key findings from French immersion
research. It highlights the gap between reception and production skills; discusses students’
levels of proficiency in English and their general academic achievement; sets out a range of
cognitive benefits of bilingualism such as mental flexibility, divergent, thinking, metalinguistic
awareness and communicative sensitivity; and comments also on the communicative, cultural
and economic opportunities which become available to students who have benefited from
an immersion education. Although the main thrust of the paper is to present evidence from
research on the outcomes of immersion, there is an interesting section which sets out a
neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism, claiming that bilinguals understand their L2 directly
rather than via their L1 and which posits two language sub-systems which interact with a
single non-linguistic system.
9.2 SEN and learning difficulties
A question which is regularly asked about immersion is: ‘Yes, but is it suitable for students
with special educational needs (SEN) or learning difficulties (LD)?’ There has not been a
convincing answer based on research evidence, which makes the paper by Genesee (2007)
welcome, since it reviews the results of published research studies with regard to (i) the
suitability of French Immersion for students with SEN or LD, and (ii) such interventions
which have been adopted for meeting their needs. The findings are not clear-cut, but it was
interesting to note that where a direct comparison was possible between SEN or LD students
receiving French immersion and those in English-only programmes, those being educated
through immersion were not shown to be handicapped in their English or their academic
development and, in addition, showed the advantage of a higher level of proficiency in French.
9.3 Development of language functions
An attractive feature of the immersion study by Garcı́a (2007) is that it is grounded in

Halliday’s (1975) well-known theory of the development of language functions in children:
instrumental, regulatory, personal, heuristic, informative and interactional. The writer had
observed the use of these functions by children in their L1 and also in full L2 immersion,
but she wished to ascertain whether the same functions could be developed among children
in a low-immersion EFL context (low-immersion being understood as a maximum of one
hour per day in the target L2). Two classes of five-year-old children were chosen, each with a
different teacher, and a control-experimental design was favoured, in which the teaching of
the experimental group incorporated special techniques for encouraging children’s discourse
initiations. It was concluded that the activation of such initiations did indeed have a positive
influence on the children’s capacity to express the functions in question, and that the five-
year-olds showed a particular inclination to express their personal world.
9.4 ‘No loss’ in L1
Most immersion research has featured children whose L1 and immersion L2 share similar if
not identical romanised scripts, e.g. L1-English children immersed in L2 French. But what
will happen in the case of children whose L1 has a writing system that is fundamentally
different from the writing system of their immersion L2? Knell et al. (2007) have produced an
admirable study which bears directly on this question, focusing as it does on Chinese children
in China receiving half of their elementary school curriculum through the medium of English.
The stakes seemed high, in that by the end of Grade 2, Chinese children are reported as being
expected to be able to read 1600–1800 different Chinese characters, of which they should
be able to write 800–1000. So, would the English-immersion children be at a disadvantage
in respect of their learning of the written characters of their L1 Chinese? The study was
able to compare such children with their peers attending the same elementary school but
receiving their education through their L1 Chinese. Among the curricular areas undertaken in
English by the immersion children were English language arts, moral education, art, physical
education, music and science. The immersion and comparison groups were both tested for
word identification, phonological awareness and vocabulary in English and Chinese, and also
for English-oral proficiency and letter-name knowledge. The findings offer encouragement
for immersion, in that the immersion children were significantly better in English vocabulary,
word identification and oral proficiency, and seemed to have incurred no loss in respect of
their learning of Chinese characters.
9.5 Two-way immersion
Two-way (or, dual) immersion in principle offers rich possibilities for the equitable and
reciprocal development of children’s immersion L2, by allowing children with one particular
L1 to interact in that L1 with other children (with a different L1) for whom it is an L2 –
and vice versa. Hickey (2007) provides an authoritative overview of research, especially in
the case of children’s L1 as minority language. Her study is set in the mainly Irish-speaking
communities of the west of Ireland, featuring 60 children aged 3–5 attending Irish-medium
pre-schools in which L1 Irish children are mixed with L2 Irish children and in which the
informal setting allows children to move around and choose who they will talk to. Her study
illuminates different patterns of interaction, e.g. (i) child from Irish-only home interacting
with majority of children from English-only homes and learning Irish as L2, (ii) child from
Irish-only home interacting with majority of children from Irish–English language homes,
and (iii) child from Irish-only home interacting with majority of children from Irish-only
homes. The findings led the writer to express concern about the future of the minority
language, in that children with L1 Irish tended to choose the majority language (English) as
the main means of communication with their peers. One possibility for protecting the use of
Irish was to separate the L1 Irish and L2 Irish children, which did allow much more Irish to
be used by the L1 Irish children. There is an interesting discussion of the social and linguistic
implications which arise.
Another immersion study concluding with ‘no loss’ in first or dominant language is
presented by Bae (2007), in this case featuring English and Korean dual-immersion at
elementary school level in the USA, and focusing in particular on children’s writing in respect
of coherence, grammar, content and text-length. The dual immersion group consisted of two
sub-groups: children of Korean-language background who were not strong in English and
children who were proficient in English. They were complemented in the study by a third
group: children in another school who were proficient in English and not undergoing dual
immersion. The results showed that both of the dual immersion sub-groups showed clear
development in English-writing skills over the three years of the study (one year kindergarten
plus Grades 1 and 2 at elementary school) and no differences between these sub-groups by the
end of Grade 2; and, moreover, no loss in written English when compared with the English-
proficient children receiving their all-English education in the other school. A strong feature
of the study is its careful sampling and design, which lends substance to the conclusions.
9.6 Generalisability and sustainability
A study by Johnstone (2007) discusses four national policy initiatives on languages in Scotland
in terms of their sustainability and generalisability. One of these initiatives features the UK’s
first project on early immersion in a foreign language, in this case French. There is already
a distinguished tradition of immersion in the UK through Welsh-medium, Irish-medium
and Gaelic-medium education at primary school, but these are not foreign languages. The
French-immersion project was set in a city primary school in an area of substantial socio-
economic disadvantage, but nonetheless the outcomes were consistent with the researched
outcomes of early immersion generally, e.g. no loss in the L1 (in fact, there was a clear gain,
when compared with children in the same school not receiving the immersion programme)
and no loss in their more general learning. Given the socio-economic setting, of equal interest
was the beneficial effect of the immersion programme on the self-image of the pupils and
their parents. The project had been initiated on the basis of special financial support from
the local authority and the government and attracted highly favourable comment from a
succession of Ministers. However, when the financial climate began to change, the future of
the project was increasingly in doubt, and there were strong feelings from parents that they
were in danger of being left rather ‘high and dry’.
10. CLIL/CBI
10.1 No L1 loss
CLIL (content & language-integrated learning) or CBI (content-based instruction) have

been attracting interest for several years now and indeed CLIL is central to the European
Commission (2003) Action Plan for languages. A merit of the CLIL study by Seikkula-Leino
(2007) is that with admirable clarity she sets out what CLIL and immersion have in common
and how they differ. Her own study is set in Finland and features 217 pupils at Grades 5 and
6 in a Finnish comprehensive school, of whom 116 were in CLIL classes, with the remainder
receiving their education mainly through L1 Finnish. The findings are complex and suggest
that the over-achieving children tended to be in the non-CLIL classes; nonetheless, the study
did show that the CLIL pupils’ skills in their L1 Finnish did not suffer and on the whole it
offers those who might wish to explore the potential of CLIL some supportive research-based
evidence.
10.2 Classroom processes
As Pessoa et al. (2007) rightly argue, CBI has had strong professional advocacy but has
thus far not benefited from extensive research. They offer a valuable qualitative study of
CBI classroom processes in the case of two teachers of Spanish with Grade 6 students at
a suburban middle school in the USA. The main focus was on four aspects of classroom
discourse: language-related and content-related talk, conversational features of interpersonal

communication, use of English as L1, and teacher feedback and error correction. Although
the sample was too small to permit generalisation, it nonetheless yields interesting insight
into differences in attitude between the two teachers, one of them tending to focus on
problems and the other being more positive. These differences seemed to be reflected in
the actual classroom processes that occurred and in the outcomes of these processes. This
is a useful study because to my mind it shows that CBI/CLIL is not simply a formula
but is dependent very much on the classroom environment which the teacher helps to
create.
10.3 L1/L2 alternation as metalinguistic device
It is pleasing to note that lack of high-quality research on CLIL is being addressed. Coyle
(2007b) sets out a possible research agenda for CLIL pedagogies and there is an insightful
article by Serra (2007) based on a longitudinal study of CLIL in three Swiss primary
schools in which German-speaking pupils received some 50% of their curriculum, especially
mathematics, through the medium of Italian or Romansh. Of particular interest is the use of
what the writer calls L1/L2 alternation as a metalinguistic device which also facilitates the
processing of content. Re-phrasings did not seem to interfere with learning, and it was found
that the children’s development of mathematics proceeded at the same pace and produced
results which did not suffer in comparison with those in monolingual classes.
11. Brief concluding thoughts
Having written this annual review since 1994, I believe that 2007 does not suffer in comparison
with its predecessors. It has generated high-quality research across an impressive number of
areas, demonstrating the vitality of Applied Linguistics and Languages Education research.
Reading the articles reviewed has been a major pleasure. It is almost invidious to single
out any particular areas for special mention. However, I suggest that 2007 was special in
three respects. First, it contributed strongly to research on L2 reading, both because of
outstanding development at the theoretical level, pointing to a significant underlying role
for L1, and because some of it focused on children learning to read both silently and aloud
across two or more radically different types of script (e.g. alphabetical and iconic). Second,
2007 confirmed the further emergence of outstanding research papers from various countries
in Asia. These not only make strong contributions to their particular topics but also carry
interesting implications for the ways in which L2 English is perceived in relation to national
and local cultures. Third, 2007 brought immersion research back to the foreground, now
accompanied by research on CLIL/CBI. This possibly reflects a growing awareness that
teaching a modern language at primary school on the conventional drip-feed method cannot
be expected to generate high-proficiency outcomes, and hence a move towards maximising
the key variables of ‘time’ and ‘intensity’ which immersion and CLIL/CBI offer.
References
Bae, J. (2007). Development of English skills need not suffer as a result of immersion: Grades 1 &
2 writing assessment in a Korean/English two-way immersion program. Language Learning 57.2,
299–332.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought & action: A social cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Barcroft, J. (2007). Effects of opportunities for word retrieval during second language vocabulary
learning. Language Learning 57.1, 35–56.
Basharina, O. K. (2007). An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in
international telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology 11.2, 82–103.
Bax, S. (2004). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching? ELT Journal 57.3, 238–287.
Bialystok, E. (2007). Acquisition of literacy in bilingual children: A framework for research. Language
Learning 57 suppl. 1, 45–77.
Blondin, C., M. Candelier, P. Edelenbos, R. M. Johnstone, A. Kubanek-German & T. Taeschner
(1999). Modern languages in primary and pre-school education: A review of research across member states of the EU .
London: CILT.
Cheng, H-F. & Z. Dörnyei (2007). The use of motivational strategies in language instruction: The case
of EFL teaching in Taiwan. Innovation in Language Learning & Teaching 1.1, 152–174.
Cheung, H., M. Chan & K. Chong (2007). Use of orthographic knowledge in reading by Chinese–
English bi-scriptal children. Language Learning 57.3, 469–505.
Coleman, J., A. Galaczi & L. Astruc (2007). Motivation of UK school pupils towards foreign languages:
A large-scale survey at Key Stage 3. Language Learning Journal 35.2, 245–281.
Corrigan, C. (2007). An experimental analysis of the affective dimensions of deep vocabulary knowledge
used in inferring the meaning of words in context. Applied Linguistics 28.2, 211–240.
Coyle, D. (2007a). Strategic classrooms: Learning communities which nurture the development of
learner strategies. Language Learning Journal 35.1, 65–79.
Coyle, D. (2007b). Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a research agenda for CLIL
pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism 10.5, 543–562.
Ding, Y. (2007). Text memorization and imitation: The practices of successful Chinese learners of
English. System 35.2, 271–280.
Dörnyei, Z. & K. Czisér (1998). Ten commandments for motivating language learners: Results of an
empirical study. Language Teaching Research 2.3, 203–229.
Ellwood, C. (2007). Questions of classroom identity: What can be learned from codeswitching in
classroom peer group talk? The Modern Language Journal 92.4, 538–557.
European Commission (2003). Promoting language learning & linguistic diversity: An action plan. Brussels:
Commission of the European Communities.
Firth, A. & J. Wagner (1997). On discourse, communication and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA
research. The Modern Language Journal 81.2, 285–300.
Firth, A. & J. Wagner (1998). SLA property: No trespassing! The Modern Language Journal 82.1, 91–94.
Garcı́a, A. L. (2007). Young learners’ functional use of the L2 in a low-immersion EFL context. ELT
Journal 61.1, 39–45.
Genesee, F. (2007). French immersion and at-risk students: A review of research evidence. Canadian
Modern Language Review/Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes 63.5, 655–687.
Graham, S. (2007). Learner strategies and self-efficacy: Making the connection. Language Learning Journal
35.1, 81–93.
Grenfell, M. (2007). Language learner strategy research and modern foreign language teaching and
learning. Language Learning Journal 35.1, 9–22.
Guilherme, M. (2007). English as global language and English for cosmopolitan citizenship. Language
& Intercultural Communication 7.1, 72–90.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward
Arnold.
Hanaoka, O. (2007). Output, noticing and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous
attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research 11.4, 459–479.
Heining-Boynton, A. & T. Haitema (2007). A ten-year chronicle of student attitudes toward foreign
language in the elementary school. The Modern Language Journal 91.2, 149–168.
Hickey, T. M. (2007). Children’s language networks in minority language immersion: What goes in
may not come out. Language & Education 21.1, 46–65.
Hiep, P. H. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Unity within diversity. ELT Journal 61.3, 193–
201.
Holtgraves, T. (2007). Second language learners and speech act comprehension. Language Learning 57.4,
595–610.
Hwu, F. (2007). Learners’ strategies with a grammar application: The influence of language ability and
personality preferences. ReCALL 19.1, 21–38.
Johnstone, R. M. (2007). Nationally-sponsored innovations at school in Scotland: Issues of evidence,
generalisability and sustainability. Innovation in Language Learning & Teaching 1.1, 111–128.
Keller, J. M. (1987). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance & Instruction 26.8,
1–7.
Knell, E., L. S. Siegel, Q. Haiyan, Z. Lun, P. Miao, Z. Wei & C. Yanping (2007). Early English literacy
in Xi’an, China. The Modern Language Journal 91.3, 395–417.
Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second language
reading development. Language Learning 57 suppl. 1, 1–44.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). Reflecting on the cognitive–social debate in second language acquisition.
The Modern Language Journal 91 Focus Issue, 773–787.
Lazaruk, W. (2007). Linguistic, academic and cognitive benefits of French immersion. Canadian Modern
Language Review/Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes 63.5, 605–627.
Lee, L. (2007). Fostering second language oral communication through constructivist interaction in
video-conferencing. Foreign Language Annals 40.4, 635–649.
Leeser, M. (2007). Learner-based factors in L2 reading comprehension and processing grammatical
form: topic familiarity and working memory. Language Learning 57.2, 229–270.
Levy, M. (2007). Culture, culture learning and new technologies: Towards a pedagogical framework.
Language Learning & Technology 11.2, 104–127.
Liao, X. (2005). The need for communicative language teaching in China. ELT Journal 58.3, 270–
273.
Lo, J. & F. Hyndland (2007). Enhancing students’ engagement & motivation in writing: The case of
primary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing 16.4, 219–237.
Macaro, E. (2007). Language learner strategies: Adhering to a theoretical framework. Language Learning
Journal 35.2, 239–243.
Mackey, A., A. P. Kanganas & R. Oliver (2007). Task familiarity and interactional feedback in child
ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly 41.2, 285–312.
Magogwe, J. M. & R. Oliver (2007). The relationship between language learning strategies, proficiency,
age and self-efficacy beliefs: A study of language learners in Botswana. System 35.3, 338–352.
McGarrell, H. & J. Verbeem (2007). Motivating revision of drafts through formative feedback. ELT
Journal 61.3, 228–236.
McPake, J., T. Tinsley & C. James (2007). Making provision for community languages: Issues for
teacher education in the UK. Language Learning Journal 35.1, 99–112.
Mennim, P. (2007). Long-term effects of noticing on oral output. Language Teaching Research 11.3, 265–
280.
Miller, L., E. T. Shuk-Ching & M. Hopkins (2007). Establishing a self-access centre in a secondary
school. ELT Journal 61.3, 220–227.
Mills, N., F. Pajares & C. Herron (2007). Self-efficacy of college intermediate French students: Relation
to achievement and motivation. Language Learning 57.3, 417–442.
Morimoto, S. & S. Loewen (2007). A comparison of the effects of image-schema based instruction and
translation-based instruction on the acquisition of L2 polysemous words. Language Teaching Research
11.3, 347–372.
Murphy, P. (2007). Reading comprehension exercises online: The effects of feedback, proficiency and
interaction. Language Learning & Technology 11.3, 107–129.
Nassaji, H. (2007). Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language reading
comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives. Language Learning 57 suppl. 1, 79–113.
O’Dowd, R. (2007). Evaluating the outcomes of intercultural on-line exchange. ELT Journal 61.2,
144–152.
Pessoa, S., H. Henry., R. Donato., G. H. Tucker & H. Lee (2007). Content-based instruction in the
foreign language classroom: A discourse perspective. Foreign Language Annals 40.1, 102–121.
Peterson, S. S. & D. Heywood (2007). Contribution of families’ linguistic, social and cultural capital
to minority language children’s literacy: parents’, teachers’ and principals’ perspectives. Canadian
Modern Language Review/Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes 63.4, 517–538.
Pinter, A. (2007). Some benefits of peer–peer interaction: 10-year-old children practising with a
communication task. Language Teaching Research 11.2, 189–207.
Pulido, D. (2007a). The relationship between text comprehension and second language incidental
vocabulary acquisition: a matter of topic familiarity? Language Learning 57 suppl. 1, 155–199.
Pulido, D. (2007b). The effects of topic familiarity and passage sight vocabulary on L2 lexical inferencing
and retention through reading. Applied Linguistics 28.1, 66–86.
Rose, J. (2007). Understanding relevance in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research 11.4,
483–502.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11.2,
129–158.
Seikkula-Leino, J. (2007). CLIL learning: Achievement levels and affective factors. Language & Education
21.4, 328–341.
Serra, C. (2007). Assessing CLIL at primary school: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Bilingual
Education & Bilingualism 10.5, 582–602.
Serrano, S. & C. Muñoz (2007). Same hours, different time distribution: Any difference in EFL? System
35.3, 305–321.
Sheen, R. (2007). Key concepts in ELT: Processing instruction. ELT Journal 61.2, 161–163.
Starkey, H. (2007). Language education, identities and citizenship: Developing cosmopolitan
perspectives. Language & Intercultural Communication 7.1, 56–71.
Stockwell, G. (2007). A review of technology choice for teaching language skills and areas in the CALL
literature. ReCALL 19.2, 105–120.
Swain, M. & P. Deters (2007). ‘New’ mainstream SLA theory expanded and enriched. The Modern
Language Journal 91 Focus Issue, 820–836.
VanPatten, B. & T. Cadierno (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 15, 225–243.
Verdugo, D. R. & I. A. Belmonte (2007). Using digital stories to improve listening comprehension with
Spanish young learners of English. Language Learning & Technology 11.1, 87–101.
Waring, H. Z. (2007). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and
learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal 92.4, 573–594.
Watanabe, Y. & M. Swain (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction
on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching
Research 11.2, 121–142.
Watzke, J. L. (2007). Foreign language pedagogical knowledge: Toward a developmental theory of
beginning teacher practices. The Modern Language Journal 91.1, 63–82.
Webb, S. (2007a). Learning word pairs and glossed sentences: The effects of a single context on
vocabulary knowledge. Language Teaching Research 11.1, 63–81.
Webb, S. (2007b). The effects of repetition on vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguistics 28.1, 46–65.
Yamashita, J. (2007). The relationship of reading attitudes between L1 and L2: An investigation of
adult EFL learners in Japan. TESOL Quarterly 41.1, 81–105.
Zhao, S. Y. & J. Bitchener (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher–learner & learner–learner
interactions. System 35.4, 431–447.
RICHARD JOHNSTONE is Emeritus Professor at the University of Stirling. Although retired from full-time
employment, he remains active in languages-related research through the supervision of Ph.D. students,
the direction of evaluation projects and his role as Lead Adviser to the British Council’s regional Early
Bilingual Education initiative.
Lang. Teach. (2009), 42:3, 317–340
doi:10.1017/S026144480900576X
A Country in Focus
Research in applied linguistics and language teaching and learning

in Singapore (2000–2007)
Rani Rubdy National Institute of Education, Singapore

rani.rubdy@nie.edu.sg
T. Ruanni F. Tupas National University of Singapore

elcttr@nus.edu.sg
In this review of research in applied linguistics and language teaching and learning in
Singapore, more than one hundred national publications for the period 2000–2007 will be
reviewed. Since this period encompasses certain changes that were introduced in Singapore
schools at the start of the new millennium, it would be appropriate to take stock of the
studies that showcase these changes. These studies fall under five main areas of local
research: norms, standards and models; English language curriculum and policy; reading and
writing instruction and research; mother tongue teaching and learning; and the teaching of
English to international students. In this review, representative work under each research area
will be discussed, and this will be done within the broad historical and sociopolitical context
of research in Singapore. The results of the review suggest that practical concerns assume
priority over theoretical issues, which are relegated to secondary importance. This can be
explained in terms of the role of the state in education reform and governance and its
top–down decision-making processes, the impact of globalization on education, and the role
of education in the management of race relations in the country.
1. Introduction
The most recent government statistics show that Singapore’s total population is around
4.6 million (Department of Statistics 2008: 22), with the resident population (3.6 million)
consisting of three main ethnic groups: Chinese (75%), Malay (13.7%) and Indian (8.7%)
(25). Along with Chinese, Malay and Tamil mother tongues, however, the English language
is also an official language not only due to the country’s British colonial past, but also because
English is seen as the pragmatic choice that can unite the different ethnic groups and make
the country remain globally competitive. The role of education is critical in this balancing act
between the three major local languages and English: the bilingual policy ‘enables children to
318 R. RUBDY & T. R. F. TUPAS: SINGAPORE
be proficient in English, which is the language of commerce, technology and administration,

and their Mother Tongue, the language of their cultural heritage’ (p. 240).1
To understand and appreciate the shape and practice of language teaching research in
Singapore, it is imperative that we locate it within the broad domains of the political economy
of bilingual education in the country. That is, language teaching and learning research
published locally in Singapore should be understood within questions of state control of
education, the relationship between education and globalization, the role of education in the
management of social issues such as race and religion, and the primacy of English in bilingual
education over the official mother tongues (Chinese, Malay and Tamil).
According to Gopinathan (2007), two key features need to be highlighted when we speak
of the relationship between education and globalization in Singapore. ‘The first is that as a
small island with no natural resources except a strategic location, Singapore’s survival has
always depended on its usefulness to major powers’ (ibid: 58). This explains how Singapore
has moulded an educational system which caters to the demands of economic globalization,
including the training of human resources for multi-national companies and industries in
the 1970s and 1980s and, recently, the training of talented students (e.g. in biotechnological
research) to power its knowledge-based economy in the 21st century. This also explains
why English has occupied a central place in the educational system, with the teaching
of ‘Standard English’ promoted as an essential educational initiative to make the country
globally competitive.
The second feature that needs highlighting is that Singapore’s policy-makers have also
‘sought to ensure that Singapore is neither swamped by external forces nor in danger of
becoming a client-state’ (ibid: 59). Hence, the move to counterbalance the onslaught of what
is perceived as the westernization of Singaporeans through the globalization of undesirable
values and practices by insisting on the teaching and learning of the mother tongues (Chinese,
Malay and Tamil) as second languages. This would ensure, they argue, that Singaporeans
remain rooted in their local cultures and histories and steadfast in their respect for Asian
traditions and values (Ministry of Education 2004; Ministry of Education 2005d, e). In short,
the teaching of English guarantees its place in the fiercely competitive global marketplace
of goods and ideas and the teaching of the mother tongues grounds its people in a cultural
identity that is avowedly Asian.
This two-pronged response to globalization (open and critical) has made educational
reform in the country ‘primarily a way of retooling the productive capacity of the system’
(ibid: 59). Thus, there is constant political, cultural and ideological tension in the educational
initiatives being promoted by the state which, in turn, demonstrates its strong grip on
most matters concerning education, including students, teachers and researchers. The close
alliance between the state and teachers’ unions and other professional organizations thus
makes for a highly efficient implementation of policies and initiatives precisely with a view to
‘retooling’ the system in response to the demands of globalization. Given this context, it is in-
evitable that the agenda of language teaching and learning research be influenced by the state.
In this review, more than one hundred papers from journals, conference proceedings,
government committee reports and books edited during the period 2000–2007 will be
1 In the context of Singapore, the term MOTHER TONGUE does not necessarily mean the first language of speakers; it is
simply the language assigned by the state to each individual according to his or her ethnicity.
A COUNTRY IN FOCUS 319
reviewed. Since this period encompasses certain changes that were introduced in Singapore
schools at the start of the new millennium, it would be appropriate to take stock of the
studies that showcase these changes. An important caveat needs highlighting, however: this
review defines the contours of local academic research in applied linguistics in Singapore
through LOCALLY-PRODUCED publications. It therefore by necessity precludes research by local
scholars published outside Singapore, especially in refereed journals and edited volumes with
international circulation and partly explains why the extensive work done on child language
acquisition in Singapore does not appear here.
2. Norms, standards and models
Research on norms, standards and pedagogical models revolves around two major concerns:
(i) the legitimization of a particular variety of English as the appropriate norm for speakers
in Singapore, one which is based on exonormative standards, usually British English (BrE) or
American English (AmE), and (ii) the characterization of Singapore English (SE) in relation to
this variety. A gradual shift of emphasis and orientation in the descriptions of SE is discernible,
though. Early interest in SE typically concerned itself with compiling the linguistic differences
between the English spoken in Singapore and Malaysia and standard British English, using an
‘error analysis’ approach and labeling these differences as ‘non-standard’. This was followed
by a tendency to characterize SE as a non-native variety displaying variation along a lectal
continuum (Platt & Weber 1980). More recent studies, providing new data and analysis for
the description of SE grammar and pronunciation, build on this work but regard SE as a
legitimate variety on its own terms. Notable among these is the work of Adam Brown, David
Deterding and Ee Ling Low on various aspects of Singapore English usage, undertaken at
the National Institute of Education.
Among studies focusing on questions regarding appropriate usage for speakers in the
region and the attitude to be adopted by teachers and learners towards the local variety
is Deterding & Poedjosoedarmo’s (2001) reference book on English grammar. The volume
takes account of the multilingual ecology in which English is embedded within the region
and includes chapters on the grammatical structures of the regional languages as a basis
for motivating comparisons with English syntax, while alerting readers to a number of
unresolved issues and discouraging a propensity for prescription or rigidity. In similar vein is
Low & Teng’s (2002) collection of papers that focus on issues related to maintaining language
standards in the teaching of English. The issues range from the teaching of grammar and
pronunciation to testing via the computer and attitudes towards differing accents and closely
mirror the concern with maintaining high standards of English in the 21st century as a
viable goal for Singapore schools (Pakir 2002). Another useful contribution is Brown’s (2003)
volume analysing the assumptions underlying several widely-held ‘myths’ about the English
language. These long-held beliefs are authoritatively dismissed with evidence from literary
works, reference books and corpus data to support the analysis.
The second category of studies is represented by Brown, Deterding & Low’s (2000)
collection of 13 articles on the pronunciation of SE. Published in tandem with the launch of
the Speak Good English Movement in Singapore, it stresses the importance of maintaining
international intelligibility while focusing on specific aspects of SE pronunciation. The
primary aim of the volume is the use of empirical data analysis to substantiate or refute
claims previously made impressionistically about the pronunciation of Singaporean speakers
of English. For example, L. S. L. Lim (2000) reports on a study that used judgment tasks
with 12 Singaporean subjects who were played conversations by 15 Singaporeans from three
different ethnic groups, Chinese, Malay and Indian, to test whether they could identify ethnic
sub-varieties of SE. Her study demonstrates that Singaporean listeners were able to identify
ethnic sub-varieties of SE with a reasonably high success rate, with intonation being the
distinguishing feature.
A parallel study by Deterding & Poedjosodarmo (2000), however, maintains that style of
speech may be a crucial factor and contends that while the conversational speech of less
well-educated subjects may provide clear clues to ethnicity, the ethnicity of the formal variety
of the best educated speakers cannot reliably be identified in the same way. Low (2000)
similarly invalidates previous claims which state that SE speakers place stress differently in
multi-syllabic words and use a smaller pitch range than British English speakers. Previous
observations about stress placement are shown to be related to phrase-final lengthening rather
than stress placement per se.
A second thrust of the volume is a comparison of SE with other world varieties (mainly
BrE and AmE) and, by logical extension, an examination of the appropriateness of the
analytical systems used in descriptions of SE. One such study is Poedjosodarmo’s (2000)
analysis of young educated speakers of SE, whose pronunciation revealed increasing use of
AmE features such as the postvocalic /r/, /æ/ rather than /A:/ in words like class, and the
flapping of intervocalic /t/, leading her to account for this in terms of the prevalence of AmE
in foreign TV programs.
Deterding, Low & Brown (2003) contains 16 articles on various aspects of SE morphology
and syntax. Published in tandem with the mounting of a national programme between
2000–2002 to re-train 8,000 teachers in the teaching of grammar, the volume was once
again conceived as a timely response to the concerns over standards expressed by Singapore’s
political leaders. The articles examine various linguistic features of Singapore colloquial
English. A sister volume to the above is Deterding, Brown & Low’s (2005) collection of 18
research articles on the pronunciation of Singapore English, based on the NIE Corpus of
Spoken Singapore English (NIECSSE), and focusing on two broad areas of phonetic research:
features of SE pronunciation and the intelligibility of SE. Overall, the book provides a concise,
up-to-date documentation of the pronunciation of SE, based on careful analysis and illustrated
with extensive examples.
Low & Brown’s introductory book on SE (2005) serves its aim well in providing a good
overview of the history, status and features of SE in a straightforward, non-technical and
reader-friendly style. Their work incorporates the results of research over the last two decades
and draws implications for teaching. As stated above, what is notable about these studies is the
change in perspective in accounting for the distinctive patterns of SE as legitimate variants
in their own right within the paradigm of ‘new varieties of English’, and no longer as errors
or deviations from ‘Standard English’.
Symptomatic of this paradigm change is Ooi’s (2001b) Evolving identities, a collection of 12
interesting articles that offer a range of perspectives on English in Singapore and Malaysia,
arising from the research of many of its contributors who were originally involved in the
Times–Chambers essential English dictionary (TCEED2) project (Higgleton & Ooi 1997). The
articles are organized under three broad categories: macrolinguistic issues, microlinguistic
issues, and wider implications for recording descriptive (and prescriptive) norms in a
dictionary. Underpinning these studies is the notion that the identity of the Singaporean-
Malaysian English speaker is imbued with an essence of ‘interculturalness’ obtaining from the
continual mediation between the various multilingual and multi-cultural forces that shape
them in an ever globalizing world. For instance, Pakir (2001) sketches a macro view of the
forces of globalization that have shaped and continue to shape the English language today.
She predicts that the notion of standard English will eventually be ‘glocal’, one which is both
global and local at the same time. As English is used as the language of contact between
peoples of diverse backgrounds in order to demonstrate the richness of their cross-cultural
‘knowability and communicability’, new epicentres will emerge. Increasingly, English will be
a lingua franca, having different identities.
The volume makes a commendable attempt to relate aspects of microlingusitc description
to broader macrolinguistic issues. Articles dealing with microlinguistic features include
L. S. L. Lim (2001) and Bao (2001) on the phonetics and phonology of SE, respectively,
Alsagoff (2001) on tense and aspect, C. Y. Lim & Wee (2001) on the semantics of reduplication,
and C. L. Ho (2001) on the cultural pragmatics of SE. C. L. Ho, for instance, maintains
that while the use of SE in Singapore’s cosmopolitan and multi-cultural context can be
characterized as reflecting certain Western influences, it also allows for the expression of
Singapore’s own cultural and experiential realities. P. K. W. Tan (2001) explores linguistic
innovation and nativization in Singapore and Malaysian lexis, and relates their use to claims
of ownership of English by some Singapore and Malaysian speakers.
Ooi (2001a) addresses the question of maintaining standards in the construction of a
more inclusive dictionary (i.e. TCEED2) that balances both internal and external norms
and seeks to represent the sociolinguistic reality of English use in Singapore and Malaysia.
He proposes a systematic analysis of computer corpora, both from native and non-native
contexts, in coming to grips with questions concerning the interplay between intra-national
(local) and international (global) standards and realities in formulating an effective framework,
such as his Concentric Circles model, for constructing a dictionary of nativized Englishes
for speakers of Singapore and Malaysian English (SME). Such a model is seen as being
more relevant to newer varieties of English in maintaining cultural plurality and linguistic
standards.
A recent volume (Tupas, Yuan & Nur 2007), comprising articles offering theoretical
and practical insights on pedagogical grammar, bears testimony to Singapore’s continuing
preoccupation with grammar. Hung (2007) examines four main dimensions of grammar
teaching, namely, the nature of language, the linguistic structure of modern-day English,
learners’ interlanguage grammar and teachers’ attitudes towards applied linguistics research.
Alsagoff & James (2007) provide an overview of the changed notion of grammar and the shifts
in teaching methodology that this entails. Advancing the view that grammar is inextricably
tied up with meaning and context, they demonstrate how grammatical forms are meaningful
only when used in texts, thus requiring teachers to exploit the meaning-making potential
of language. The volume also features studies by Doyle (2007) on using the concordancer
to explore grammatical patterns and their frequency of occurrence in a learner’s corpus,
and Pathak (2007) on problems that cause online platforms in grammar teaching to be
user-UNfriendly and ways of making them more interactive.
3. English language curriculum and policy
The English language syllabus in Singapore has been revised roughly every ten years in
response to developments in language study and pedagogy current at the time, national
concerns, and the changing linguistic landscape in Singapore schools. Three or four distinct
stages of innovation have been identified, corresponding to Singapore’s larger educational
reform agenda: a survival-driven stage (1965–78), an efficiency driven stage (1979–90), and an
ability-driven education system (1991–2000). The more recent phase (2001 onwards), driven
by a knowledge-based economy, aims to nurture talent and develop individual potential in
helping realize Singapore’s vision of an ‘intelligent island’ (National Computer Board 1992)
and heighten its economic competitiveness. English language education plays a pre-eminent
role within this agenda.
Ang (2000), S. C. Lim (2000, 2003, 2004) and Cheah (2002, 2004), present important
historical descriptions of syllabus change from the 1950s to the present. The authors indicate
that immediately after independence English language teaching in Singapore continued
in much the same way as under British colonial rule, influenced by the classical tradition
which emphasized the written text, grammar-translation, a set of canonical literary texts
and explicit instructional procedures. The English language syllabus between 1959–1981,
likewise, emphasized prescriptive grammar to the exclusion of real-life language use. The
1971 syllabus was characterized by repetition, drills and reinforcement in ensuring mastery of
the grammar, though some balance was maintained by including an ENRICHMENT component
of stories, poetry and drama. It was only in 1979, the above note, when the New Education
System was introduced, that some of the most significant policy changes in Singapore’s
educational history were brought about, resulting in a pendulum swing from a structural
syllabus to basic ‘functional literacy’. However, as S. C. Lim (2003: 143) notes, this move
not only led to a ‘reductive’ syllabus, reducing reading, writing, listening and speaking to the
minimum core skills in the acquisition of basic functional literacy in English, but also to the
unsatisfactory separation of form and function, exacerbated by the continued dominance of
the structural syllabus and discrete item grammar.
Some of the developments between 1981 and 1991 that S. C. Lim highlights as noteworthy
are the Ministry of Education’s (MOE) Reading and English Acquisition Programme (REAP), which
introduced extensive reading and the use of literature, and the Active Communicative Teaching
(ACT) project for upper Primary classes, which emphasized fluency over linguistic accuracy.
These projects had a major impact on primary education and the changes brought in by
them were subsequently incorporated into the 1991 syllabus and, a decade later, into the
2001 syllabus (Ministry of Education 2001).
By the 1980s Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) had made inroads into
Singapore’s educational landscape and the 1991 syllabus signaled a major paradigm shift
from a preoccupation with formal accuracy and discrete grammar items to a focus on
meaning and communicative fluency. Overall, a theme-based approach was adopted with an
emphasis on process over product. Significant changes proposed include: the incorporation
of principles of learner-centredness, integration of content and skills, process orientation,
contextualization, interaction, literature and culture. Cheah (2004), however, critiques the
syllabus for its neglect of the basic literacy skills of reading and writing, as well as culture.
The most dramatic change in the 1991 syllabus was the role accorded to English as
the first language in the national school curriculum under Singapore’s unique ‘bilingual
education policy’, which replaced vernacular-medium schools and designated the official
‘mother tongues’ a second language status. However, Cheah contends that while the 1991
syllabus introduced an ambitious plan to teach English at a first language level, was non-
prescriptive, and provided more opportunities for teacher selection and choice, classroom
practice did not always match the planned curriculum. Although the syllabus was meant to be
eclectic, offering teachers greater freedom of choice in the selection of skills, functions, tasks
and activities as well as textbooks, this well-intentioned move turned out to be misguided. With
grammar no longer presented as a prescribed list of items to be taught, most teachers were
unprepared and directionless and their classroom practices, driven by an examination-type
literacy (Cheah 2004: 360–362). As a result, often what was intended as a feature of ‘choice
and variety became a burden rather than a gateway to teacher autonomy and freedom’
(S. C. Lim 2004: 385).
Two other studies that critically review Singapore’s experience with communicative
language teaching (CLT) are Chew (2005, 2006) and L. J. Zhang (2006). L. J. Zhang’s (2006:
15) paper points to mismatches between syllabus goals and their enactment by classroom
teachers, due mainly to the inadequate skills and abilities that local practitioners brought to
the language classroom, not to speak of their misconceptions or ‘simplified and incomplete
understanding’ of CLT principles. Teachers’ inability to handle the kind of flexibility inherent
in a processes-based syllabus often led to skewed practice. L. J. Zhang stresses the importance
of a contextually and culturally appropriate CLT which is based on ecological principles
and strengthened by adequate teacher preparation and institutional support for successful
curriculum implementation.
Based on an ethnographic study of teachers’ attitudes towards CLT, Chew (2006) assesses
the effectiveness of a communicative syllabus against the backdrop of Asian realities and
identifies three major reasons behind the ‘rise’ and ‘fall’ of CLT in Singapore: (i) the
downplaying of explicit grammar teaching, (ii) an examination-driven literacy deriving from
Singapore’s culture of meritocracy, and (iii) the importation of Western methodology which
stressed student initiative at the expense of teacher authority and control. Chew concludes
that a communicative methodology may not be suitable at all times and in all situations. In
addition, she suggests that the frequency with which changes to the curriculum are carried
out may be perceived as unhelpful and ineffective. In her view, real change may be hindered
when it is too swift, too top–down and too short-lived.
The 2001 English language syllabus has retained most features and principles of its 1991
precursor, such as learner-centredness, process and integration and contextualization, and
added some new ones like National Education, Thinking Skills and IT, with the primary
aim of nurturing ‘independent lifelong learners, creative thinkers and problem solvers who
can communicate effectively in English’ (Ministry of Education 2001: 2). S. C. Lim (2000)
maintains, therefore, that despite representing a decade of tremendous educational change,
the 2001 syllabus’ continuity with previous philosophies and practices in ELT makes it an
‘evolutionary’ rather than a ‘revolutionary’syllabus.
The rationale, aims and principles of the 2001 syllabus are, to a large extent, informed
by Halliday’s (1994) functional view of language as discourse and reflect a genre-based
approach to curriculum implementation. One of its distinctive characteristics is the use of
TEXT TYPES in contextualizing the teaching of grammar. The 2001 syllabus also introduces
for the first time a focus on literacy development as a life skill and a powerful determinant
of pupils’ academic progress, not just linguistic proficiency, with the aim of enabling them
to ‘make structural and linguistic choices to suit purpose, audience, context and culture’
(Ministry of Education 2001: 3). As such, the curriculum, along with the kind of pedagogy
the syllabus endorses, appears far better than its predecessors in dealing with the literacy
demands of young Singaporeans even beyond school, one which, Kramer-Dahl suggests,
might even be considered far more forward-looking than those of many ‘core’ Anglophone
countries, aware as they are of the communicational demands for participation in an ‘ever
more globalizing world’ (Kramer-Dahl 2007).
However, both S. C. Lim (2000, 2004) and Cheah (2004) note how the elevation of text
types as the key controlling principle of lesson units has created a host of new difficulties
for teachers. It required teachers to have a firm grounding in linguistic and socio-cognitive
theories about language and literacy development, familiarity with the specific linguistic
properties of relevant texts and genres, and the ability to set up, ‘in increasing levels of difficulty
and sophistication’ (Ministry of Education 2001: 4), contexts for students to enhance the
learning of socially valued forms of texts and discourse. In the absence of sufficient support
by way of professional development, the only required support course being a 60-hour
grammar course by the Ministry of Education, most school teachers did not see themselves
positioned as agents in this process of syllabus change. Most importantly, as Lin (2003) notes,
the retention of traditional metalinguistic terminology, associated with a more prescriptivist,
rule-driven paradigm, led to prescriptive rigidity at the text level as well (Lin 2003: 241). He
contends that this approach, reinforced by the backwash effect of examinations, which in
his view is a major flaw of the 2001 English syllabus because few changes were made to the
testing format, remains a strong inhibiting factor in promoting real change.
A more recent study of the implementation of the 2001 syllabus is C. C. M. Goh et al.’s
(2005) investigation of teachers’ knowledge, beliefs and reported practice on aspects relating to
the syllabus, based on an extensive questionnaire survey conducted with 2,752 teachers from
150 schools and selective semi-structured interviews. The results suggest that the new syllabus
presented a challenge for many teachers, not least because of a narrow interpretation of the syl-
labus goals, which tended to prioritize the teaching of text types and grammar, while privileg-
ing written over spoken discourse, and exacerbated by the uneven pedagogical content knowl-
edge of some teachers. They also indicate that teachers’ priorities and practices were heavily
influenced by examinations. As a result, teachers did not substantially modify their teaching
styles and approaches, focusing instead on changes in content only, thus clearly showing that
accompanying changes to the examination system are crucial for any successful reform.
Worth mentioning also are country reports (W. K. Ho & Pakir 2000), documenting the
vast diversity and changing directions of ELT policies and practices across several East Asian
societies (see W. K. Ho & R. Y. L. Wong 2004a, b). The context is further extended to include
China and Japan (Silver 2001; Silver, Hu & Iino 2002) in accounting for the variability of
educational practices that accord with the local cultural norms and ideological expectations
of those landscapes. These studies show how, operating under the pressures of globalization
and modernization, ELT curricula in these societies are constantly impacted by tensions
between new knowledge and the traditional, the global and the local, and between voices
from the INSIDE and those from the OUTSIDE.
The English language syllabus continues to receive tremendous attention from local
politicians, the media and scholars alike, motivated typically by a normativity-driven agenda.
Most studies limit themselves to descriptions of the implementation of the aims and goals
of the proposed reform, identifying the challenges and constraints faced by teachers and
students in adopting a particular innovation. Few, however, question the assumptions, beliefs
and ideological rationalizations that motivate these reforms, tending largely to dwell on the
means adopted rather than articulating a critique of the goals themselves. Similarly, few of
these studies consider language-in-education policy and practice from the bottom up, from
the perspective of classroom teachers as central agents of implementation, or attempt to
investigate empirically how classroom practitioners cope with and negotiate innovation that
is initiated from the top, as is inevitably the case in Singapore.
4. Reading and writing instruction and research
There are a few broad points to note in this section on reading and writing. First, the separate
treatment of the two topics in this review is indicative of the somewhat similar tendency in
the research literature to approach them separately. Despite the almost given assumption
that reading and writing are intricately connected, work in this area largely ignores this
connection. Second, the local literature on literacy skills development in the classroom in
general is heavily biased towards writing, with much less emphasis given to reading. The third
and last point to note in this section is the clearly local perspective of research on reading
and writing. Like the rest of local research, it responds clearly to the changing political
and ideological climate of Singapore, especially to recent state initiatives to promote critical
thinking skills. There is less concern with theory building than with practical concerns in
Singaporean classrooms. Though not always explicit, the discourse is on how best to realize
the state’s goal of incorporating critical and autonomous learning skills into the curriculum
in order to promote learning as a continuous process. For example, Varaprasad’s (2002) work
on the teaching of reading through text organization and other related concepts takes on a
similar discourse: ‘If we want students to become lifelong learners, then it becomes imperative
that they are trained to use a general set of reading strategies’ (164). The same line cuts across
the study of Wong & Saddah (2002) on types of questions in the primary classroom during
reading exercises: they argue for open and frank classroom environments in ‘meeting the
national agenda of “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation”’ (189).
4.1 Reading
There are two main strands in the work on reading and reading instruction. The first strand
comprises a largely empirical descriptive group of classroom-based research articles which
attempt to address problems that surround the teaching of reading in the classroom. The
second strand is concerned with the problematic understanding of the nature of reading itself
and provides alternative ways of looking at it in order to make the reading experience of
Singaporean students more critically-oriented and culturally appropriate.
Based on an empirical study of the realities encountered in reading lessons at the Primary
3 level in Singapore’s neighbourhood (government) schools, R. Y. L. Wong (2005) reports
on a major research project involving audio- and video-recorded data of classroom lessons
and teacher and student interviews. It was found that the bulk of the time was spent reading
aloud in class, that teachers pitched their instruction predominantly around decoding and
comprehension skills, and concentrated on literal questions. Given an examination-driven
syllabus, large classes, and the range of reading ability among students, instruction tended to
be heavily textbook-dependent, content-based and product-oriented.
In another empirical study, C. L. Lim & Cheah (2005) report on a school which decided
to innovate the way English was being taught in Primary 1 by revamping the beginning
reading programme, REEL (Reading Effectively Enhances Learning), in order to ensure a
strong foundation to literacy development and prevent problems of weak reading. This was
done by combining phonics with extensive reading of texts and replacing the difficulty-posing
prescribed textbook with a series of graded readers that allowed the integration of language
work with the use of the theme in each of the readers. The change in scheme of work
was accompanied by a change of assessment practices (e.g. requiring students to learn the
spellings of common high-frequency words, especially words needed for writing, instead of
struggling with the spelling of words they do not need). Students read a total of 50 books
in the first year. It was found that the failure rates were considerably reduced and both the
quality and quantity of passes increased by more than 50%. Most importantly, there was
qualitative evidence of improvement in children’s interest and skill in reading, while active
involvement on the part of teachers in the preparation of resources in integrating the readers
with classroom teaching enhanced their sense of ownership and gave them a sense of pride
and achievement. C. L. Lim & Cheah (2005) stress the importance of continual reflection and
review and a willingness to embrace an element of risk-taking in encouraging innovation and
growth.
Farrell (2005) discusses the implementation of reading strategy instruction as ideally
advocated by researchers and how one teacher attempted to incorporate strategy training
in his secondary school English reading class in a case study that uncovers the difficulty
of achieving this in reality. On the basis of an interview to elicit the teacher’s beliefs about
teaching reading before he began implementing strategy instruction and then various episodes
of what actually happened in his classes and classroom observation data, Farrell describes how
the teacher’s well-meaning attempt turned out to be much more difficult than anticipated:
he met with some successes and a lot of resistance. Farrell suggests that there may be a need
to rethink how best to implement strategy training in order for it to be effective to particular
students and offers some concrete suggestions for adjusting and adapting strategy training not
only to meet students’ particular needs but teachers’ own teaching styles and personalities.
Regarding the second, more critical strand, Saravanan & Sripathy (2002) is a good case in
point. The authors focus broadly on investigating literacy practices in the home with the aim
of generating a far wider range of practices as helpful resources for both language teachers
and parents. The authors note how teachers and parents alike limit learners’ range of options
for learning by focusing almost solely on textbook-bound literacy practices ‘driven by current
and prevailing theories of reading and of reading skills and strategies in English that have
been imported from the dominant training centres of America, Australia and New Zealand’
(p. 145). These mainstream practices, according to the authors, assume that communities
are homogeneous and monolingual when in fact, for Singapore at least, much language
learning takes place in highly multi-cultural contexts. Saravanan & Sripathy advocate a more
informed understanding of Singaporean language learners’ home literacy practices in order
not to marginalize what otherwise could be powerful and useful local practices of reading
and writing.
Rahmat (2002) takes on a very similar stance towards literacy awareness and development,
but this time the focus is on reading practices in Malay society. The paper is built on the
assumption that different cultural groups have different configurations of literacy use, and that
an explicit understanding of these configurations would help address education problems,
such as underachievement among Malay students in Singapore. According to Rahmat,
reading in Malay society is closely connected with the search for religious knowledge, with
the reading of Quran as an essential part of every Muslim’s life. Another crucial dimension to
understanding Malays’ reading practices is the fact that technological advancement came into
Malay society later than most societies, thus there seemed to have been a fast transformation
of reading practices from oracy to manuscript literacy, and then to oral literacy (p. 142) which
proved to be very challenging to many Malays. With the use of information technology in
the classroom accelerating for the past many years, Rahmat thus asks, ‘Are the Malays really
ready and are they able to face this new literacy world?’ (p. 143).
Ng (2002) also explores the highly complicated nature of reading in the new millennium
and ventures into its implications for teaching and learning. More specifically, the paper deals
with the role of information technology in language teaching, summarizing key research
results to do with the effect of computer-assisted instruction on writing and reading. Ng
argues that while IT in general impacts the educational landscape in very significant ways,
results are at best mixed concerning its positive impact on reading and writing. In fact, a
growing consensus seems to be that while computer skills and other related skills will help
students cope with the demands of learning today, students would still need basic reading
skills to evaluate what they read on the Internet, identify important issues of the day, and
synthesize all available relevant information (p. 119).
4.2 Writing
The amount of attention that writing instruction and writing research have begun to receive
in Singapore mirrors the recent shift in focus onto the development of ‘literacy skills to equip
students for effective communication in English for lifelong learning’ (Ministry of Education
2001), combined with the elevation of text types as the basic unit of classroom organization
in the 2001 English language syllabus. As noted earlier, ESL writing instruction in Singapore
is heavily influenced by the Australian model of genre theory which draws on Systemic
Functional (SF) linguistic theory, especially as developed by Halliday (1994) and his fellow
scholars. Other studies are underpinned by the equally influential model of genre theory
developed by Swales (1990). Many of the papers reviewed in this section therefore tend to be
reflective of one or the other of these orientations, whether in focusing on aspects of classroom
practice or reporting research based on such practice.
Chandrasegaran (2002) cites the ineffectiveness of grammar correction on the quality of
writing as a basis for questioning just such a prioritization of grammar remediation by local
teachers. She stresses the need to re-focus grammar teaching on discourse function rather
than on form, together with rhetorical moves in developing students’ rhetorical competence.
Lopez-Nerney & Binder (2004) assess the effectiveness of incorporating the use of portfolios
and small-group learning in their 48-hour English for Academic Purposes writing class which
aimed to make learning to write a more positive experience for Engineering students from
ASEAN countries with low motivation and self-confidence. While small-group learning
activities provided students with much needed support in the writing of paragraphs and
long texts through a process-based approach, the use of student portfolios was found to be
effective in changing their attitudes towards writing, making them feel more responsible for
their learning and instilling pride in their work.
In a study describing an English for Academic Purposes course for undergraduate students
from South Asia majoring in computing subjects in a Singapore university, Deng (2005)
proposes a synthetic approach to the teaching of writing, which has its basis in process-
based writing but is imbued with product and genre-based features and activities, as an
alternative to the exclusive use of either one of these approaches. He illustrates how the use of
portfolio pedagogy combined with reflection within the framework of this eclectic approach
contributed to raising student motivation as well as to changing their conceptualization of
how to write in positive and productive ways. Students became more confident writers, being
sensitized to the writing process and the strategies they could employ in resolving their writing
problems.
Tupas (2006) uses an exploratory study motivated by a simple practical question,
namely, ‘Why do my students write the way they write?’, as a basis for raising some
interesting theoretical and pedagogical questions about the teaching of professional business
communication. Taking as his data 41 letters of refusal written by students in a Business
Communication module, he carried out a rhetorical analysis of the ‘moves’ in them by
comparing them with the rhetorical structure drawn from currently available theoretical
frameworks of writing in the pedagogical and research literature. His findings revealed
that not only did the students demonstrate a larger range and number of rhetorical moves
than expected, but that buffers appeared almost everywhere in the letters and not just
in the initial moves, at times preempting even closing moves, and that the letters were
generally peppered with appeals for understanding, apologies, and/or emotional appeals for
reconsideration not generally encouraged in such letters. He argues for a ‘multiplicity of
rhetoric’ approach (Kubota 1997), which acknowledges the different rhetorical socializing
experiences of students, the dynamic, hybrid or diasporic nature of rhetoric and writing, and
the role of face and politeness in writing cultures as a means of overcoming the ethnocentric
limitations of a cultural approach to understanding professional communication.
The operation of the rather nebulous notion of value in a text is not always obvious and
probably even more opaque in student-written texts where the awareness of the need for
evaluative comments is not as keen as in professionally written texts. Wu’s (2003) paper seeks
to explain the qualitative difference between two reports written by first-year undergraduate
students in terms of the evaluative language used by them to express opinion. She found
that differences existed not only in the variety of statement types and the frequency of the
modifying elements but also in the way the evaluative devices were used in the organization
of the texts by the two writers. The results highlight the need to raise students’ awareness of
how opinions can be expressed in reports. In another study, Wu (2006) further explores the
expression of value, defined as involving qualitative judgments along the good–bad cline, in
identifying categories of value in argumentative essays written by first year undergraduates.
The effectiveness of these categories of value in the construction of arguments is discussed
with reference to comments provided by a content expert to gain a better understanding of
their significance in the given written task. She suggests that an understanding of how value
operates in essays on the part of both teachers and learners of writing may facilitate the
negotiation between what academic readers expect and how students perceive and present
this element of the writer’s opinion.
The growing interest in the interpersonal dimensions of student writing, in particular how
writers construct a personal voice for themselves, has also received some attention. Based
on questionnaire data and an analysis of 35 General Paper2 examination essays of students
from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) studying in a Junior College in Singapore, De
Costa (2007) investigates students’ perceptions of voice by having them identify elements that
constitute writer voice and then determining how voice is established through linguistic
features in their own argumentative writing. His findings (using overlapping categories)
indicate that a collective voice (88.65%) is the most common, followed by detached voice
(77.1%) and tentative voice (5.7%). He surmises that the overall strength of these PRC
students’ personal voice is eclipsed by the need to adopt a collective and conformist position
in their writing, strongly influenced by a Confucian value system. He ascribes the struggle
for personal voice to the quest for personal identity, which becomes a source of conflict
for aspiring L2 Chinese writers straddling two different writing cultures. The pedagogical
suggestions he offers for developing student voice include making the teaching of voice explicit
and developing critical awareness among students through dialogue.
5. Mother tongue teaching and learning
In the teaching and learning of mother tongues, three research reports stand out: the separate
language curriculum and pedagogy review committee reports on the teaching of Chinese
(Ministry of Education 2004), Malay (Ministry of Education 2005d) and Tamil (Ministry
of Education 2005e). Committee members who prepared the reports come from tertiary
institutions, the media, schools, the Singapore Assessment and Examination Board, and
the Curriculum Planning and Development Board. These reports, in turn, are based on
2 The General Paper is a compulsory course of study, comprising a reading comprehension and an essay component, which
forms part of the GCE Advanced (A) level examination administered by the University of Cambridge Local Examinations
Syndicate at pre-university (Junior College) level.
consultations with various sectors in society, including grassroots communities, parents and
students, principals and academic scholars.
The three reports are pivotal research documents not simply because of their influence
on curriculum development and implementation (this is expected), but especially because
of the way they have been written in the first place. First, the reports each present
pedagogical issues without recourse to discussion on how the teaching of the mother
tongues generates overlapping concerns such as codeswitching in the classroom. Second,
the reports articulate the same official state discourse on bilingualism in Singapore: for
example, that bilingualism is ‘an imperative’ (Ministry of Education 2004: 1) and the
‘cornerstone’ of the country’s bilingual education policy (Ministry of Education 2005e: 1).
Consequently, mother tongue teaching is essentially synonymous with the transmission of
traditional culture and values. And third, the separately derived recommendations (because
the consulted stakeholders come from different ethnic groups) translate into similar proposals:
greater customization at the primary level and greater emphasis on oral communication and
reading.
These reports are complemented by two other key types of research on mother tongue
teaching and learning in the period under review. The first is policy-related while the second
is practice-oriented. Policy-related papers situate mother tongue initiatives within the broad
educational reform context of Singapore (Y. S. Goh 2000; Saravanan 2001; Gopinathan,
W. K. Ho & Saravanan 2004), usually referring back to the All-Party Committee on Chinese
Education (1956), which is credited with endorsing parity among the mother tongues as
languages of education and thus paving the way for the present-day bilingual education
policy.
Some of these papers are generally concerned with Singapore’s bilingual education but
inevitably discuss mother tongue issues within such broad concerns (Gopinathan 2001; Silver
et al. 2002; W. K. Ho 2006). These papers, in general, recognize the successes of Singapore’s
bilingual education policy and affirm the wisdom of a policy where English is the pragmatic
language and the mother tongues are the languages of cultural transmission.
However, Gopinathan et al. (2004) go beyond acknowledging the immense success of
bilingual education in Singapore. Their paper is also unique because it is rare in the local
literature to locate any discussion of Singaporean bilingualism within both the sociocultural
context of the country and the international literature on multilingualism and multilingual
societies. It questions the conceptual and pedagogical assumptions of the country’s
bilingual education policy and proposes a modified model of education for Singapore
schools.
The problem with the current policy is said to lie primarily with the state’s simplified
ethnic categorization of Singapore, where language use and ethnicity in education and
society are pre-given (e.g. the ethnic Chinese speak Mandarin, the ethnic Malay speak Malay,
the ethnic Indian speak Tamil). The categorization is both ‘reductionist’, because it does
not capture the complexity of the country’s multilingual realities, and ‘restrictive’, because
ethnicity is bound to one mother tongue only (Gopinathan et al. 2004: 234). The authors’
modified model highlights the need for cross-cultural border crossings in education where
both the teaching and learning of English and the mother tongues are not fixated merely
on language skills but, more importantly, oriented towards meaningful cultural exchanges.
The authors contend it is doubtful that English has accomplished its proposed mission to
serve as a bridge between the ethnic groups because of the focus on mastery of skills; it is
also doubtful that mother tongue teaching would be able to promote cultural transmission
through the pedagogy of skills which underlies it. In the modified model, the educational
system is deemed to produce ‘speakers with inter-cultural competence and multilingual
ability who are able to utilize a number of languages according to purpose, need and context’
(ibid: 244).
Practice-oriented papers, on the other hand, help bridge the gap between official policy
and pedagogical implications. More importantly, papers in this category generally echo the
official policy line by endeavoring to find out how best to implement government initiatives
in the classroom through teaching approaches, classroom strategies and teacher development
(e.g. Y. S. Goh 2001; K. Lee 2003; Shegar 2005). Thus, Kalaimani & Kahamoorty’s (2007)
paper on the use of IT to improve Tamil language learning skills among pupils falls strictly
in line with the most recent state discourse on education:
Considering the fact that English is becoming the dominant home language, there is a need to review
how we teach Tamil, especially at the primary level, so that students do not lose interest in the language.
In particular, teachers need to focus on teaching oral communication skills to the younger generation so
that they can communicate in the language more effectively and are motivated to use the language in a
variety of domains. (ibid: 33–34)
The 51 research studies on the teaching and learning of Tamil in Singapore, published
in four volumes (Ramiah 2000; written in Tamil but all abstracts are in English), were
conducted by teachers undergoing advanced teacher training for the teaching of Tamil.
Similarly, Ahmad’s (2000) study on the use of text types in the teaching of Malay is in
response to state concerns about the deteriorating standards of Malay language teaching
in Singapore. Hsu, C. H. Tan & Chan (2000) explore the possibility of integrating creative
thinking through cooperative learning in Chinese composition, while Seet (2006) and Chai
& C. L. Tan (2002) recommend promoting the use of Chinese as a pedagogical tool to foster
critical thinking and creativity among students without losing sight of the need to promote
cultural pride through the learning of the language.
Teachers and scholars also affirm the need to reinvigorate mother tongue teaching and
learning through classroom strategies and approaches which best address the concerns
articulated in the reports (Ministry of Education 2005a, b, c; Singapore Teachers’ Union
2006). For example, Y. S. Goh (2003, 2006) advocates a bilingual approach to the teaching
of Chinese in the schools by drawing on the English language competence of the students.
This is ‘unprecedented in the teaching and learning of Chinese in the Singapore context’
(ibid: 37), especially because of the growing number of Chinese students who speak English
as their first language. In the case of Tamil teaching, on the other hand, Lakshmi (2005) also
argues for an approach to focus on spoken, rather than written, Tamil to encourage students
to learn the language with more enthusiasm.
Overall, much of the local work on mother tongue instruction in Singapore schools either
elaborates on the government’s recent bilingual education initiatives or concretizes some of
their relevant components through classroom strategies and innovative approaches to mother
tongue teaching. Except for the critical study of Gopinathan et al. (2004), and perhaps a
few dispersed voices from practitioners who believe that mother tongue instruction must
incorporate the teaching of thinking and creative skills (other than simply act as a conduit
for cultural transmission; Hsu et al. 2000; Chai & C. L. Tan 2002; Seet 2006), the remaining
work mainly focuses on how best to understand and implement recent state initiatives in
bilingual education rather than question some of its basic assumptions.
6. The teaching of English to international students
One of the emerging research areas is the teaching of English to international students in
Singapore, motivated perhaps by official policies which encourage talented foreigners to live
and study in the country. The number of international students attending local universities
in Singapore has risen dramatically in recent years and is expected to remain high in the
coming years (J. Tan 2006).
At present, much research concerns students from the PRC because they constitute
the largest group of international students. For example, the journal Reflections on English
Language Teaching devoted a special issue in 2001 to research on Chinese students learning
English in Singapore in conjunction with the Promotion of Standard English (PROSE) of the
National University of Singapore (NUS), a pivotal programme of the Singapore government.
Nevertheless, even with this attention accorded to the PRC group, research on the students’
English language learning experience in Singapore since 1990 ‘is still scarce’ (K. C. Lee &
Chan 2003: 115), although greater interest in the topic is clearly emerging.
Research in the area generally focuses on a few essential assumptions that dichotomize ELT
practices in China and Singapore. First, China is an EFL context, while Singapore is ESL.
Second, China is ‘English input-poor’ (D. Zhang 2005: 83) while Singapore is ‘English input-
rich’ (ibid: 84). Third, China is non-English-speaking while Singapore is English-speaking.
Consequently, students come to Singapore with very little experience of real-life use of English
and are very much dependent on textbooks and teachers (e.g. H. Goh & K. L. Tan 2001;
C. L. Tan 2001). This explains why much research focuses on addressing the communicative
weaknesses of these students and on finding ways to make them autonomous learners.
For example, the Communication Skills programme for PRC scholars at the National
Institute of Education (NIE) is explicitly framed within ‘a number of key principles in line
with the communicative approach to language learning’ (Kwah 2005: 31). On the other
hand, pedagogical practice in similar programmes at the NIE as well as at the Centre for
English Language Communication at the NUS is heavily oriented towards making students
independent or autonomous learners of English (G. L. Lee et al. 2003; Kwah & Vallance
2005). In fact, whatever the focus of research may be, much work is geared towards finding
out how students can become independent learners (S. Tan 2001; Young & Fong 2001; Liu
2005; D. Zhang 2005; L. J. Zhang 2005).
Several learner characteristics and problems specific to the PRC Chinese learner are
raised in the literature. For example, team or collaborative work is a foreign concept among
Chinese learners. They are also purportedly examination-oriented, very passive, and heavily
influenced by the culture of rote-learning, memorization and grammar teaching (L. Ho 2003:
128).
What emerges from the characterization and problematization of PRC students of English
is a picture of young adult learners of English in Singapore who are deficient in their
knowledge and use of English, and who were taught by equally deficient English teachers in
China. In other words, local research starts with the main assumption that the PRC English
language learner in Singapore is a problem that must be solved. The issue is not so much
whether the valuations of Chinese learners above are true or not; rather, the issue is that
they are presented as a purely PRC learner problem, even if other groups in Singapore
(and elsewhere) are described in local research as having similar problems, such as being
examination-oriented and teacher-dependent (Lopez-Nerney & Toh 2000).
Thus, while Chinese students ‘had to be ‘weaned’ from a teacher-centred approach to
learning independently’ (K. C. Lee & Chan 2003: 130), the new context within which they
are supposed to learn independently is one where examinations, according to a university
handbook for teachers, are ‘the single most important motivational force’ (Pan 2008: 9). These
students are thus characterized as being unwilling ‘to take risks and engage in discovery and
independent learning’ and having ‘narrow perspectives, with interests largely limited to what
is within the syllabus and examinable’ (ibid).
Nevertheless, against the backdrop of the stereotypical characterization of PRC students
in some research, some scholars have attempted to provide fairly nuanced analyses of the
students’ English language learning practices and beliefs in Singapore. For example, Fong’s
(2006) empirically determined profile of 151 PRC senior-middle school students enrolled
in a pre-matriculation intensive English course in the NUS reveals a ‘puzzling’ finding
(p. 15), which shows that the students, on the one hand, feel they are not yet ready to set
their own objectives and select activities for their course while, on the other, also believe that
teachers should not direct students’ learning inside and outside the classroom. Fong provides
a number of possible reasons for this seemingly conflicting response, but notes that it may
indeed be possible that ‘the students had. . . become more independent in their learning’ and
had gradually moved away from ‘the Chinese culture of learning’ (e.g. Jin & Cortazzi 1998)
‘where the teacher is seen as one of the main sources of knowledge’ (Fong 2006: 15).
Similarly, Wachob (2004) argues that ‘western’ approaches to learning should not be viewed
as completely foreign to Chinese students in general, thus resulting in a rather superficial
dichotomization of learning styles between ‘western’ students and those from a ‘Confucian
Heritage Culture’. She writes along this line after being involved in the teaching of English
in Xi’an, China, for three years, noting that the students do have their own concepts of
group work which are akin to notions of cooperative groups in communicative language
teaching. Independent adult learning is also very much embedded in Confucianist thought,
thus ‘western’ models of independent learning are not necessarily unfamiliar to the students.
Meyer (2003) seems to support this more nuanced view of Chinese learners. The two groups
of PRC students in her study, who have a favourable view of group work in language classes,
believe that open confrontation is acceptable behaviour in group work and are generally
candid in their opinions, even if these contradict others in the group (ibid: 79). Meyer
concludes that ‘we cannot necessarily base our expectations of PRC students’ behaviour on
the stereotypical Asian behaviours of prioritizing group harmony and acting to save face’, or it
‘may also be that the traditional stereotype of Chinese behaviour is too crude to provide good
predictions of how Chinese students will behave in all specific contexts’ (ibid: 87). In Jaidev’s
(2003) study of Singaporean and international first-year Engineering students in a critical

thinking and writing course, PRC students may not have been very familiar with group work,
but they recognize the importance of it in the workplace. They share with everyone in the
course the belief that group work is desirable and that dissensus is a natural part of it.
Feng (2000, 2001) and Hu (2005) do not discuss PRC students in Singapore per se, but
provide useful overviews of English language teaching and, more generally, the educational
system in China which can help teachers and researchers in Singapore understand and
contextualize their work with the students. The articles, in fact, are written with the intention
of providing a broader context for the understanding of English language learning practices
of PRC students in Singapore. Feng (2001) discusses ELT methodological history in China,
noting that the recent slogan Bo Cai Zhong Chang (‘assimilating merits of different teaching
approaches for our own use’) has sought to develop a methodological tradition that rightly
suits the specific sociopolitical realities of the country. Feng contends that despite the influx
of communicative practices into China, the fact remains that the ‘intensive reading model’
continues to dominate ELT practice in the country. This model is usually referred to as the
Chinese version of the grammar-translation method because of its emphasis on vocabulary
and grammar learning through teacher exposition.
It is therefore easy for many to pick out weaknesses in Chinese language learning practices
through this approach (e.g. PRC students are passive, silent, grammar-oriented, uncritical),
but Feng (2000) contends that there are deep cultural values that underlie these practices,
such as empirically identified expectations of good teaching as ability to impart knowledge
and good learning as attentiveness to the teacher. These are embodied in what is referred to
as a theory of Chinese characteristics which Deng Xiaoping initially articulated in the 1980s
as part of a political consolidation of state energies and resources to build China out of proven
local practices and knowledges. In the context of ELT, this would mean the incorporation of
so-called Chinese values into the crafting of curricula and syllabuses (ibid: 45).
Hu’s (2005) overview, on the other hand, focuses on Basic English language education in
China, which produces a wide range of proficiencies among students. The more proficient
ones usually come from more developed urban and coastal regions, while the less proficient
ones learn English in less developed inland and rural areas. Similarly, varying degrees of
proficiency seem to correlate with types of secondary schools, with the most proficient
usually coming from general senior schools. Hu also discusses several recent changes in the
curriculum, syllabuses, learning materials, and instructional practices in English language
education, including the introduction of content-based English instruction, the shift from an
ideological to a pragmatic view of English, and an increasing openness to foreign language
teaching methodologies, especially the Communicative Approach, thus explaining the closer
alignment of textbooks along international trends. Hu argues that the impact of these changes
has been uneven across socioeconomically different regions; thus, it is imperative that Chinese
students of English be treated as ‘individual beings’ who have ‘differing needs, backgrounds,
beliefs, attitudes, objectives, strategies, and expectations’ (ibid: 22).
Nevertheless, while Feng and Hu call for a deeper understanding of PRC students of
English in Singapore through a more penetrating awareness of their educational, social and
regional backgrounds, the rest of available research mostly has not taken up the call. As
discussed above, dichotomous views of ELT in China and Singapore as well as stereotypical
assumptions of Chinese learners underlie such research, even if it is admittedly honest in its
desire to help PRC students achieve a level of English language competence that will help
them succeed in their academic and professional endeavors in Singapore.
7. Conclusion
As was mentioned at the beginning of this review, research in applied linguistics and language
teaching and learning in Singapore can best be appreciated if located within the unique
political landscape of the country. It responds to local problems and needs, while theoretical
issues are relegated to secondary importance. The omnipresent hand of the state in matters
concerning the educational system in general is reflected in the literature’s preoccupation
with practical classroom issues, especially with matters on how best to appropriate national
programmes and syllabuses in specific classroom situations. Scholars and teachers in general
are less interested in questioning the very assumptions of the nature of the bilingual education
system within which they operate.
It is worth noting, however, that the critical dimensions of the research literature are
largely articulated within the local context of criticality as well. That is, the critical literature
– for example the view of bilingual education as reductionist, of mainstream literacies as
limited and inappropriate, and of national syllabuses as both enlightened and constraining –
emerges from local notions of what it means to be critical. Real and lived limitations of state-
led initiatives and programmes are thoughtfully examined by researchers and practitioners,
which leads to a critical valuation of deep-rooted assumptions of some key features of bilingual
education in the country.
There is clearly an emerging trend in the opening up of spaces of criticality in applied
linguistics research in Singapore, with the collective work of the Centre for Research in
Pedagogy and Practice (CRPP) and the Learning Sciences Laboratory at the National
Institute of Education leading the way. Established in 2002, and charged with spearheading
new areas of study through a rigorous research programme aimed at enhancing classroom
practice in Singapore schools in the areas of language and literacy, mathematics and science,
and information and communication technologies, the CRPP has embarked on over 100
ongoing research projects, some of which have been reviewed in the earlier sections of the
paper. Its Core Research Program, comprising a multi-level analysis of Singaporean schooling,
and premised on the belief that a systematic study of teachers’ and students’ work in everyday
classroom contexts is the necessary starting point for pedagogical change, is intended to
provide a rich multi-disciplinary evidence base for educational policy (Luke et al. 2005).
Similarly, in the next few years work on the use of technology in the classroom may
become a broad platform for the formation of critical voices against the normally celebratory
articulation of the transformative powers of information technology today. Currently almost
single-handedly generated by the informed skepticism but balanced stance of Towndrow
(2001) and Towndrow & Vallance (2004), it is hoped that such work paves the way for the cre-
ation of critical spaces in technological development practices in education in the near future.
It remains to be seen how criticality will be shaped in the context of Singapore. It is
even more doubtful if a local character of critical work will generate mainstream ideas in
the field of applied linguistics and language teaching and learning in Singapore. But what
may be observed at this point is that local scholars and teachers struggle with formidable
constraints in their desire to improve their own pedagogies, perhaps the same struggle the
rest of Singapore faces amidst the power of the state to control their lives and its desire to
transform able bodies of today into creative and critical minds of the future.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the four anonymous Language Teaching reviewers and Dr Graeme Porte
for their helpful comments on the pre-final version of the review.
References
Ahmad, S. (2000). Use of text types in the teaching of Malay language (a course project). Singapore: SEAMEO
Regional Language Centre.
All-Party Committee on Chinese Education (1956). Report of the All-Party Committee of the Singapore
Legislative Assembly on Chinese Education. Singapore: Govt. Printer.
Alsagoff, L. (2001). Tense and aspect in Singapore English. In Ooi (ed.), 79–88.
Alsagoff, L. & J. E. James (2007). From grammar to text: A grammarian’s approach to text types. In
Tupas et al. (eds.), 29–44.
Ang, M. Y. (2000). Developments in the English language curriculum in Singapore. Teaching of English
Language and Literature 16.2, 3–8.
Bao, Z. (2001). Two issues in the study of Singapore English phonology. In Ooi (ed.), 69–78.
Brown, A. (2003). English language myths. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Brown, A., D. Deterding & E. L. Low (eds.) (2000). The English language in Singapore: Research on pronunciation.
Singapore: Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics.
Chai, B. Y. & C. L. Tan (2002). Thinking and creativity in the teaching and learning of the Chinese
language. In A. Chang & Y. M. Cheah (eds.), Teachers’ handbook on teaching generic thinking skills.
Singapore: Pearson Education.
Chandrasegaran, A. (2002). Maintaining standards through students’ writing: A discourse-based
approach. In Low & Teng (eds.), 3–13.
Cheah, Y. M. (2002). English language teaching in Singapore. Asia-Pacific Journal of Education 22.2,
65–80.
Cheah, Y. M. (2004). English language teaching in Singapore today. In Ho & Wong (eds.),
353–374.
Chew, P. G. L. (2005). Change and continuity: English language teaching in Singapore. Asian EFL
Journal: On-line TEFL Journal 7.1, 1–12.
Chew, P. G. L. (2006). Asian realities in language learning: The case of Singapore. CELEA Journal 29.1,
3–11.
De Costa, P. (2007). Exploring ‘voice’ in students’ writing: The case of Chinese ESL students. In P.
Teo & C. Ho (eds.), Discourse in the modern world. Singapore: McGraw Hill, 6–27.
Deng, X. (2005). Portfolio, student reflections, and the teaching of ESL/EFL writing. In
Poedjosoedarmo (ed.), 111–126.
Department of Statistics (2008). Yearbook of statistics Singapore. Singapore: Author.
Deterding, D., A. Brown & E. L. Low (eds.) (2005). English in Singapore: Phonetic research on a corpus.
Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Deterding, D., E. L. Low & A. Brown (eds.) (2003). English in Singapore: Research on grammar. Singapore:
McGraw Hill.
Deterding, D. & G. Poedjosoedarmo (2000). To what extent can the ethnic group of young Singaporeans
be identified from their speech? In Brown et al. (eds.), 1–9.
Deterding, D. & G. Poedjosoedarmo (2001). The grammar of English: Morphology and syntax for English
teachers in South Asia. Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Doyle, P. (2007). Teaching grammar with a learner corpus. In Tupas et al. (eds.), 77–86.
Farrell, T. (2005). Teaching reading strategies: ‘It really takes time!’ In Poedjosoedarmo (ed.), 71–81.
Feng, A. (2000). ‘Chinese characteristics’ in ELT–CE syllabus, teaching methodology and culture of
learning. STETS Language & Communication Review 2, 43–55.
Feng, A. (2001). ‘Bo Chai Zhong Chang’ – A slogan for effective ELT methodology for College English
education. Reflections on English Language Teaching 1, 1–22.
Fong, Y. S. (2006). Through a looking glass: A profile of PRC SM3 students enrolled in an intensive
English course. STETS Language & Communication Review 5.1, 11–20.
Goh, C. C. M., L. J. Zhang, C. H. Ng & G. H. Koh (2005). Knowledge, beliefs and syllabus implementation:
A study of English language teachers in Singapore. Singapore: National Institute of Education.
Goh, H. & K. L. Tan (2001). Reflections on ESL and EFL students through e-mail. Reflections on English
Language Teaching 1, 105–124.
Goh, Y. S. (2000). The rise of global Mandarin: Opportunities and challenges. In W. K. Ho & C. Ward
(eds.), Language in the global context: Implications for the language classroom (RELC Anthology Series 41).
Singapore: SEAMEO English Language Centre, 304–311.
Goh, Y. S. (2001). A sociolinguistic profile of Chinese language student teachers in Singapore. In Tan
et al. (eds.), 227–245.
Goh, Y. S. (2003). Bilingual approach to teaching Chinese: Linguistic and pedagogical perspectives (an academic
Adviser’s Report). Singapore: Planning Division and Curriculum Planning and Development Division,
Ministry of Education.
Goh, Y. S. (2006). English language use in teaching Chinese as a second language: Making the most of
the learner’s linguistic resources. In Singapore Teachers’ Union, 33–37.
Gopinathan, S. (2001). Globalisation, the state and education policy in Singapore. In Tan et al. (eds.),
3–17.
Gopinathan, S. (2007). Globalization, the Singapore developmental state and education policy: A thesis
revisited. Globalization, Societies and Education 5.1, 53–70.
Gopinathan, S., W. K. Ho & V. Saravanan (2004). Ethnicity management and language education
policy: Towards a modified model of language education in Singapore. In A. E. Lai (ed.), Beyond
rituals and riots – Ethnic pluralism and social cohesion in Singapore. Singapore, Eastern University Press,
228–257.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd edn.) London: Arnold.
Higgleton, E. & V. B. Y. Ooi (1997). Times Chambers essential English dictionary. Singapore: Federal
Publications.
Ho, C., P. Teo & M. Y. Tay (eds.) (2006). Teaching the General Paper – Strategies that work. Singapore: Pearson
Education South Asia.
Ho, C. L. (2001). The cultural grounding of Singapore English. In Ooi (ed.), 102–111.
Ho, L. (2003). Pronunciation problems of PRC students. In G. L. Lee et al. (eds.), 122–137.
Ho, W. K. (2006). Education in Singapore: Focusing on quality and choice in learning. A country report. Singapore:
Singapore Teachers’ Union.
Ho, W. K. & A. Pakir (eds.) (2000). Recent developments and issues in Applied Linguistics: A collection of SAAL
lectures. Singapore: Singapore National Printers.
Ho, W. K. & R. Y. L. Wong (eds.) (2004a). English language teaching in East Asia today: Changing policies and
practices. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
Ho, W. K. & R. Y. L. Wong (eds.) (2004b). Language policies and language education: The impact in East Asian
countries in the next decade (2nd edn.). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
Hsu, J-F. J., C. H. Tan & M. L. Chan (2000). Creative thinking through cooperative learning in Chinese
composition lessons. In S. G. Ho (ed.), Effective thinking and learning strategies in the 21st century. Singapore:
Singapore Chinese Teachers’ Union, 41–57.
Hu, G. (2005). Basic English language education in China: An overview. In Kwah & Vallance (eds.),
1–29.
Hung, T. N. (2007). Where the grammar syllabus ends and the teacher begins. In Tupas et al. (eds.),
7–19.
Jaidev, R. (2003). A case study of learner insights on the role of team input and interaction among
first-year engineering students in a team-writing project. Reflections on English Language Teaching 2,
73–91.
Jin, L. & M. Cortazzi (1998). The culture the learner brings: A bridge or a barrier? In M. Byram &
M. Fleming (eds.), Language learning in intercultural perspective: Approaches through drama and ethnography.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 98–118.
Kalaimani, R. & S. Kaliamoorty (2007). Using IT to improve the oral and aural performance of Tamil
language students by developing their metacognitive skills. In C. Shegar & R. B. A. Rahim (eds.),
Redesigning pedagogy: Voices of practitioners. Singapore: Pearson Longman, 33–42.
Kramer-Dahl, A. (2007). Teaching English language in Singapore after 2001: A case study of change
in progress. In V. Vaish S. Gopinathan & Y. Liu (eds.), Language, capital and education in Singapore –
Critical studies of language and education in Singapore. Rotterdam & Taipei: Sense Publishers, 47–71.
Kubota, R. (1997). A reevaluation of the uniqueness of Japanese written discourse: Implications for
contrastive rhetoric. Written Communication 14.4, 460–480.
Kwah, P. F. (2005). An overview of the Communication Skills Programme for PRC scholars. In Kwah
& Vallance (eds.), 30–36.
Kwah, P. F. & M. Vallance (eds.) (2005). Teaching English to Chinese ESL students: Classroom practices.
Singapore: Pearson.
Lakshmi, S. (2005). Discussion on mother tongue issues in Singapore: Tamil language varieties –
Standard Spoken Tamil (SST). SAAL Quarterly 27, 14–29.
Lee, G. L., L. Ho, J. E. L. Meyer, C. Varaprasad & C. Young (eds.) (2003). Teaching English to students
from China. Singapore: Singapore University Press.
Lee, K. (2003). Teaching of thinking in the languages. In P. Y. Lee, S. C. Tan, K. Tan, O-S. Tan &
A. Chang (eds.), Annotated bibliography of studies on thinking skills. Singapore: Graduate Programmes and
Research Office, National Institute of Education, 60–73.
Lee, K. C. & J. Chan (2003). PRC students’ language learning experiences. Reflections on English Language
Teaching 2, 114–137.
Lim, C. L. & Y. M. Cheah (2005). Reeling them in: A beginning reading programme in Fuchun
Primary School. In Poedjosoedarmo (ed.), 82–90.
Lim, C. Y. & L. H. A. Wee (2001). Reduplication in colloquial Singapore English. In Ooi (ed.), 89–101.
Lim, L. S. L. (2000). Ethnic group differences aligned? Intonation patterns of Chinese, Indian and
Malay Singaporean English. In Brown et al. (eds.), 10–21.
Lim, L. S. L. (2001). Ethnic group varieties of Singapore English: Melody or harmony? In Ooi (ed.),
53–68.
Lim, S. C. (2000). The English language syllabus 2001: Change and continuity. Teaching English Language
and Literature 16.2, 9–14.
Lim, S. C. (2003). Grammar in the English language curriculum in Singapore. In J. E. James (ed.),
Grammar in the language classroom (RELC Anthology Series 43). Singapore: SEAMEO English Language
Centre, 137–156.
Lim, S. C. (2004). Developments in the English language syllabus in Singapore. In Ho & Wong (eds.),
375–383.
Lin, B. (2003). English in Singapore: An insider’s perspective of syllabus renewal through a genre-based
approach. RELC Journal 34.2, 223–246.
Liu, X. L. (2005). Cooperative learning in oral communication skills course. In Kwah & Vallance (eds.),
48–55.
Lopez-Nerney, S. & J. L-S. Toh (2000). Promoting student-to-student interaction: Project work in a
technical communication class. Working Papers on Language 6, 1–18.
Lopez-Nerney, S. & C. A. Binder (2004). Portfolios and small group learning: Motivating students in
a writing class. Reflections on English Language Teaching 3, 27–30.
Low, E. L. (2000). Is lexical stress placement different in Singapore and British English? In Brown
et al. (eds.), 22–34.
Low, E. L. & A. Brown (2005). English in Singapore: An introduction. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Low, E. L. & S. C. Teng (2002). The teaching and use of standard English. Singapore: Singapore Association
for Applied Linguistics.
Luke, A., P. Freebody, S. Lau & S. Gopinathan (2005). Towards research-based innovation and reform:
Singapore schooling in transition. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 25.1, 12–26.
Meyer, J. E. L. (2003). PRC students and group work – their actions and reactions. In Lee et al. (eds.),
73–93.
Ministry of Education (2001). English language syllabus 2001 for primary and secondary schools. Singapore:
Author.
Ministry of Education (2004). Report of the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee.
Singapore: Author.
Ministry of Education (2005a). Guide to conversational Malay (Primary Schools). Singapore: Malay
Language Unit, Languages and Literature Branch, Curriculum Planning and Development Division.
Ministry of Education (2005b). Guide to conversational Malay (Secondary Schools). Singapore: Malay
Language Unit, Languages and Literature Branch, Curriculum Planning and Development Division.
Ministry of Education (2005c). Guide to conversational Malay (Junior Colleges). Singapore: Malay Language
Unit, Languages and Literature Branch, Curriculum Planning and Development.
Ministry of Education (2005d). Report of the Malay Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee.
Singapore: Author.
Ministry of Education (2005e). Report of the Tamil Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee.
Singapore: Author.
National Computer Board (1992). A vision of an intelligent island: The IT 2000 Report. Singapore: National
Computer Board.
Ng, S. M. (2002). Reading in the new millennium: Implications for teaching and learning. In Teng &
Teoh (eds.), 107–124.
Ooi, V. B. Y. (2001a). Upholding standards or passively observing language? Corpus evidence and the
concentric circles model. In Ooi (ed.), 168–183.
Ooi, V. B. Y. (ed.) (2001b). Evolving identities: The English language in Singapore and Malaysia. Singapore:
Times Academic Press.
Pakir, A. (2001). The voices of English-knowing bilinguals and the emergence of new epicentres. In
Ooi (ed.), 1–11.
Pakir, A. (2002). The matter of English, the matter with English: Maintaining language standards in
teaching of English in the 21st century. In Low & Teng (eds.), 59–71.
Pan, D. (2008). Learning to teach, teaching to learn: A handbook for NUS teachers (5th
edn.). Singapore: Centre for Development of Teaching and Learning, National University of
Singapore.
Pathak, A. (2007). Learning grammar in flexible mode: Practices and promises. In Tupas et al. (eds.),
87–99.
Platt, J. & H. Weber (1980). English in Singapore and Malaysia: Status, features, functions. Singapore: Oxford
University Press.
Poedjosoedarmo, G. (2000). The media as a model and source of innovation in the development of
Singapore standard English. In Brown et al. (eds.), 112–120.
Poedjosoedarmo, G. (ed.) (2005). Innovative approaches to reading and writing instruction (RELC Anthology
Series 46). Singapore: SEAMEO English Language Centre.
Rahmat, H. (2002). IGRA – Tradition and innovation of reading in Malay society. In Teng & Teoh
(eds.), 125–143.
Ramiah, K. (ed.) (2000). Studies on teaching and learning Tamil language in Singapore (vols. 1–4). Singapore:
Nanyang Technological University, National Institute of Education.
Saravanan, V. (2001). Indians in multilingual and multicultural settings: Tamil education in Singapore.
In Tan et al. (eds.), 246–256.
Saravanan, V. & M. Sripathy (2002). Literacy practices at home. In Teng & Teoh (eds.), 144–152.
Seet, J. F. (2006). Fostering primary school’s critical thinking in the learning of Chinese language
through the use of Philosophy for children. In W. K. Ho (ed.), Philosophy in schools: Developing a community
of inquiry (Report on the proceedings of the conference). Singapore: Singapore’s Teachers’ Union,
237–248.
Shegar, C. (2005). Tamil grammar instruction in Singapore schools: Implications for language
pedagogy. SingTeach 2. http://singteach.nie.edu.sg/content/view/20/143/.
Silver, R. E. (2001). Singapore country report: Policies on English language education & economic development
(Research Report for the Pedagogical Practices in English Language Education Study; part of the
Six-Nation Education Research Project). Singapore: National Institute of Education.
Silver, R. E., G. Hu & M. Iino (eds.) (2002). English language education in China, Japan, and Singapore.
Singapore: National Institute of Education.
Singapore Teachers’ Union. (2006). Mother tongue workshops organized by STU . Singapore: Author.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tan, C. L. (2001). Empirical errors in PRC students’ English compositions. Reflections on English Language
Tan, J. (2006). Singapore. Higher education in Southeast Asia. Bangkok: UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional
Bureau for Education.
Tan, J., S. Gopinathan & W. K. Ho (eds.) (2001). Challenges facing the Singapore education system today.
Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Tan, P. K. W. (2001). ‘Melaka or Malacca; Kallang or Care-Lang’: Lexical innovation and nativisation
in Malaysian and Singapore English. In Ooi (ed.), 140–167.
Tan, S. (2001). Strategy training for English language learners from PRC. Reflections on English Language
Teng, S. C. & B. S. Teoh (eds.) (2002). Reading in a multilingual context: From theory to practice. Singapore:
Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics.
Towndrow, P. (2001). The role of technology and technology training in shaping educational policy:
The Singaporean experience. In Tan et al. (eds.), 18–32.
Towndrow, P. & M. Vallance (2004). Using IT in the language classroom: A guide for teachers and students in Asia
(3rd edn.). Singapore: Pearson Education South Asia.
Tupas, T. R. F. (2006). Why do my students write the way they write? STETS Language & Communication
Review 5.1, 1–9.
Tupas, T. R. F., Y. Yuan & C. Nur (eds.) (2007). Changing perspectives on pedagogical grammar. Singapore:
Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics.
Varaprasad, C. (2002). Facilitating content reading and learning through text patterns. In Teng & Teoh
(eds.), 153–171.
Wachob, P. (2004). Training Chinese students to be ‘Western learners’. STETS Language & Communication
Review 3.1, 9–18.
Wong, R. Y. L. (2005). Reading in Singapore primary classrooms: Realities and aspirations. In
Poedjosoedarmo (ed.), 61–69.
Wong, R. Y. L. & B. A. S. Saddah (2002). Asking questions in the primary classroom: Meeting the
national agenda of ‘Thinking Schools, Learning Nation’. In Teng & Teoh (eds.), 189–198.
Wu, S. M. (2003). Exploring the writer’s opinion in two undergraduates’ written reports. Reflections on
English Language Teaching 2, 24–40.
Wu, S. M. (2006). The operation of value in undergraduate English language essays. Reflections on English
Language Teaching 5, 123–137.
Young, C. & Y. S. Fong (2001). Learner diaries as a tool to heighten Chinese students’ metacognitive
awareness of English learning. Reflections on English Language Teaching 1, 125–138.
Zhang, D. (2005). Using listening logs to promote student self-regulated learning. In Kwah & Vallance
(eds.), 83–91.
Zhang, L. J. (2005). Developing extensive reading skills through the use of ‘The Article Explorer’. In
Kwah & Vallance (eds.), 104–109.
Zhang, L. J. (2006). The ecology of communicative language teaching: Reflecting on the Singapore
experience. Presented at the Annual CELEA International Conference Innovating English Teaching:
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and Other Approaches, 11–13 November 2006.
RANI RUBDY is Associate Professor at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore, where she teaches courses in sociolinguistics, world Englishes and language
teacher education. She has published widely on teacher education, the management of educational
innovation, world Englishes and English language education in Singapore. She is co-editor of the books
English in the world: Global rules, global roles (Continuum, 2006) and Language as commodity: Global structures
and local marketplaces (Continuum, 2008).
T. RUANNI F. TUPAS is Senior Lecturer and Division Head (Research and Publications) at the Centre
for English Language Communication, National University of Singapore, where he teaches EAP and
professional communication courses. He is the 2009 Br. Andrew Gonzales Professorial Chair holder
for his work on language, ELT and secessionism in Muslim Mindanao and a 2008 Philippine National
Book Award finalist for his edited book, (Re)making society: Language, discourse and identity in the Philippines
(University of the Philippines Press, 2007).
Lang. Teach. (2009), 42:3, 341–354
doi:10.1017/S0261444809005771
Research Timeline
Second language vocabulary acquisition from language input and

from form-focused activities
Batia Laufer University of Haifa, Israel

batialau@research.haifa.ac.il
Interest in L2 vocabulary learning and teaching started long before the nineteen-
eighties (for references to earlier studies, see Rob Waring’s database http://www1.harenet.
ne.jp/∼waring/vocab/vocrefs/vocref.html) but it declined with the advent of generative
linguistics to the point of discrimination and neglect (Meara 1980). In 1986, I argued that
vocabulary was about to acquire a legitimate and prominent place within applied linguistics
(Laufer 1986), but I did not envisage the vast quantities of lexical research that would
have been produced in the following two decades. One of the central concerns of vocabulary
researchers is the source of L2 vocabulary learning. Is it L2 input, enhanced input, interaction,
communicative tasks, non-communicative ‘artificial’ exercises, list learning, or repetition? A
similar question is addressed by SLA researchers in general. This similarity of interests, which
demonstrates the integration of vocabulary into mainstream SLA, prompted me to define the
topic of this timeline as I did. And since the field of SLA developed in the 1980s, this timeline
starts in the nineteen-eighties. I focus here on the external sources of learning, i.e. language
input and instructional techniques, and not on learner-related variables, like motivation, L1,
age, or strategies of learning. Nor do I focus on any other areas of lexical research, important
as they may be, such as the construct of vocabulary knowledge, lexical development, testing,
bilingual mental lexicon, or corpora analyses.
The precursors of input-based learning and form-focused instruction were indirect and
direct learning and teaching of vocabulary (Nation 1982). The indirect approaches found
theoretical support in the Input Hypothesis (Krashen 1985). However, the hypotheses
of Noticing (Schmidt 1990), limited processing ability (VanPatten 1990), and ‘pushed’
output (Swain 1985) provided the theoretical underpinning of ‘Focus on Form’ (Long
1991; Ellis 2001), which in turn became the pedagogical framework for direct approaches
to vocabulary learning through communicative activities. Decontextualized vocabulary
learning that is associated with Focus on Forms had been strongly discouraged since the
heyday of communicative language teaching, but its association with the skill acquisition
theory (DeKeyser 1998) contributed to the view that this type of learning is legitimate
for studying the basic vocabulary quickly. Most recent approaches to vocabulary learning
attach less importance to the source of learning, and more to the quality of elaboration
of word information, task involvement, and frequent rehearsals. It is also believed that
different aspects of word knowledge may be affected differently by different conditions
of learning. Finally, a growing number of empirical studies suggest that input together
342 RESEARCH TIMELINE
with engaging word-focused activities and frequent rehearsals are likely to yield the best
results.
My selection of notable publications aims to represent the above developments. I con-
structed this timeline by consulting the LLBA1 database, Paul Nation’s data base (http://www.
victoria.ac.nz/lals/staff/paul-nation/vocrefs/index.aspx) and the latest issues of the most
prominent journals in applied linguistics. The selection represents seven recurring themes,
each of which is marked by a capital letter A – G in my annotations to each publication:
A Effects of text input, without lexical support (A1) and with lexical support (A2)
B Learning words in authentic and/or communicative tasks with Focus on Form
C Learning decontextualized vocabulary, or in minimal contexts with Focus on Forms
D Multiple exposures/rehearsals
E Acquiring partial knowledge of words
F Theoretical positions related to vocabulary learning
G Technology in vocabulary research and learning
References
DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspective on learning and practical
second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language
acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 42–63.
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning 51.1 (supplement 1), 1–46.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
Laufer, B. (1986). Possible changes in attitude towards vocabulary acquisition research. International
Review of Applied Linguistics 24.1, 69–75.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on Form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot,
R. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 39–52.
Meara, P. M. (1980). Vocabulary acquisition: A neglected aspect of language learning. Language Teaching
and Linguistics: Abstracts 13.4, 221–246.
Nation, I. S. P. (1982). Beginning to learn foreign vocabulary: A review of the research. RELC Journal
13.1, 14–36.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11.2, 17–
45.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (eds.), Input in second
language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235–253.
VanPatten B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12.3, 287–301.
BATIA LAUFER is Professor of Applied Linguistics in the department of English Language and Literature,
at the University of Haifa, Israel. Her research is on lexicography, cross linguistic influence, reading, and
testing, but mainly on Vocabulary Acquisition in Additional Languages. She has published numerous
journal articles and book chapters, and lectured extensively in and outside of Israel. Her most known
and cited work is on vocabulary threshold for reading comprehension, vocabulary development, task
effect on learning, quantitative assessment of vocabulary, and factors of word difficulty.
1 Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (electronic resource). The Hague: Mouton.
YEAR REFERENCES ANNOTATIONS THEME
1982 Nation, I. S. P. (1982). Beginning to learn foreign Nation raised several key questions to be addressed in future L2 A
vocabulary: A review of the research. RELC Journal vocabulary research: the relationship between indirect learning B
13.1, 14–36. (incidental while reading or listening) and direct learning (with conscious C
effort), learning words in context and in lists, and effectiveness of D
vocabulary teaching techniques. F
1985 Nagy, W. E., P. A. Herman & R. C. Anderson (1985). Nagy et al. estimated the probabilities of learning an L1 word from
Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly reading after one exposure to be between .10 and .15. They claimed that A1
20.2, 233−253. since learners were exposed to large amounts of vocabulary, they would
learn a substantial number of words from input.
1987 Cohen, A. D. (1987). The use of verbal imagery Cohen suggested that mnemonics, particularly learner-generated, could
mnemonics in second-language vocabulary learning. facilitate word retrieval, and could therefore supplement other methods C
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9.1, 43−61. of intentional learning. He implied that learners could be trained in using
verbal and imagery mnemonics.
1989 Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and In the framework of the Input Hypothesis, Krashen suggested that,
spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input similarly to L1 acquisition (NAGY ET AL. 1985), vocabulary in L2 was F
hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal 73.4, 440−464. acquired subconsciously through comprehensible input, particularly
through reading, when learners focused on messages, and not on
individual words. A1
BATIA LAUFER: L2 VOCABULARY ACQUISITION
343
1989 Pitts, M., H. White & S. Krashen (1989). Acquiring Adult L2 learners read two chapters of a novel containing Russian slang
second language vocabulary through reading: A words. Subsequent testing revealed some acquisition of these words, A1
replication of the Clockwork Orange study using providing empirical evidence for KRASHEN’S (1989) hypothesis that
second language acquirers. Reading in a Foreign Language learners, like native speakers, could acquire vocabulary from reading.
5.2, 271−275. However, the number of words was around 2 out of 29.
1989 Elley, W. B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from Elley investigated children’s L2 vocabulary learning from listening to a
listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly 24.2, single story (as opposed to most studies, which focused on vocabulary A1
174−187. and reading). After listening three times, learners acquired the meanings
of 20% of target words. Adding explanation of words raised learning to
38%. These data seem to support the acquisition from input position. A2
However, only six target words were tested.
1989 Laufer, B. (1989). What percentage of text lexis is Laufer delineated the lexical characteristics of a text that made A1
essential for comprehension? In C. Lauren & M. comprehension and, subsequently, learning words from context possible.
Nordman (eds.), Special language: From humans thinking to She defined the lexical threshold for basic text comprehension as 95% of F
thinking machines. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, text words familiar to the learner.
316−323.
1992 Hulstijn, J. H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given To study the effect of glossing unfamiliar words in a text on their
word meanings: Experiments in incidental vocabulary learning, Hulstijn compared the retention of words inferred from A1
learning. In P. J. L Arnaud & H. Béjoint (eds.), context with words provided with glosses, or sample sentences. Inferred A2
Vocabulary and applied linguistics. London: MacMillan, words were better retained than given words, but only when cues for
113−125. inferring were available. However, retention of words from mere B
exposure and guessing was very low and guesses were sometimes
incorrect.
1994 Mondria, J-A. & S. Mondria-DeVries (1994). Mondria & Mondria-DeVries introduced a system of memorizing C
Efficiently memorizing words with the help of word decontextualized words using word cards and a repetition system of
cards and ‘hand computer’: Theory and applications. distributed retrievals (repetitions through ever longer intervals). The
System 22.1, 47−57. authors claimed that this method was flexible regarding type of words D
and type of learners and, therefore, superior to learning from lists.
1995 Joe, A. (1995). Text based tasks and incidental Joe found that attention to new words, retrieval and particularly use in
vocabulary learning. Second Language Research 11.2, novel contexts (‘generation’) contributed to word retention. This study B
149−158. highlighted the importance of language output in incidental learning.
1996 Chun, D. M. & J. L. Plass (1996). Effects of multimedia Students of L2 German read a text on the computer screen. 82 words
annotations on vocabulary acquisition. The Modern were glossed by definition and example; some words also had a still A2
Language Journal 80.2, 183−198. picture, others – a video. The text + pictures condition proved most B
effective. The paper demonstrates the value of multimedia for
vocabulary learning. G
1996 Hulstijn, J. H., M. Hollander & T. Greidanus (1996). Hulstijn et al. compared retention of new words in three conditions:
Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign gloss, availability of electronic dictionary and control. They introduced a A2
language students: The influence of marginal glosses, new factor: two frequencies of word occurrence in each condition. A1
dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. Frequency contributed to learning when reading was supported by gloss
The Modern Language Journal 80.3, 327−339. or dictionary. Without such support, words may be ignored or inferred D
incorrectly (cf. HULSTIJN 1992). G
1996 Qian, D. D. (1996). ESL vocabulary acquisition: Qian compared teaching contextualized vocabulary with A1
Contextualization and decontextualization. The decontextualized word lists. The decontexualized condition resulted in C
Canadian Modern Language Review 53.1, 120−142. superior retention. These results challenge the assumptions by KRASHEN
(1989) and LONG (1991) stated in the introduction.
345
1997 Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language Laufer presented three main problems in L2 reading: inadequate A1
reading: Words you don’t know, words you think you vocabulary size for comprehension, misinterpretations of seemingly
know and words you can’t guess. In J. Coady & familiar words, and guessing difficulties, due to text, word and learner
T. Huckin (eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A factors. The implication is that the relationship between vocabulary
rationale for pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University learning and reading is neither simple nor problem-free. F
Press, 20−34.
1997 Coady, J. (1997). L2 vocabulary acquisition through Coady presented the ‘beginner’s paradox’. How could learners learn
extensive reading. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (eds.), words through extensive reading if their vocabulary was insufficient to
Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for read extensively? He suggested that learners should first receive explicit F
pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, instruction in 3000 most common word families (following LAUFER A1
225–237. 1997). Only then should they engage in enjoyable reading tasks.
1997 Hulstijn, J. H. (1997). Mnemonic methods in foreign Drawing on experimental and psycholinguistic literature and on
language vocabulary learning: Theoretical personal teaching and language learning experience, Hulstijn argued C
considerations and pedagogical applications. In that mnemonic techniques, including the keyword method, were a useful
J. Coady & T. Huckin (eds.), Second language vocabulary supplement to other approaches to vocabulary learning (cf. COHEN F
acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy. Cambridge: 1987). He also provided practical guidelines for using mnemonics and
Cambridge University Press, 203−224. rehearsals in learning words.
1997 Paribakht, T. S. & M. Wesche (1997). Vocabulary Paribakht & Wesche compared word learning in ‘Reading only’
enhancement activities and reading for meaning in (8 texts) and ‘Reading plus’ (4 texts with various vocabulary exercises) A1, E
second language vocabulary. In J. Coady & T. Huckin conditions. ‘Reading only’ produced small word gains, but ‘Reading C
(eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for plus’ yielded significantly better results. The results support the
pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, importance of explicit instruction.
174−200.
1997 Watanabe, Y. (1997). Input, intake and retention. Using a more complex research design than HULSTIJN (1992),
Effects of increased processing on incidental learning Watanabe compared the effect of type of word explanation A2
of foreign language vocabulary. Studies in Second (appositives, marginal glosses and multiple choice marginal glosses) on B
Language Acquisition 19.3, 287−307. the acquisition of 16 words. He found that both types of glosses
significantly improved word learning and retention on the delayed test.
1998 Schmitt, N. (1998). Tracking the incremental Schmitt studied the acquisition of 11 individual words over a year with
acquisition of second language vocabulary: A three advanced L2 adult learners. He tracked four types of word
longitudinal study. Language Learning 48.2, 281–317. knowledge: spelling, associations, grammatical information, and E
meaning. The study did not show evidence of a developmental hierarchy
for word knowledge types.
1998 Horst, M., T. Cobb & P. Meara (1998). Beyond a Learners read and listened to a simplified version of a novel (21,000
Clockwork Orange: Acquiring second language running words during six class sessions) and were subsequently tested on A1
vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign two aspects of knowledge of 45 words. On average, they acquired about
Language 11.2, 207−223. five words. The authors admitted to small gains, but wondered whether E
testing more items would have revealed more acquisition.
1999 Nation, P. & M. K. Wang (1999). Graded readers and Nation & Wang showed the potential for vocabulary learning from
vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign Language 12.2, 355–380. graded readers, and also recommended specific quantities of reading – a A1
graded reader every week – to meet new words soon enough to reinforce
previous encounters. This requirement highlights the practical D
limitations of extensive reading in an FL context.
1999 Ellis, R. & X. He (1999). The roles of modified input Ellis & He found that learners who interacted in a task acquired more
and output in the incidental acquisition of word new words from it than learners who received two types of input with
meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21. 2, the same content. Similarly to JOE (1995), the paper highlights the B
285−301. importance of language use. Additionally, the authors emphasize the
qualitatively superior dialogic interaction of the output group.
347
2000 Hu, M. & I. S. P. Nation (2000). Unknown vocabulary Hu & Nation delineated the optimal lexical coverage (percentage of
density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign familiar words in a text) for comprehension, and subsequently, word A1
Language 13.1, 403−430. learning from reading. While LAUFER (1989) suggested 95% minimum
threshold for basic comprehension, Hu & Nation suggested 98% F
coverage for reading for pleasure.
2000 Boers, F. (2000). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary Boers argued that enhancing learners’ awareness of the metaphor’s
retention. Applied Linguistics 21.4, 553−571. literal origin could facilitate retention of unfamiliar figurative
expressions. Three EFL experiments supported his position. The results C
corroborate COHEN (1986) and HULSTIJN (1997) regarding the value of
verbal imagery.
2000 Laufer, B. & M. M. Hill (2000). What lexical Laufer & Hill used a computer programme which comprised a text,
information do L2 learners select in a CALL highlighted target words, and multiple dictionary information: word A2
dictionary and how does it affect word retention? explanation in English, L1 translation, sound, root, and ‘extra’
Language Learning and Technology 3.2, 58−76. information (HULSTIJN ET AL. 1996 provided only translations of words).
(http://llt.msu.edu/vol3num2/laufer-hill/index.html) Different learners revealed different lookup preferences. The use of B
multiple dictionary information reinforced incidental acquisition. G
2000 Groot, P. J. M. (2000). Computer assisted second Groot used a unique computer-assisted word acquisition programme
language vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning and (CAVOCA), which presented each word in four modes: deduction of C
Technology 4.1, 60−81. meaning, illustration of usage, examples, and lexical retrieval. Retention, D
(http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/groot/default.html) however, was not better than in a list-learning condition. This raises the
issue of the effectiveness of sophisticated technology in learning. G
2001 Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Intentional and incidental Hulstijn conceptualized the notions of incidental and intentional
second language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of learning. He argued that the distinction between them could be F
elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In operationalized in research, but it had no significance for word retention.
P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Retention depends on the quality of processing, i.e. elaboration on
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 258−286. aspects of a word’s meaning and form, and on amount of rehearsal.
2001 Laufer, B. & J. Hulstijn (2001). Incidental vocabulary In an attempt to operationalise ‘attention’ and ‘elaboration’ into
acquisition in a second language: The construct of concrete task-specific constructs, Laufer & Hulstijn introduced a F
task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics 22.1, construct of ‘Task Induced Involvement’ with motivational and cognitive
1−26. dimensions: Need, Search and Evaluation. The hypothesis predicts that
retention of unfamiliar words is conditional upon the amount of
involvement during task performance.
2001 Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another In the most comprehensive book to date on L2 vocabulary learning,
language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nation introduced and developed the notion of four strands in A, B
balanced vocabulary learning (and language learning in general): C, D
comprehensible meaning-focused input, form-focused instruction, E, F
meaning-focused output, and fluency development.
2001 Zahar, R., T. Cobb & N. Spada (2001). Acquiring Zahar et al. investigated the effect of frequency of word occurrence
vocabulary through reading: Effects of frequency and and contextual support on word acquisition from reading a story. A1
contextual richness. The Canadian Modern Language Learners learnt, on average, 2.6 words out of 30, regardless of contextual D
Review 57.4, 541−572. support. The authors calculated that learning 2000 new words from
input would take 29 years, thus challenging KRASHEN (1989) and
supporting NATION & WANG’S (1999) practical limitations of extensive
reading.
349
2002 Swanborn, M. S. L. & K. de Glopper (2002). Impact Swanborn & de Glopper measured the effect of learners’ reading
of reading purpose on incidental word learning from purpose on vocabulary learning. The probability of learning a word A1
context. Language Learning 52.1, 95–117. incidentally was .10 when students read for knowledge of the topic, .08
when reading for text comprehension and .06 when they read for fun.
2002 De la Fuente, M. J. (2002). Negotiation and oral De la Fuente compared the effects of input, negotiation, and
acquisition of L2 vocabulary: The roles of input and negotiation with ‘pushed output’ on receptive and productive word B
output in the receptive and productive acquisition of acquisition. Negotiation with and without output was equally effective
words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24.1, for receptive acquisition, but negotiation with output was more effective
81−112. for productive acquisition and retention. The paper develops the idea of
output importance (SWAIN 1985, JOE 1995, ELLIS & HE, 1999 – see E
introduction).
2002 Snellings, P., A. van Gelderen & K. de Glopper (2002). Snellings et al. demonstrated the feasibility of computerized training D
Lexical retrieval: An aspect of fluent second language for fluent lexical retrieval of L2 words in classroom, as evidenced by C
production that can be enhanced. Language Learning improved lexical decision and written retrieval tasks. The paper shows G
52.4, 723−754. how the fluency strand in vocabulary teaching (NATION 2001) can be
implemented in classroom.
2003 Laufer, B. (2003). Vocabulary acquisition in a second Laufer challenged some basic assumptions underlying the claim that
language: Do learners really acquire most vocabulary reading was the major source of vocabulary acquisition, and reported F
by reading? The Canadian Modern Language Review 59.4, three experiments in which word-focused tasks yielded higher learning A1
565–585. scores than reading. C
2003 Mondria, J-A. (2003). The effects of inferring, Mondria found that retention of new words was the same, irrespective
verifying, and memorizing on the retention of L2 word of whether their meaning was provided by, or inferred from, context. The C
meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25.4, meaning inferred method took longer. The results seem to contradict
473−499. HULSTIJN (1992). However, Mondria’s study involved a memorization
stage after verification of meaning, i.e. intentional learning.
2003 Waring, R & M. Takaki (2003). At what rate do Waring & Takaki studied the retention of 25 non-words that appeared
learners learn and retain new vocabulary from reading 1–18 times in a text. After three months, learners remembered an A1
a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language 15.2, average of one meaning of words that appeared eight times or more. D
130–163. The authors concluded that massive quantities of graded reading were E
needed to build new vocabulary (cf. ZAHAR ET AL. 2001), but the benefits
of graded readers were in enriching the vocabulary known already.
2004 Mondria, J-M. & B. Wiersma (2004). Receptive, Mondria & Wiersma hypothesized that, in intentional learning, word
productive, and receptive + productive L2 vocabulary retention type, receptive or productive, is related to the mode of
learning: What difference does it make? In P. Bogaards learning: receptive, productive, or receptive + productive. They found E
& B. Laufer (eds.), Vocabulary in a second language. that receptive learning proved best for receptive knowledge, and
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 80−100. productive learning for productive knowledge. Additional receptive C
learning did not lead to improved productive knowledge.
2004 Pulido, D. (2004). The relationship between text Pulido found that text comprehension, irrespective of topic familiarity,
comprehension and second language incidental had a favorable effect on short- and long-term retention of the meaning A1
vocabulary acquisition: A matter of topic familiarity? of 32 nonsense words in the text. Topic familiarity was related to
Language Learning 54.3, 469–523. recognition of word forms only. If comprehension is achieved with E
95%–98% of vocabulary coverage (LAUFER 1989, HU & NATION 2000),
it seems that good vocabulary knowledge can compensate for lack of
background knowledge.
2005 Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary Webb introduced a time-on-task factor and examined five aspects of
learning: The effects of reading and writing on word word learning after encountering words in three glossed sentences, or
knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27.1, using them in original sentences. With identical time on task, reading C
33−52. was more effective. With unlimited time, writing took longer, but proved E
more effective. Since the latter case represented authentic learning, a
strong argument could be made for productive tasks.
351
2005 Horst, M. (2005). Learning L2 vocabulary through Unlike previous studies, Horst investigated a large amount of reading
extensive reading: A measurement study. The Canadian (four books, on average) and tested many words (100). She used A2
Modern Language Review 61.3, 355−382. electronic scanning of books, lexical frequency profiling, and E
individualized word checklists. Learners demonstrated some knowledge
of about 17 words, more than in earlier studies, probably due to the G
innovative methodology.
2005 Laufer, B. (2005). Focus on form in second language Responding to the discouraging learning results from input, Laufer
vocabulary acquisition. In S. H. Foster-Cohen, M. P. conceptualized ‘Focus on Form’ and ‘Focus on Forms’ within a F
Garcia-Mayo & J. Cenoz (eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 5. vocabulary acquisition framework, and provided theoretical and
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 223−250. empirical justification for both pedagogical approaches.
2005 Horst, M., T. Cobb & I. Nicolae (2005). Expanding Horst et al. found that many words were learnt receptively and E
academic vocabulary with a collaborative on-line productively when practiced in a computer-assisted environment: word
database. Language Learning and Technology 9.2, 90−110. banks, online dictionaries, concordances, cloze exercises, hypertexts, and C
(http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num2/horst/default.html) self-quizzes. The results show the benefits of word-focused
non-communicative activities (QIAN 1996, LAUFER 2003) and the A2
potential of technology for vocabulary learning (GROOT 2000, LAUFER &
HILL 2000). G
2006 Pigada, M & N. Schmitt (2006). Vocabulary Pigada & Schmitt found that one month of extensive reading (four
acquisition from extensive reading: A case study. readers) enhanced some aspects of knowledge in 65% of 133 target A1
Reading in a Foreign Language 18.1, 1−28. words, particularly spelling. Knowledge of meaning and grammatical
characteristics improved less. In spite of the encouraging results, the E
authors recommended supplementing incidental learning with
intentional learning.
2006 Folse, K. S. (2006). The effect of type of written Following LAUFER & HULSTIJN’S (2001) Involvement Hypothesis, Folse
exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. TESOL Quarterly compared word learning in conditions differing in involvement, but also C
40.2, 273−293. in the number of word retrievals. The latter was more influential than
involvement. The findings suggest that repeated exposure is a stronger D
factor than involvement load in retention.
2007 Webb, S. (2007). The effects of repetition on Like ZAHAR ET AL. (2001) & WARING & TAKAKI (2003), Webb studied C
vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguistics 28.1, 46−65. the effects of repeated encounters (1, 3, 7, and 10 times) on word
learning, but examined five aspects of word knowledge. After ten E
repetitions in context, some learning could occur, but full knowledge of a
word would require more than ten repetitions. D
2008 Kim, Y. J. (2008). The role of task-induced Kim provided empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis
involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary (LAUFER & HULSTIJN 2001). A higher task involvement load promoted A2
acquisition. Language Learning 58.2, 285–325. more effective initial and delayed vocabulary learning. Identical
involvement load in two tasks yielded similar results. Results were the C
same for two L2 proficiencies.
2008 Lindstromberg, S. & F. Boers (2008). The mnemonic Studying data from three experiments, Lindstromberg & Boers
effect of noticing alliteration in lexical chunks. Applied suggested that alliteration had considerable mnemonic potential for C
Linguistics 29.2, 200−222. facilitating the learning of lexical chunks. However, since learners were
not very likely to notice alliteration, teachers should encourage them to
exploit it.
353
2008 Laufer, B. & N. Girsai (2008). Form-focused Laufer & Girsai demonstrated the effect of a specific type of
instruction in second language vocabulary learning: A form-focused instruction – contrastive analysis and translation, which B
case for contrastive analysis and translation. Applied yielded better results than other form-focused tasks and C
Linguistics 29.4, 694–716. meaning-oriented tasks, for short and long-term retention of single D
words and collocations.
2008 Brown, R., R. Waring & S. Donkaewbua (2008). Integrating ELLEY’S (1989) and WARING & TAKAKI’S (2003) research
Incidental vocabulary acquisition from reading, questions, Brown et al. compared L2 vocabulary acquisition across A1
reading-while-listening, and listening. Reading in a three input modes: reading, reading while listening, and listening to
Foreign Language 20.2, 136–163. stories. After three months, learners could supply, on average, the E
meaning of 0–1 word, but they could recognize about ten words on a
multiple choice test. The lowest uptake was in the listening mode. The D
authors recommend at least ten word recurrences for learning to take
place.
Lang. Teach. (2009), 42:3, 355–368
doi:10.1017/S0261444808005569
Plenary Speeches
Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction

and assessment
James P. Lantolf The Pennsylvania State University, USA

jpl7@psu.edu
This presentation is situated within the general framework of Vygotsky’s educational theory,
which argues that development in formal educational activity is a fundamentally different
process from development that occurs in the everyday world. A cornerstone of Vygotsky’s
theory is that to be successful education must be sensitive to learners’ ZONE OF PROXIMAL
DEVELOPMENT. This requires the dialectical integration of instruction and assessment into a
seamless and dynamic activity. The presentation includes a discussion of how the integration
is systematically achieved in the process known as dynamic assessment and illustrates
through analysis of data from advanced learners of French how this functions in second
language education.
1. Introduction
Vygotsky (1997: 1) offered the following observation with regard to the new theoretical
principles he was formulating on the cultural origins of human cognition: ‘it is easier to
assimilate a thousand new facts in any field than to assimilate a NEW POINT OF VIEW of a few
already known facts’ [emphasis added]. The goal of this presentation is to consider a new
point of view on the relationship between language instruction and language assessment. Until
fairly recently the assessment enterprise has more or less functioned as an independent activity
that at best was indirectly linked to instruction. However, researchers have come to recognize
the importance of, and the advantages that accrue from, bringing instruction and assessment
into a closer nexus. Cheng (2005) for instance, proposes that one way of achieving this
nexus is through washback, whereby assessment instruments serve as guidelines for language
instruction in the sense that instruction has the responsibility of meeting the learning outcomes
determined by test instruments. While washback is seen by many as a positive development
in language pedagogy, it nevertheless reflects the general dualistic orientation of applied
linguistics (e.g., learning–acquisition, implicit–explicit instruction, learning–use, instruction–
assessment, etc.). Once such dualisms are established we then worry about the possible
relationships, if any, between the poles of each opposition. However, there is another way of
Revised version of an invited talk presented on 10 April 2008 to the series Assessing Language Learning, University of
Wisconsin–Madison.
356 PLENARY SPEECHES
thinking about the relationship between what seems to be distinct, if not contrary, processes,
and this is as necessary components of a unified process. Thus, for example, language
acquisition and language use, currently hotly debated topics (see Lafford 2007), need not
be conceptualized as unrelated and independent processes, but instead can be understood
as dialectically unified components of the same human symbol-making and symbol-using
capacity. It makes little sense to talk of acquisition unless one intends to use what one has
acquired and it makes even less sense to talk of using something that one has not yet been
acquired.
An excellent analogy for understanding the argument I am making is found in an early
text by Marx (1844/1972) where he explicates the dialectical unity of the economic forces
of production and consumption. In the Grundrisse, the precursor to his masterwork, Capital,
Marx shows how production and consumption are moments of a single process. Production
mediates and creates the object of consumption but at the same time consumption mediates
and creates the motive, or driving force, for production. Each component of consumptive
production requires the other; thus, ‘without production, no consumption; but also, without
consumption, no production; since production would then be purposeless’ (Marx 1844/1927:
229). Something that is produced is not only of no value unless it is used, but it is, according
to Marx (ibid.), not even real. A railway on which trains do not run, a garment not worn,
or a house not lived in have at best potentiality but not reality. Each achieves reality in
consumption: ‘only in decomposing the product does consumption give the product the
finishing touch’ (ibid.). The same can be said with regard to language acquisition. Unless
language is consumed (i.e., used) it has no reality. Thus, when we refer to language learners
we could just as easily refer to language users.1
The same dialectical principle that Marx used to build his political and economic
philosophy was taken over by Vygotsky to build his psychology of mind. One of the areas in
which the dialectic plays out in Vygotsky’s work is in his contention that effective instruction
entails, and in fact is not possible, without assessment and, by the same token, assessment is
not feasible without instruction, and therefore as with production and consumption they are
both moments of a single process. This is the position that I want to argue for in the current
presentation. Indeed, the dialectic unity of the two processes is the very foundation of the
most widely recognized, although at the same time, most often misunderstood principle of
Vygotskyan theory – the Zone of Proximal Development (see Chaiklin 2003). Before moving
to a discussion of this topic, however, I would like to address two general assumptions of SLA
that in my view impact heavily on how we think about what goes on – or should go – on in
pedagogical practice.
2. SLA: A universal process?
A widely accepted premise of SLA research is that L2 acquisition is fundamentally the same
process regardless of where it unfolds:
1 Rossi-Landi (1983) argues that if we want to fully understand the essence of language we must study it within the general
process of human production.

JAMES P. LANTOLF: DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT 357
Remove the learner from the social setting, and the L2 grammar does not change or disappear. Change the
social setting altogether, e.g., from street to classroom, or from a foreign to a second language environment,
and, as far as we know, the way the learner acquires does not change much either. (Long 1998: 93)
When making recommendations on classroom practice, SLA researchers have based their
suggestions on the universal acquisition hypothesis (UAH) and have therefore highlighted the
importance of communicative activity and backgrounded the relevance of direct instruction.
Larsen-Freeman & Long (1991: 221), for instance, point out that ‘some writers on language
teaching have advocated provision of “natural” language learning experiences for classroom
learners, and the elimination of structural grading, a focus on form and error correction,
even for adults’.
At least one SLA researcher, Elaine Tarone, has argued against the UAH. In a recent
publication (Tarone 2007), for example, she asserts that different social contexts are likely to
result in different L2 grammars and, more importantly, that different contexts are likely to
change the way learners acquire an L2. Although Tarone parts company with the majority
of SLA researchers regarding the UAH, to my knowledge, she has not proposed specific
pedagogical practices that recognize her non-UAH position. Vygotsky, however, makes a
very explicit and strong claim in this regard, when he asserts that ‘education may be defined
as the artificial development of the child. Education is the artificial mastery of natural
processes of development. Education not only influences certain processes of development,
but restructures all functions of behavior in a most essential manner’ (Vygotsky 1997: 88).
Vygotsky considered education to be a specific form of cultural activity that has important
and unique developmental consequences. As attested in the above quote, education is not just
an undertaking whereby knowledge is obtained, but it is indeed an intentionally organized
(i.e., artificial) activity that restructures the mental behavior that develops spontaneously in
everyday concrete activity (Vygotsky 1987). I will return to this issue later in the discussion.
In classic Piagetian psychology, education is only effective if students are developmentally
ready to learn. It does little good, for instance, to teach abstract concepts until the stage
of formal operational thinking has been reached. Learners can only learn what they are
developmentally ready to learn and stages cannot be skipped along the way. The Piagetian
position, I believe, is clearly reflected in both Krashen’s (1981, 1985) natural order hypothesis
and Pienemann’s (1998) processability theory. Instruction then becomes a matter of timing
and if, as Ellis (2007: 91) suggests, it is ‘ill-timed and out of synchrony with development . . .
it can be confusing; it can be easily forgotten; it can be dissociated from usage, lacking in
transfer-appropriateness [and] it can be unmotivating’. Vygotsky (1987) reverses the Piagetian
process and argues that effective instruction must precede and indeed lay down the path for
development to follow.
3. Basic research and pedagogical practice
A second general assumption within the field of SLA, which also separates it from sociocultural
theory, is that in SLA a clear distinction is made between theory/research on the one hand
and classroom practice on the other. Gass & Mackey (2007: 190), for example, reflect the SLA
perspective as follows: ‘Like most SLA researchers, however, [Rod] Ellis is cautious about
making direct connections between theory, research, and teaching practice’. In commenting
on the interactionist approach to SLA, the same authors state that because their primary
concern is with ‘how languages are learned . . . direct application may be premature’ (ibid.).
Vygotsky, because of his commitment to the Marxist dialectic, argued for the unity of
theory/research and practice (Vygotsky 2004) to the extent that practice rather than the
laboratory is where theory is to be judged (Vygotsky 2004: 304). In this regard, he commits to
Marx’s famous eleventh thesis on Feuerbach (Marx 1845/1972): ‘Marx has said that it was
enough for philosophers to have interpreted the world, now it’s time to change it’ (Vygotsky
1997: 9). For Vygotsky, the full implication of the eleventh thesis is that applied psychology IS
psychology.
I would like to make the same argument with regard to SLA that Vygotsky made for
general psychology: SLA theory/research and pedagogical practice can be brought together
into a dialectical unity and that the site where theory is tested is not the laboratory but the real
world, including the educational setting. Indeed, from this perspective, pedagogical practice
is the relevant research that not only is informed by, but also informs, the theory. In other
words, if the theory is not closely connected to pedagogical practice it is a problematic theory.
Sociocultural theory is not just a theory of SLA; it is a general theory of human mental
development and since SLA is one aspect of such development, the theory must also account
for this particular process along with all other processes that comprise human cognition in
all circumstances where it develops and functions.
4. Educational development
While Vygotsky laid the foundation for a theory of educational development, he did not flesh
out the specifics of the theory. This task was left to his colleagues and students, including
Luria (1961), Gal’perin (1967, 1979), Leontiev (1981), Talyzina (1981), and Davydov (2004).
According to Karpov & Haywood (1998), Vygotsky distinguished two types of mediation:
meta-cognition, or self-regulation, and cognition, or mediation organized according to
cultural concepts. Cultural concepts, the stuff of thought, comprise two types of knowledge,
each with different sources. One type – which Vygotsky (1987) calls spontaneous – arises
in everyday life as people engage in social relationships through cultural activities such
as play, work, religious practice, etc. (Kinard & Kozulin 2008: 25). Spontaneous concepts
are not acquired as a goal in themselves but as a means of achieving other goals (i.e.,
learning the concept of rule – following behavior in order to participate in play). The second
type of cultural concept is encountered in school and is referred to as scientific concepts.
Scientific concepts are comprised of systematically and rigorously organized knowledge and
are intentionally and explicitly presented to students. Scientific concepts bring to light aspects
of the world that are not directly observable to our senses. For example, in the everyday world
the concept circle is a generalization constructed by abstracting the geometric commonality
of objects (e.g., coins, wheels, cakes, etc.) that are round. The scientific understanding of circle,
however, is the geometric shape which results from the movement of a line with one fixed
and one moving end (Kozulin 1995: 124). I will have no more to say about this topic here.
For a fuller discussion of how scientific concepts and culturally organized learning activity
figure into language education, see (Lantolf 2007; Ferreira & Lantolf 2008; Lantolf forth-
coming b).
The ability to regulate ourselves emerges from mediation by others. It is here that the
ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT (ZPD) comes into play. How this occurs is the topic of the
remainder of the discussion. Although my focus will be on the ZPD, it should not be inferred
that this component of development functions independently from conceptual mediation and
learning activity (see Kinard & Kozulin 2008).
5. The ZPD: instructed assessment and assessed instruction
At the heart of Vygotsky’s argument in support of the unity of instruction and assessment
is the notion of the ZPD. To paraphrase the well-known definition of the ZPD, it is the
difference between what an individual can do independently and what he or she can do with
assistance or mediation. The key lies in how mediation is understood. Consider the example
of a mother wishing to raise her child from a prone to a sitting position. One way to do this
is simply to lift the child to the desired position. Another option would be for the mother to
grasp the child’s hands and slowly pull upward while at the same time coaxing the child to
exert force against her pulling. As Fogel (1991) points out, while the end result is the same,
the processes are noticeably different, and the process matters. In the first, the child is not
a co-participant but an object that is repositioned by the parent and is therefore unlikely to
experience any sense of agency. In the second process the child is a co-participant and as such
co-regulates the mother with regard to the amount of force she exerts and is thus likely to
experience herself as an agent. The mother might even reinforce this through speech: ‘Help
mommy, pull, pull. Good girl, you sat up.’
The ZPD then is about co-mediation between someone who has the knowledge or capacity
to attain a goal and someone who does not. The task of the expert is to know precisely how
to pull the learner forward in a way that not only leads to attainment of the goal but in a way
that allows the other to participate to the extent that they are able. Over time, the learner
will begin to appropriate the know-how from the expert resulting in greater responsibility
for independent performance. As Vygotsky (1978: 87) put it, what the person can do with
assistance today, he or she can do tomorrow alone.
6. Dynamic assessment and language education
The term ‘dynamic assessment’ (DA) as the pedagogical instantiation of the ZPD, was coined
in English by Vygotsky’s colleague, Luria (1961). When Luria introduced DA, he did so
within the framework in which it had been used in his and Vygotsky’s research: children
with learning disabilities. Today, it has even been extended to include adults suffering from
various maladies associated with aging, including dementia (see Haywood & Lidz 2007).
More recently, however, educators have extended DA to general education, including L2
pedagogy (Lantolf & Poehner 2004, 2008; Poehner & Lantolf 2005).
6.1 Two approaches to dynamic assessment
From the time it was introduced by Luria, two general approaches to DA have developed. In
both approaches instruction as mediation and assessment are fused into a single activity with
the goal of diagnosing learning potential and promoting development in accordance with
this potential. In one approach, known as INTERVENTIONIST DA, a prefabricated and fixed
set of clues and hints is determined in advance and offered to learners as they move through
a test item by item. The hints are arranged on a scale from implicit to explicit based on the
assumption that if learners are able to respond appropriately to an implicit form of mediation
they have already attained a greater degree of control over the educational object than if
they require more explicit assistance. To provide explicit mediation when implicit mediation
is sufficient obscures the developmental level of the learner (see Aljaafreh & Lantolf 1994)
and, just as importantly, compromises the learner’s sense of agency. A distinct advantage of
interventionist DA is that because the mediation is not tailored to the responsivity of individual
learners, it can be conducted with high numbers of individuals simultaneously via computer.
In addition, because the number of hints is fixed, it is possible to generate numerical scores
and compare these across learners. This approach then is more psychometrically viable than
the alternative approach, INTERACTIONIST DA (see below).
An example of interventionist DA is provided by the LEIPZIG LEARNING TEST (LLT)
of language aptitude developed by Jürgen Guthke and his colleagues (Guthke, Heinrich
& Caruso 1986) to assess the learning potential of international students wishing to enter
German universities. The results of the test were used to place students in appropriate L2
German classes. As with many language aptitude tests, the LLT presents examinees with
an invented language and asks them to respond to a series of questions requiring them to
figure out its morphosyntactic properties. Each test item is followed by a series of five hints
ordered from implicit to explicit. Whenever examinees produce an incorrect response they
are initially given the most implicit hint: ‘That’s not correct. Please think about it once again.’
If the second attempt does not yield an appropriate response, the mediation becomes more
explicit: ‘That’s not correct. Think about which rows are most relevant to the ones you are
trying to complete.’ The fifth and final form of mediation provides the correct response along
with an explanation of why the response is correct. The test then proceeds to the next item.
Although the goal of the LLT is to assess language aptitude, because it is based on the ZPD,
it recognizes that aptitude is not a stable trait but a dynamic ability that can actually develop
during the course of the very test designed to assess it. Thus, the expectation is that as learners
move through the test they will require fewer hints and less explicit mediation, an indication
that they are improving their language aptitude.
Interactionist DA, according to Minick (1987: 119), adheres to Vygotsky’s preference
for ‘qualitative assessment of psychological processes and dynamics of their qualitative
development’. Vygotsky (1998: 204) insisted that in education we must not measure but
interpret students and this can only be accomplished through interaction and cooperation.
Thus, mediation in interactionist DA is not predetermined but is instead negotiated with the
individual, which means that it is continually adjusted according to the learner’s responsivity.
In Reuven Feuerstein’s version of DA, known as the MEDIATED LEARNING EXPERIENCE
(MLE), the traditional examiner/examinee roles are abandoned in favor of a teacher–student
relationship in which both individuals work toward the ultimate success of the learner: ‘it
is through this shift in roles that we find both the examiner and the examinee bowed over
the same task, engaged in a common quest for mastery of the material’ (Feuerstein, Rand &
Hoffman 1979: 102). Thus, instruction takes center stage and psychometric measurement is
downplayed if not removed from the stage completely.
6.2 Illustration of interactionist dynamic assessment
The two examples of interactionist DA analyzed below are drawn from the video appendix
presented in Lantolf & Poehner (2007). We will see two interactions between a mediator
and an advanced L2 learner of French as they collaborate to help the learner produce her
desired meaning while narrating a scene from the Hollywood movie Nine Months, starring
Hugh Grant and Julianne Moore. In the scene Sam expresses his shock at discovering that
Rebecca is pregnant.
In the first episode, Donna (pseudonym) has problems deciding on the appropriate verbal
aspect – passé composée or imparfait – to use to relate the fact that Sam is shocked at hearing the
news of Rebecca’s pregnancy.
Episode A: passé composée or imparfait
1. D: . . . en traı̂n de compter dans un livre tout à coup elle a dit à Samuel ah

in the process of counting in a book all of a sudden she said to Samuel
2. bon je suis enceinte et Samuel était très choqué a été choqué était choqué
well I am pregnant and Samuel was very shocked was shocked was shocked
3. M: which one?
4. D: (laughs) okay
5. M: était, a été?
was, has been?
6. D: c’était un choque à lui cette nouvelle donc il était choqué et ça juste
it was a shock to him this news so he was shocked and that just after
7. D: après ça –
that
8. M: il était choqué –
he was shocked
9. D: il était choqué à cause de cette nouvelle
he was shocked because of this news
10. M: okay, using imparfait
11. D: using imparfait
12. M: because?
13. D: parce que il était choqué he was shocked he started to be shocked and
because he was shocked
continued to be shocked by this news but I think I first chose passé
composé to note that at a very distinct point he started to become shocked
14. M: so emphasizing that?
15. D: right so maybe what I want to say is il a il a été choqué
he was he was shocked
As the interaction opens, Donna (line 2) vacillates between the constructions était choqué
(imparfait), expressing ongoing aspect, and a été choqué (passé composée) conveying completed
aspect. At this point the mediator interrupts (line 3), asking which aspect Donna wishes to use
to describe the situation. Donna’s immediate reaction is laughter (line 4), which we believe
shows her uncertainty regarding aspect. The mediator (line 5) does not resolve Donna’s
quandary but instead expresses verbally what in fact the quandary is: était, a été? At this point,
Donna responds by justifying, in French (line 6), that the imperfect would be appropriate and
then continues with the narration (line 7). At first the mediator (line 8) appears to confirm,
through repetition, Donna’s choice of aspect. However, Donna interprets the repetition
as a request to justify her choice, and she launches into an explanation for her selection
(line 9). This is interrupted by the mediator (line 10), who now switches to metalanguage.
Donna repeats the mediators utterance (line 11), but the mediator now asks her explicitly
(line 12) for an explanation for her aspect choice. This triggers (line 13) an extended stretch of
meta-talk in English. As she verbalizes her explanation, Donna begins to realize that imparfait
might not be the appropriate choice. The mediator (line 14) prompts her to continue her
reasoning, and finally Donna settles on the passé composée (line 15). In essence Donna talks
herself into the more appropriate option to express her intended meaning; however, she is
unable to do this alone and requires hints and prompts from the mediator to reach her
conclusion. This shows not only the value of effectively deployed mediation but also the fact
that verbalization of the thinking process (i.e., self reflection) in itself is a powerful form of
mediation (see Swain & Lapkin 2002; Negueruela 2003; Yáñez Prieto 2008).2
A bit later in her narration, Donna again encounters difficulties when relating the
argument that ensues when Samuel accuses Rebecca of not having taken the proper
precautions to prevent her pregnancy. In the episode we examine in B, the focus of Donna’s
language problem is on a complex negative construction involving an infinitive and a verb
clitic.
Episode B: Negative construction
1. D: okay um et uh Samuel l’accusait, okay I have to think about this (grabs a

and uh Samuel was accusing her
2. pen and moves it toward a piece but does not write anything) I need your little handouts
3. M: (laughs) well maybe we can figure it out
4. D: Samuel l’accusait à n’être pas ∗ à ne pas (. . .) (produces a series of beat
gestures across the blank page)
Samuel was accusing her of not being
5. M: l’accusait like l–apostrophe–accusait?
was accusing her like l apostrophe was accusing
6. D: yeah l’accusait n’avoir pas ∗ le soin? avec ses médicaments um pour uh (. . .)
was accusing her of not having the care? with her medication um for uh
7. comment dit–on birth control en français? (laughs)
how do you say birth control in French ?
8. M: uh la limitation de naissance
2 Donna also used gesture to work out her choice of aspect. For full consideration of this interesting topic, see Lantolf
(forthcoming a).
9. D: limitation, not having taken care with her birth control, Samuel l’accusait –
Samuel was accusing her
10. M: so like l’accusait l’ and accusait being the imperfect imparfait?
11. D: imparfait he was accusing her of not being careful uh (. . .)
12. M: right so remember you were using the negative I’m sorry you were using
the infinitive like avoir so remember when you’re using the negative with the
infinitive where you put the ne and the pas
13. D: the ne and the pas are together
14. M: right and it goes before
15. D: oh ∗à ne pas avoir le soin
not having care
16. M: or pris de soin
taken care
17. D: ne pas avoir, il l’accusait à
doesn’t have he was accusing her of
18. M: de ne pas
of not
19. D: de ne pas avoir pris de soin avec ses médicaments
of not having taken care with her medications
20. M: right
Donna comments right at the outset (line 1) that she needs to think about the construction
she is trying to produce and immediately picks up a pen and positions it over a yellow writing
pad lying on the desk next to her as if she were intending to write something. It is revealing,
but not too surprising, that Donna relates thinking to writing, a process that is a manifestation
of private speech (see DiCamilla & Lantolf 1994; John-Steiner 1997). She also remarks that
the handouts distributed in class by the instructor would be helpful artifacts to support her
thinking.3 Interestingly, Donna does not actually write anything, and when the mediator
notices this, he laughs and suggests that they jointly figure out the construction (line 3). At this
point, Donna proceeds to talk to herself while marking out a series of beat gestures with pen
in hand across the face of the page with each beat coinciding with a word in the utterance
she is attempting to construct (line 4).4
The mediator draws Donna’s attention (line 5) to the verb accusait thinking that the
completed aspect might be more appropriate, although Donna’s choice of imparfait is certainly
acceptable. In fact, Donna (line 6) confirms her choice of aspect by repeating the verb accusait.
The problem for her is not with aspect selection but with the negative construction. She makes
this clear to the mediator when she explains in English (line 9) the idea she wishes to express.
Before stating this, however, she asks for the French word for ‘birth control’ (line 7), which the
mediator provides (line 8). Notice that when Donna produces the final version of the utterance
(line 19), she fails to use the expression provided by the mediator and instead reverts to her
original term médicaments, a clear indication that her attention is singularly focused on the
problematic negative construction. Indeed she begins to repeat the French expression for
3 On the connection between artifacts and conceptual knowledge, see Lantolf (forthcoming b), Negueruela (2003), Yáñez
Prieto (2008).
4 On the function of beat gestures in L2 performance, see McCafferty (1998).
birth control (line 9), but abandons her effort and shifts her attention back to the source of
her difficulty.
The mediator (line 10) again repeats the imperfect form of the verb, thinking that this might
still be part of the problem. However, Donna is insistent that the problem is the negative
construction, as indicated by her repetition of the utterance in English (line 11). Once the
mediator understands Donna’s communicative intention, he prompts her (line 12) to consider
the placement of the negative particles ne and pas in infinitival constructions. Donna recalls
(line 13) that the particles occur next to each other. The mediator confirms this (line 14)
and reminds Donna that the ne pas construction must appear in pre-infinitival position. This
may be an instance of overly explicit mediation, since the mediator did not allow Donna to
indicate if she already possessed this knowledge. Thus, an opportunity to fully explore the
extent of the learner’s ability may have been missed. Donna’s ‘oh’ (line15) could very well be
an indication that she indeed knew, or was at least familiar with, the proper constituent order.
She proceeds to flesh out the full construction, but omits the necessary past participle pris.
The mediator, instead of allotting Donna the opportunity to furnish the missing participle,
correctly recasts this portion of the utterance (line 16), again missing a chance to fully explore
Donna’s knowledge. Donna repeats the problematic negative construction (line 17) and then
begins to reproduce the full utterance but this time she uses the incorrect particle a instead of
the correct de. The mediator (line 18) immediately recasts the construction with the proper
particle. Finally, Donna repeats the full construction (line 19), which the mediator confirms
as correct (line 20).
The differences in the performance of both interactants between episodes A and B are
quite marked. In episode A, Donna’s indecision regarding verbal aspect prompts the mediator
to force her to make a decision. Once the process begins, Donna requires minimal assistance
from the mediator as she talks herself into the appropriate aspect selection. In episode B, on
the other hand, the mediator was more overtly and explicitly involved in assisting Donna
construct her intended utterance. Even though he missed potential opportunities to probe
Donna’s knowledge of the negative construction, it seems clear that it was not a feature of
French that she was highly familiar with.
We can conclude that verbal aspect is well within Donna’s ZPD and that she is quite close
to gaining control over this property of the language. The picture is rather different with
regard to the negative construction. That Donna needed a great deal of overt mediation to
even begin to put the construction together shows that she has a way to go before she can
use the feature with facility. If it is even within her ZPD, it is likely to be in the early stages
of development. We would, therefore, anticipate that in the future Donna would control
aspect much sooner than the negative construction and that she would require much more
instruction in the latter than in the former case. Indeed, as Poehner’s (2008) research shows,
Donna was able to transfer what she learned about aspect in episode A to other occasions
where aspect choices impacted on the meaning of her narratives. Given that use of the
negative construction is not a high-frequency occurrence, we have been unable to document
Donna’s future performances in this regard.
The point of the foregoing discussion is that in traditional assessment it is highly unlikely
that a distinction would be made between Donna’s unmediated performance on the two
linguistic features under consideration here. In both cases her performance would have
been problematic at best and wrong at worst. Her indecision in episode A is in traditional
understanding of assessment just as problematic as the negative construction she produced in
episode B. Of course, we cannot be absolutely certain how her performance on a traditional
assessment would play out since Donna was not given a formal test. Nevertheless, I believe
that the two protocols taken together illustrate powerfully Vygotsky’s (1998: 245) assertion
that ‘determining the actual level of development [i.e., unmediated solo performance] not
only does not cover the whole picture of development, but very frequently encompasses only
an insignificant part of it’.
7. Dynamic assessment and psychometrics
I would like to make a few final comments that focus briefly on psychometric issues of
reliability and validity and DA, especially in its interactionist version. For a more in-depth
discussion of reliability see Lidz (1991) and for a well developed discussion of validity as it
relates to language assessment, see Poehner (forthcoming).
With regard to reliability, we must keep in mind that this construct derives its foundation
from the ontology of the autonomous individual. In this view, the environment may influence
development (e.g., its rate), but it does not play a major role. For this reason, outside influences
must be tightly controlled during assessments in order to avoid contamination from extraneous
factors. The ontology proposed in Vygotsky’s theory is quite different – it is an ontology of
the individual as a socially constructed being and as such the environment is not a factor
in development – it is the very source of development. This perspective, then, requires
that assessment take account of the role of others in the assessment itself; otherwise, as
Vygotsky argued (see above), we do not obtain the full picture of the individual’s abilities.
In other words, assessment must look to the future and not to the past and this requires
an integral and indispensable role for social mediation. From this perspective, then, change
rather than stability is at the heart of effective assessment. As Lidz (1991: 18) observes,
‘the word “dynamic” implies change and not stability. Items on traditional measures are
deliberately selected to maximize stability, not necessarily to provide an accurate reflection of
stability or change in the “real” world’. This does not mean that reliability is to be ignored.
It does mean, however, that its role in effective assessment is redefined within the ontology
of the social individual and the ZPD. If one engages in formal assessment, then to determine
an individual’s actual developmental level requires a test that is reliable. However, because
mediation is an indispensable component of assessment, one must seek to provoke change
during the administration of the test. According to standard psychometric assumptions, this
introduces an error measurement into the process, which compromises reliability. Yet from
the perspective of mediation in the ZPD, this is precisely what ought to occur. The error, in
this case, represents development.
Validity is a more complex issue. There are various ways of thinking about validity. For
the purposes of the present discussion, I will address only two of these: predictive and
consequential validity. With regard to the former, given Vygotsky’s argument that mediated
performance is an empirical predictor of future solo performance, DA makes a strong claim
with regard to predictive validity. It is a claim that can be readily verified, as for instance was
done in Poehner’s (2007) research, in particular with regard to the concept of transcendence,
whereby learners are expected to extend what they internalize during mediational episodes
to other more complex activities.
Finally, consequential validity is an especially relevant matter. There are serious ethical
problems having to do with the use of assessment outcomes based exclusively on solo
performance to make decisions that impact the lives of individuals and the institutions
in which they function. How appropriate is it, for example, to place students into the same
language course on the basis of their solo performance knowing that their relative mediated
performances could vary significantly and that the individuals in question would benefit from
different forms of instruction? How ethical is it to knowingly miss an opportunity to help
someone develop during an assessment for the sake of maintaining psychometric principles?
These are important matters that one must confront when Vygotsky’s theory of educational
development is taken seriously. On the other hand, language-based DA researchers have the
responsibility to develop appropriate ways of making the results of DA meaningful to those
who must make decisions that impact on the lives of learners. Poehner has begun to take
steps in this direction, but there is still work to be done.
Acknowledgements
Research funded in part by a grant from the United States Department of Education Grant
(CFDA 84.229, P229A020010-03). However, the contents do not necessarily represent the
policy of the Department of Education, and one should not assume endorsement by the
Federal Government.
References
Aljaafreh, A. & J. P. Lantolf (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in
the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal 78, 465–483.
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The Zone of Proximal Development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and
instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev & S. M. Miller (eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in
cultural context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 39–64.
Cheng, L. (2005). Changing language teaching through language testing: A washback study. Cambridge: UCLES/
Cambridge University Press.
Davydov, V. V. (2004). Problems of developmental instruction: A theoretical and experimental psychological study
(translated by Peter Moxhay). Moscow: Akademiya Press.
DiCamilla, F. & J. P. Lantolf (1994). The linguistic analysis of private writing. Language Sciences 16,
347–369.
Ellis, N. (2007). The associative–cognitive CREED. In VanPatten & J. Williams (eds.), 77–98.
Ferreira, M. & J. P. Lantolf (2008). A concept-based approach to teaching writing through genre
analysis. In J. P. Lantolf & M. E. Poehner (eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages.
London: Equinox, 285–320.
Feuerstein, R., Y. Rand & M. B. Hoffman (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning
potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Fogel, A. (1991). Developing through relationships: Origins of communication, self, and culture. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Gal’perin, P. Ya. (1967). On the notion of internalization. Soviet Psychology 5.3, 28–33.
Gal’perin, P. Ya. (1979). The role of orientation in thought. Soviet Psychology 18.2, 19–45.
Gass, S. M. & A. Mackey (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In
VanPatten & Williams (eds.), 175–200.
Guthke, J., A. Heinrich & M. Caruso (1986). The diagnostic program of ‘syntactical rule and vocabulary
acquisition’: A contribution to the psychodiagnosis of foreign language learning. In F. Klix & H.
Hagendorf (eds.), Human memory and cognitive capabilities: Mechanisms and performances. Amsterdam:
Elsevier, 127–152.
Haywood, H. C. & C. S. Lidz (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
John-Steiner, V. (1997). Notebooks of the mind: Explorations in thinking (revised edn.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Karpov, Y. B. & H. C. Haywood (1998). Two ways to elaborate Vygotsky’s concept of mediation:
Implications for instruction. American Psychologist 53, 27–36.
Kinard, J. T., Sr. & A. Kozulin (2008). Rigorous mathematical thinking: Conceptual formation in the mathematics
classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kozulin, A. (1995). The learning process: Vygotsky’s theory in the mirror of its interpretations. School
Psychology International 16, 117–129.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
Lafford B. A (ed.) (2007). Second language acquisition reconceptualized? The impact of Firth and Wagner (1997).
Focus issue of The Modern Language Journal 91.
Lantolf, J. P. (2007). Conceptual knowledge and instructed second language learning: A sociocultural
perspective. In. S. Fotos & H. Nassaji (eds.), Form focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honour
of Rod Ellis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 35–54.
Lantolf, J. P. (forthcoming a). Minding your hands: The function of gesture in L2 learning. In R.
Batstone (ed.), Sociocognitive approaches to SLA. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P. (forthcoming b). Praxis and classroom L2 development. ELIA: Estudios de Lingüı́stica Inglesa
Aplicada.
Lantolf, J. P. & M. E. Poehner (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into
the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1, 49–74.
Lantolf, J. P. & M. E. Poehner (2007). Dynamic assessment: A teacher’s guide. University Park, PA: CALPER
Publications.
Lantolf, J. P. & M. E. Poehner (2008). Dynamic assessment. In E. Shohamy (ed.), The Encyclopedia of
language and education (vol. 7): Language testing and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
273–285.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & M. H. Long (1991). Introduction to second language acquisition research. London:
Longman.
Leontiev, A. A. (1981). Psychological and the language learning process. New York: Pergamon.
Lidz, C. (1991). Practioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford.
Long, M. (1998). SLA: Breaking the siege. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL 17, 79–129.
Luria, A. R. (1961). Study of the abnormal child. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry: A Journal of Human
Behavior 31, 1–16.
Marx, K. (1844/1972). Grundrisse: Foundations of the critique of political economy. In Tucker (ed.), 221–
293.
Marx, K. (1845/1972). Theses on Feuerbach. In Tucker (ed.), 143–145.
McCafferty, S. G. (1998). Nonverbal expression and L2 private speech. Applied Linguistics 19, 73–96.
Minick, N. (1987). Implications of Vygotsky’s theories for dynamic assessment. In C. Lidz (ed.), Dynamic
assessment: An interactive approach to evaluating learning potential. New York: The Guilford Press, 116–
140.
Negueruela, E. (2003). A sociocultural approach to the teaching–learning of second languages :
Systemic-theoretical instruction and L2 development. Ph.D. dissertation, The Pennsylvania State
University.
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Poehner, M. E. (2007). Beyond the test: L2 dynamic assessment and the transcendence of mediated
learning. The Modern Language Journal 91, 323–340.
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development.
Berlin: Springer.
Poehner, M. E. (forthcoming). Dynamic assessment as a dialectical framework for validity in the L2

classroom.
Poehner, M. E. & J. P. Lantolf (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching
Research 9, 1–33.
Rossi-Landi, F. (1983). Language as work & trade: A semiotic homology for linguistics & economics. South Hadley,
MA: Bergin & Adams.
Swain, M. & S. Lapkin (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to
reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research 37, 285–304.
Talyzina, N. (1981). The psychology of learning. Moscow: Progress Press.
Tarone, E. (2007). Sociolinguistic approaches to second language acquisition research –1997–2007.
The Modern Language Journal 91, 837–348.
Tucker R. C (ed.) (1972). The Marx–Engels Reader. New York: W. W. Norton.
VanPatten B. & J. Williams (eds.) (2007). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (ed. by M. Cole, V.
John–Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (vol. 1): Problems of general psychology, including the
volume Thinking and speech (ed. by R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton). New York: Plenum.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (vol. 4): The history of the development of higher mental
functions (ed. by R. W. Rieber). New York: Plenum.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (vol. 5): Child psychology (ed. by R. W. Rieber).
New York: Plenum.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). The historical meaning of the crisis in psychology: A methodological
investigation. In R. W. Rieber & D. K. Robinson. (eds.), The essential Vygotsky. New York: Kluwer/
Plenum, 227–344.
Yáñez Prieto, C. M. (2008). On literature and the secret art of invisible words: Teaching literature
through language. Ph.D. dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.
JAMES P. LANTOLF is Greer Professor in Language Acquisition and Applied Linguistics and Director
of the Center for Language Acquisition at The Pennsylvania State University. He is former president
of the American Association for Applied Linguistics and co-editor of Applied Linguistics. His research
interests include sociocultural theory, second language acquisition, and language pedagogy.
Lang. Teach. (2009), 42:3, 369–396
doi:10.1017/S0261444809005783
Surveys of Ph.D./Ed.D. Theses
Review of doctoral research in second-language teaching

and learning in England (2006)
Emma Marsden University of York, UK

em502@york.ac.uk
Suzanne Graham University of Reading, UK

s.j.graham@reading.ac.uk
Using the British ‘Index to Theses’, we found forty-seven Ph.D.s relating to second and foreign
language learning and/or teaching defended in English universities in 2006. Objective criteria
led us to fourteen theses which had investigated BOTH teaching and learning. Over half of
these adopted a process–product research design with the aim of finding causal relationships
between teaching and learning. Six theses focused on individual differences (motivation,
strategies, attitudes), with three adopting an ‘effectiveness-of-intervention’ approach and
three following more descriptive, exploratory designs. The designs of the
‘effectiveness-of-intervention’ studies varied greatly, ranging from naturalistic evaluations to
highly controlled randomised control experiments. They covered a range of pedagogical
concerns, including the use of computers, error correction, language portfolios, learner
strategies and communicative-style activities. In addition to our own comments on the quality
of the studies and reports, we present considerable methodological detail to enable the
reader to evaluate the validity of the findings and claims made in each study. We argue that
Ph.D. theses need to demonstrate fully that the implications drawn from the study are
supported by the data collection and analyses described, which was not always the case in
the theses reviewed. Finally, we make suggestions for future areas of investigation by
postgraduate researchers.
1. Introduction
For this review, we wanted to reduce selection bias as far as possible, to avoid, for example,
favouring particular institutions or omitting relevant theses. This was our primary aim when
developing selection procedures to reduce the number of theses to a feasible number for the
purposes of this paper. The first section of the paper outlines how we tried to achieve this, and
provides brief overviews of the broad areas which were studied at doctoral level but which
we could not include in our more in-depth reviews. The second and third sections constitute
more in-depth reviews of two (overlapping) groups of theses which investigated both second
370 SURVEYS OF PH.D./ED.D. THESES
or foreign (henceforth L2) language teaching AND learning: one group of ‘process–product’
studies, and one group of studies looking at ‘individual differences’ (some of which also took
a ‘process–product’ approach). In the final section we briefly consider how theory has been
used in the studies, and comment on our review process itself.
As our main aim was to be as objective and systematic as possible in our selection, we do not
claim to have chosen the ‘most significant’ theses in terms of our own (subjective) judgement
of the magnitude or quality of their potential contribution to the field of L2 teaching and
learning. Rather, our selection focused on providing an overview of the nature and quality
of doctoral studies which investigated relationships between L2 teaching and learning. The
studies are all significant in that they give us insight into how these relationships were
conceptualised and explored. Taken together, they illustrate some of the methodological,
theoretical and ethical challenges faced when looking for useful causal relationships between
teaching and learning.
2. Selection criteria and overview of the field
We carried out the first search using the British Library’s ‘Index to Theses’ (http://www.
theses.com). The British Library is notified of the final submission of theses, and so this was
an objective and systematic way of accessing an initial sample. We used just two key terms:
‘Language’ and ‘2006’.1 These very broad terms were necessary, as more specific search
criteria excluded some relevant theses.
This search revealed 442 records, including theses relating to L1 learning, literature,
computational linguistics, historical linguistics, genetics, and philosophy. A manual search of
these 442 abstracts was then carried out to retain all those related to L2 language learning
and/or teaching. We excluded all Ed.D and MSc. theses, and all those not submitted in
England (we found four Ph.D.s from Scotland that would have fitted our other criteria). This
second search left a pool of 47 theses all related to L2 learning and teaching, though not
necessarily both. These 47 theses seemed to fall into three categories: those broadly related
to L2 and education (though not specifically related to learning an L2), those broadly related
to L2 acquisition and use2 (though not specifically linked to classroom instruction), and those
which involved some study of both L2 teaching and language learning. Here we give a broad
overview of the first two groups before providing a more in-depth review of the third group.
There were fifteen theses which were broadly related to language education in general.
Language LEARNING was not a primary focus of the design, data collection or analysis. This
group included six theses relating to language teacher education and teacher cognition, which
space constraints do not allow us to reference. In addition, Thepsiri’s (2006) thesis documented
teachers’ use of and attitudes towards scaffolding for different teaching functions during
project work in a university in Taiwan, and Cheng’s (2006) study documented teachers’
views about and use of motivational techniques for L2 teaching. Liang (2006) described
1 We found only four records from 2007. We did not include these as we could not be sure that this truly represented the
area that year, or whether there was a delay in uploading records to the database.
2 The terms acquisition and learning are used inter-changeably in this article.
EMMA MARSDEN & SUZANNE GRAHAM: ENGLAND 371
vocabulary teaching practices in primary EFL (English as a Foreign Language) classes in

Taiwan. Another thesis explored whether cultural background influenced use of Information
and Communications Technology in L2 classrooms (Field 2006). Brereton (2006) examined
whether using sign language to hearing, preschool children had any effects on the pupils’
involvement in lessons. Manners (2006) investigated relationships between Specific Language
Impairment and English as an Additional Language. One thesis (Ward 2006) was a textbook
analysis, scrutinising the lexicon of undergraduate engineering textbooks. Another study
addressed language planning (Coluzzi 2006). Finally, there was one study which looked at
perceptions of a language course (Bin Yusot 2006).
A second set of fourteen studies related mainly to L2 learning and use. The L2 classroom
or formal teaching was not an explicit design feature of the empirical study. Within this
group, there were five studies which assumed a generativist (Universal Grammar) explanation
for L2 acquisition phenomena. Four others looked at L2 acquisition from other linguistic
perspectives: an analysis of native and non-native verb use in writing (Guo 2006), the use of
prefabricated language in EAP articles (McKenny 2006), and the pragmatics of EFL refusals
(Kasemsin 2006). One focussed on the effects of bilingualism on cognition (Athanasopoulos
2006). Five other theses were more sociolinguistically oriented, using ethnographic techniques
within immigrant, migrant or minority communities: Goglia (2006) examined code-switching
among immigrants in Italy, Souza (2006) looked at ethnic and social identity and language
choice among a Brazilian speaking community in London, Carlson (2006) examined and
evaluated the implementation of a home-based literacy programme for bilinguals, and
Edwards (2006) looked at variables which influence use of L2 English and willingness
to communicate among Korean learners of English outside the classroom. Mertin (2006)
investigated differing expectations about teaching and learning among the social, personal
and academic communities linked to a group of Japanese EFL learners at an international
high school.
To reduce the number of theses to a manageable size for an in-depth review, two further
selection criteria were used. One was to exclude three theses relating exclusively to language
testing (Lonsdale 2006; Lu 2006; Tonkyn 2006). The other criterion was to exclude studies
which had an individual action research approach. Ting (2006) fitted this criterion, looking
at the teacher-researcher’s own use of internet resources and their understanding and use of
theories of multiple intelligences.
This left fourteen theses for more in-depth review. These included, as part of the design of
their empirical study, an investigation of both L2 teaching and learning. We categorised them
according to two broad criteria. One group contained eight ‘process–product’ studies which
investigated causal relationships between teaching and learning to evaluate the effectiveness of
interventions. One of these was unavailable (Lee 2006).3 The other group brought together
studies investigating individual differences, and included six theses relating to motivation,
attitudes and learner strategies. The nature of these categorising principles was clearly
different, one being methodological (‘process–product’) and one substantive (‘individual
differences’). Inevitably, these categories overlapped, as Wiliwan (2006) and Walters (2006)
conducted intervention studies looking at learner strategy use, and Bavendiek (2006) looked
3 We could not obtain the thesis via inter-library loans or from the author.
at the effect of a language portfolio programme on learner motivation. For the purposes of
structuring this paper, these three were reviewed along with the individual differences theses.
3. Process–product studies
Seven ‘effectiveness of intervention’ theses are reviewed here. One was a naturalistic
evaluation of current practice (Al-Ghamdi 2006). The other six developed interventions
specifically for the research. Two of these incorporated an experimental intervention
into ongoing practice (Hill 2006; Tuncel 2006); the remaining four set up experimental
and comparison interventions for the purposes of the study. Two of these evaluated the
effectiveness of specific interventions using computer technology (Ciobanu 2006; Niño 2006);
the other two tested the effectiveness of specific classroom teaching techniques and materials
(Sheen 2006; Skoufaki 2006).
Al-Ghamdi (2006) carried out an ambitious evaluation of an English for Specific Purposes
(ESP) programme for 190 male first-year students on medicine and medical science degrees
at a Saudi university. He evaluated whether the ESP course achieved its objectives, whether
its content and methodology were appropriate to its objectives, and whether its stakeholders
were satisfied with it. The course was taught and tested in six discrete components: grammar,
reading, writing, lecture and note-taking, medical vocabulary, and communication skills.
Al-Ghamdi critically appraises approaches to evaluating language teaching, concluding
that mixed methods are required to look at the product and the process, and his study focused
on evaluating the process for formative purposes. Al-Ghamdi’s evaluation procedure used: (i)
achievement data from purpose-designed pre- and post-English language tests, and in-house
tests from the language centre and the medical faculties; (ii) real time observation notes from
35 hours of lessons, with data coded according to four, a priori, thematic categories: students’
motivation and participation, mother tongue use, students’ involvement with materials, and
classroom management; (iii) four different questionnaires to four groups of stakeholders
(fifteen subject (i.e. non-language) teachers, six language teachers, four administrators, and
a midway and end-of-course questionnaire to 80 students) regarding attitudes, motivation,
views and perceived needs regarding the course delivery, structure and resources; (iv) an
analysis of the course textbook, syllabus specifications and curriculum objectives.
The pre–post-tests included items from IELTS (International English Language Testing
System) academic tests (selected for their relevance to medicine), and a TOEFL (Test of
English as a Foreign Language) structure and written expressions test. Two randomly selected
intact classes (25% of the students) took the pre- and post-tests. Twelve students also took
speaking tests, but these were then, unfortunately, excluded from analysis as Al-Ghamdi
considered the sample too small. A medium positive correlation (r = .542) was found between
Al-Ghamdi’s tests and the in-house tests. Al Ghamdi (perhaps over-)confidently interpreted
this as evidence that ‘the compiled proficiency test is a valid and appropriate means to
evaluate the effectiveness of the programme’ (p. 114).
The pre- and post-tests showed statistically significant improvement from the start to the
end of the ESP course in listening, reading, grammar and writing. Al-Ghamdi used data from
the questionnaires and interviews to argue, reasonably, that the course was responsible for
these gains. A very high positive correlation (r2 = .74) was found between the in-house English
achievement tests and the students’ biochemistry and physiology scores. Al-Ghamdi suggests
that this demonstrates the validity of the language centre’s assessment procedures. However,
this argument assumes that the medical scores are themselves valid. The possibilities that
subject knowledge was causally related to language proficiency, or that both were related to
another causative factor, were not discussed. We found the reporting of the statistics difficult
to follow in places (e.g. sample size was equated with variance (p. 116), effect size was equated
with the amount of variability explained (p. 119), and different tests were used on the same
data without appropriate justification).
Most stakeholders said they would have preferred an intensive, course-prerequisite
programme, and most, except the students, thought that greater priority should be given
to reading than to lecture note taking and grammar. The dense document analysis and
observation data did not result in a positive evaluation of the lecture note-taking classes. Al-
Ghamdi used these, and other, findings to challenge the rationale behind component-based
language teaching.
The subject teachers were divided equally between considering the course effective,
ineffective and not knowing, whereas the other three groups of stakeholders all rated the
effectiveness of the course more favourably. As this was a small case study, it is difficult to
ascertain what this means for the language programme compared to stakeholders’ opinions
about other language programmes.
Al-Ghamdi’s recommendations mainly focus on macro-delivery issues, such as the timing
and duration of the course, integrating language skills to make two large components of
‘literacy’ and ‘fluency’, greater collaboration between medical and language staff about
students’ needs, improving staff workloads and training, and redesigning the syllabus
specifications. He also suggests some changes in the types and use of textbooks, students’
attendance and time management in the classroom. On the whole the recommendations
are linked to the empirical findings, although a few are less clearly warranted by his
data.
Four pages (pp. 222–226) discuss the evaluation methods themselves. Al-Ghamdi concludes
that the programme is effective (p. 122), though his design does not investigate effectiveness
as a relative construct. For us, the study raises questions as to whether such an approach
to evaluation can isolate cause and effect relationships between perceived weaknesses and
specific problems. As Al-Ghamdi himself points out ‘the pre-experimental method [the one
group pre- and post-test] cannot tell if the effect is necessarily caused by the programme itself’
(p. 9). Nor can the pre-experimental model tell us whether the programme was as effective as
another course. Al-Ghamdi sensibly recommends a follow-up experiment, using the current
study as a baseline for comparison, and an experimental intervention incorporating the
recommendations from his study. Standardised assessments specifically for medical English
might also improve the generalisabilty of such case study evaluations. We were unable to
contact Al-Ghamdi to see whether this case study has changed local practice.
The next two theses reviewed incorporated a specifically designed experimental
intervention into on-going courses. In the first two-thirds of his thesis, Hill (2006) provides a
(rather unwieldy) overview of many theories of grammar, language, cognition and learning. He
ambitiously brings these different domains and perspectives to bear on a specific pedagogical
issue: how to teach English aspect and tense to Japanese learners. Hill claims to have evaluated
various theories of grammar in terms of how well they describe aspect and tense, and how
well they could account for its acquisition. His main thesis is that learners may benefit from
being told, explicitly, about how tense and aspect are realised via lexical semantics, following
the Aspect Hypothesis (Andersen & Shirai 1994). In addition, Hill incorporated the notions
of using cognitive schemata, metaphor, metonymy, the Zone of Proximal Development and
other regulation (Vygotsky 1978) in his conceptualisation of how tense and aspect might be
taught.
The thesis then presents a wide range of research questions and a series of empirical
studies which Hill claimed addressed them. The first empirical study was a questionnaire
given to fourteen English teachers at a university in Japan, eliciting teachers’ thinking about
the teaching of grammar, and of tense and aspect in particular. One interesting finding to
emerge from this was that a high proportion of teachers responded ‘don’t know’ to questions
about the use of metaphor for teaching grammar, suggesting that the approach suggested by
Hill was indeed innovative.
The second and third empirical studies share some characteristics with classroom
experiments, though methodological discussion was limited (at least in the electronic version
Hill kindly provided). Hill reports that these studies were, essentially, action research, but
with broadly defined ‘control’ groups. He used two intact groups at his university from two
different faculties: one intact group for the treatment (n = 16) and one for the control (n
= 11). The materials for the treatment group were a mix of written and structured oral
pair-work exercises, lasting for two 90-minute sessions over about eight weeks. They include
activities which operationalised a learner-friendly version of some features of the Aspect
Hypothesis, alongside some rule and practice activities, such as gap filling, which were in fact
very traditional, and their links to the literature reviewed was not always clear. One of the
refreshing features of this study was that the intervention (though, unfortunately, not that of
the control group) was fully documented.
Hill gave the subjects a pre- and post-test, in line with normal experimental practice.
According to this, the control group was at a lower proficiency level before the treatment
began. He also gave the learners a ‘traditional’ grammar test, but this was only administered
as a post-test, so comparisons between groups were unreliable as it was not known how the
groups would have performed prior to the intervention. Despite these two issues, Hill seemed
confident in concluding that the specific nature of his teaching materials brought benefits to
the experimental group, evidenced by learning gains on the 25-item post-test.
The third empirical study used a sample similar to the second, with a 90-minute
intervention focussing on future tense and aspect, and then another 90-minute intervention
on present perfect tense and aspect. Hill used semi-controlled sentence level oral tests to
assess learning gains,4 and ANOVAs and t-tests to compare some of his results, though more
consideration might have been given to how appropriate these statistical procedures were
with small non-randomised samples which were not matched at baseline.
4 It was not clear from the thesis sent to us, and the author could not be contacted to clarify, whether there were also
written tests.
Hill acknowledges some of the weaknesses of his study, such as the fact that the experimental
group may have performed well because they received extra attention from Hill himself (a
possible Hawthorne effect5 ), and towards the end of the thesis discusses some ethical concerns
of his research design. His empirical studies illustrate some of the challenges of conducting
rigorous classroom experiments, but, perhaps most usefully, his thesis demonstrates an attempt
at bringing together socio-cultural and cognitive perspectives on language and learning,
probably reflecting a recent trend in the applied linguistics community towards exploring
these interfaces.
Tuncel (2006) aimed to search for ways to improve the effectiveness of English for Academic
Purposes programmes run by private institutions who prepare students for study at English-
medium universities in Northern Cyprus. He also aimed to address the lack of experiments
evaluating the usefulness of incorporating communicative elements into a curriculum. His
theoretical and empirical backdrop was the work done in the early 1980s on defining and
discussing communicative language competence and teaching (CLT).
Tuncel first administered four questionnaires to preparation school teachers, test designers,
university lecturers and students, totalling 971 respondents. Key findings that influenced the
subsequent experimental study were: the lecturers and students thought that proficiency
in speaking was the weakest skill area; the school teachers were not satisfied with student
progression; most agreed that the students’ proficiency varied between low-elementary and
average pre-intermediate, and this was deemed inadequate by Tuncel for the purposes of
studying at an English-medium university. The testing officers thought the tests mainly
assessed the explicit grammar content of the course.
One preparation school was then selected to host a cluster-randomised experiment, with
participants aged between 18 and 25 years. Two intact classes (n = 38) were randomly
selected to be the experimental groups, leaving five intact control classes (n = 114). In
the experimental group, the official syllabus was supplemented with teaching using CLT
approaches, including ‘communicative and authentic’ (p. 17) materials, realistic contexts
and language-discovery techniques. The sample activities provided suggest that the CLT
activities focused on lexical features such as nouns, verb stems, and adjectives (including
numbers) and sentential comprehension. The control groups followed the normal syllabus,
focussing explicitly and proactively on grammatical structures through mechanical practice.
Although Tuncel claimed that the GRAMMAR of the official syllabus had been incorporated
into more communicative-style activities, it was not clear to us from the samples provided
how this incorporation was achieved. The empirical work which has tried to address this
major challenge (e.g. Doughty & Williams 1998) is not discussed in the thesis.
To accommodate the experimental teaching, the official material was completed ‘more
quickly’ (p. 215), leaving 20% of the time for the experimental activities. The teaching ran
for 25 hours a week, over nine months, amounting to about 700 hours with twenty staff
teaching the seven control groups. Tuncel himself taught both experimental groups for ten
out of the 25 hours per week. The remaining fifteen hours for each experimental group were
taught by two teachers who also taught some of the control groups. Unlike some of the other
theses reviewed, Tuncel does address the extent of disclosure to the participants; however,
5 The effects that researchers themselves can have on the phenomena they are investigating.
somewhat controversially, the students were not told that they were in a research study until
the end of the project.
Tuncel used the school’s in-house tests in grammar, reading, listening, speaking and writing
to monitor learning gains during the course finding, through t-tests and one-way ANOVAs,
that there were no statistically significant differences at the pre-test between the seven classes
in any of the five tests. At the post-test, statistically significant differences (of about 10%)
were found between the control and the experimental groups in all the measures. These
findings are broadly compatible with early CLT experimental work (e.g. Spada 1987). Tuncel
also found that one year after they had left the school, the (former) experimental group
had statistically significantly higher first-year scores on their undergraduate course than the
(former) control group.
Tuncel notes potentially confounding factors, such as students’ motivation or features of
the teaching (although, unfortunately, no records of the control or experimental teaching
were kept). Nevertheless, he argues that ‘there is a direct relationship between . . . the
programme [and] the improvement of the proficiency level of the learners’ (p. 307). However,
we could not find an acknowledgement that Tuncel himself was a possible confounding
factor, as he taught both experimental groups but not the control groups. Tuncel provides
pedagogical guidance, including recommendations for more information gap activities,
and more authentic materials and interaction. Some recommendations are more clearly
warranted by his findings than others (such as the need to monitor teachers’ work). The study
demonstrates that there is a continuing need to investigate the relative effectiveness of different
broad approaches to language teaching using experimental designs, though such questions
also require careful consideration of the rationale behind the approaches being evaluated
and the nature of the language competence to be tested, in addition to the methodological
concerns raised above.
The next four theses reviewed designed experiments outside normal curriculum time.
Sheen (2006) carried out a pre-test, post-test and delayed post-test experiment to compare
the effectiveness of different error correction techniques for learning the (as an anaphoric
referential definite marker, e.g. Pass me the pen), and a (as a first mention, referential indefinite
marker, e.g. I saw a strange man).
The study was conducted in a US community college with 10 native-speaking American
teachers and their 143 intermediate level learners, at ‘level 2’ from a program with four levels.
Sheen trained the participating teachers to deliver the interventions. Twelve intact classes
were randomly assigned to the following intervention conditions: two oral corrective feedback
groups (from five intact classes), i.e., an oral recasts group (n = 26) and an oral metalinguistic
group (n = 26); two written corrective feedback groups (from five intact classes), i.e., a written
direct correction group (n = 31) and a written metalinguistic group (n = 32); and one control
group (from two intact classes) (n = 28). Each group contained some learners with +article
L1s (e.g. Spanish) and some with –articles L1s (e.g. Korean). Sheen argued that as every group
had roughly the same proportion of L1 Spanish learners (between 20% and 35%), then any
L1 effect would have been observed equally in each group.
Three tests were used to measure learning gains: a time-constrained dictation test, a writing
test, and an error correction test (administered in that order during each session). The delayed
post-tests were administered three to four weeks after the end of the intervention. In the first
intervention session, all learners read a story and discussed the moral, and then the different
feedback conditions were administered. For the oral treatment types, students retold the story
to the class in groups of three. Recasts (either with or without metalinguistic information)
were provided on article errors to individual students, but the whole class also heard these
errors and corrections. In the written treatments, students rewrote the story. In the next class
students received their stories with corrected forms (either with or without metalinguistic
information). The control group had no stimulus material between the tests.
Sheen found that oral metalinguistic corrective feedback facilitated learning whereas oral
recasts alone did not. She argues that metalinguistic feedback made the forms more salient,
and promoted understanding (following Schmidt’s (1990) conceptualisations of awareness and
noticing). Written correction with and without metalinguistic comments were both effective
in improving the grammatical accuracy of English articles, but metalinguistic comments led
to greater gains. Written correction was found to be a more effective strategy than oral recasts.
Oral and written metalinguistic feedback was found to be equally effective. Sheen argues
that this provides evidence that written grammar correction can develop interlanguage. An
exit questionnaire indicated the following rank order of learners’ reported awareness of the
four corrective feedback techniques: written metalinguistic (52%), oral metalinguistic (35%),
written direct (25%) and oral recasts (0%).
Sheen also looked at whether three individual different variables influenced the
effectiveness of error correction techniques: attitudes towards error correction and
grammatical accuracy, language analytic ability, and learner anxiety. Learners with stronger
analytic abilities improved their grammatical accuracy with English articles to a greater extent
than those with weaker analytic abilities when provided with all types of corrective feedback,
except oral recasts. Less anxious learners benefited more from oral recasts with metalinguistic
correction than more anxious learners. Oral recasts alone were effective only for learners
with low levels of anxiety. Sheen suggests that anxiety interfered with the ability to notice oral
error correction but not with either type of written feedback. Learners with strong preferences
for error correction and linguistic accuracy achieved greater grammatical accuracy following
all types of feedback except oral recasts, compared to those with negative attitudes towards
corrective feedback. Sheen suggests that her data are compatible with previous studies which
have found that focussing error correction on many forms is ineffective, as her data suggested
that focussing on just one feature did result in learning gains.
Sheen takes care to base her implications on her actual data, and goes on to acknowledge
appropriately almost every conceivable limitation to her study, with relatively precise
suggestions for future research. She points out that the written format of the tests could
have biased the results in favour of the metalinguistic feedback groups, though she could
perhaps have gone further to address the issue of comparability between the oral and written
feedback techniques. As Sheen notes, further studies are now required to tease apart the effects
of providing the correct form and providing metalinguistic information, and to explore the
role of other individual differences, such as working memory and phonemic coding ability,
in the effectiveness of error correction. Critically, Sheen notes that as the control group did
not have any stimuli, the study could not assess the role of simple exposure to the stimuli.
Similarly, the brief nature of the treatment may have prevented the recasts (an implicit
feedback technique) from leading to statistically significant learning gains. These last two
points are important in that they constitute an (albeit indirect) acknowledgement that the
research design could not have found evidence AGAINST Schmidt’s (1990) noticing hypothesis,
though evidence compatible with it was found. However, such brief bursts of teaching on
a language feature IS reflective of normal practice and this affords high ecological validity
to the study. Another sensible argument put forward relating to ecological validity is that,
whereas some SLA (second-language acquisition) research has investigated implicit corrective
feedback which is tailored to INDIVIDUAL students’ zone of proximal development (Vygotsky
1978), Sheen points out that this is unrealistic in a whole-class situation. Her study is therefore
significant in that it suggests that metalinguistic feedback with a recast may be the best option
under normal teaching conditions.
The relative effectiveness of different ways of presenting and practising idioms was the
focus of Skoufaki (2006), who conducted two pairs of experiments with Greek students from
various disciplines at the University of Athens, aged between 17 and 28 years, and who
were attending classes preparing for the Cambridge Proficiency in English examination.
Each experiment had a similar timed test phase: a cloze test, missing two or three words of
each idiom, to assess retention of the idioms’ form; and four questions to assess retention of
the idioms’ meanings. Skoufaki was the instructor throughout, thus addressing the ‘teacher
variable’ more rigorously than in some of the other studies reviewed.
The first pair of intervention experiments compared the effectiveness of presenting L2
idioms in Conceptual-Metaphoric groups (e.g. grouping idioms which associate morality with
cleanliness, as in ‘a clean fight’ or ‘doing the dirty on someone’) with their presentation in
Functional groups (e.g. ‘idioms about morality’). In the second experiment, these presentation
conditions were claimed to be more incidental (participants were not asked to memorise the
forms), a wider range of grammatical structures was included (noun phrases and phrasal and
prepositional verbs), and there was a practice phase between the exposure and the test.
This first pair of experiments indicated that the Conceptual-Metaphoric categorisation of
verb phrase (VP) idioms was more effective for remembering the FORM of idioms than the
Functional grouping, provided that learning was intentional or that the idioms were highly
transparent. Form retention did not differ significantly between conditions for different
grammatical structures. Retention of the MEANING of the idioms was not affected by whether
the idioms were in Conceptual Metaphoric or Functional groupings, regardless of whether
there was practice or instructions to remember the idioms. Although somewhat counter-
intuitive, these findings do seem to suggest, in line with Skoufaiki’s argument, that the form–
meaning link emphasised by the Conceptual-Metaphoric grouping was useful for learning
form, but not meaning.
The second pair of experiments tested whether instructing learners to guess the meaning
of idioms led to better memorisation of form and meaning than simply presenting the idioms.
In the first experiment there were three exposure/test conditions: 1) presentation + guessing
+ comprehension practice + comprehension test; 2) presentation + comprehension practice
+ comprehension test; 3) presentation + guessing + comprehension practice + cloze test
(to check for a task-test familiarity effect). In all conditions the idioms were presented in
Conceptual-Metaphoric groups, and there were no instructions to memorise the idioms.
Skoufaki found significantly better retention of the idioms’ form following the ‘+guessing’
conditions compared to the ‘–guessing’ condition. She claims that this suggests that the former
approach is a more promising method for teaching the forms of L2 VP idioms. There was
no difference between the two different test scores from conditions 1 and 3, suggesting that
the nature of the achievement test did not matter and no significant differences in meaning
retention between the conditions, which is compatible with existing literature claiming that
the retention of the meaning of new words is not higher when students are encouraged to
guess at the meaning of new vocabulary. The second in this pair of experiments replicated
the first but without the practice phase. In terms of form retention, there were no differences
between the conditions; in terms of meaning retention, the condition ‘+guessing’ resulted in
slightly higher scores, though Skoufaki argues this finding as a methodological artifact. Her
findings, therefore, seem compatible with previous research which has found that different
types of interventions do not lead to benefits in learning the meaning of idioms.
Skoufaki acknowledges which variables could not be addressed by her studies, and
suggests future research should address the effects of L1/L2, age, proficiency and individual
differences, among other issues. She also provides details about the shortcomings of her
outcome measurements, and she checked the normality of the distribution of her test data to
choose the appropriate statistical test, a step rarely reported in the theses we reviewed. Even
though three out of the four experiments were carried out with two learners at a time (rather
than in a more authentic whole-class situation) and sample sizes were small (with ten in each
condition in each experiment), the implications Skoufaki drew for teaching are, on the whole,
appropriately linked to the variables manipulated in her experiments. This inevitably resulted
in rather constrained and highly specific pedagogical advice, an illustration of the tension
between external and internal validity in classroom experiments.
A CALL (computer-assisted language learning) reading package was developed and evaluated
by Ciobanu (2006), among Masters students training to become professional translators at
the University of Leeds. He first presented a ‘model’ of L2 reading called ‘the multilingual
resource-rich reading model – M3RM’. This was specific to reading in an L3 with some
knowledge of a typologically related L2 (in his study, learners of Romanian L3, with
French as an L2). The model presented several perspectives on learning and on language
acquisition, and was heavily influenced by Grabe & Stoller (2002). Ciobanu claimed that
he then operationalised key aspects of this work in a multilingual, corpus-based computer
environment called the TRilingual REAding Tutor (TREAT), though specific links between
the research reviewed and features of the actual pedagogical tool were not always clear to
us. Several instruments were used in the creation of the environment, including L3 semantic
networks, POS (part of speech) and lemma taggers,6 and lists of L1–L2 true cognates. TREAT
contained a corpus of written on-line news items, categorised for readability, in English (131
articles), French (100 articles) and Romanian (182 articles), totalling over 238,000 tokens.
Learners selected their own texts and then requested help from TREAT when they needed
it, such as identifying semantically related texts, viewing vocabulary in different collocational
patterns, accessing bilingual and trilingual definitions, synonyms and translations, obtaining
6 Ciobanu found that the accuracy of the POS taggers decreased when dealing with closed class function words. He
proposed that for future versions the parser should work only with words of a certain minimum length. However, how
simply avoiding many function words would improve overall accuracy was not clear to us.
morphosyntactic and frequency information about lemmas and tokens or extracting the
meaning of each sentence.
Two groups of students used TREAT, though no base line tests were used for their selection:
eight in group one (G1), with no prior knowledge of Romanian, and seven in group two (G2),
some of whom had previously attempted to learn Romanian. The intervention lasted for six
1.5-hour lessons. G1 used TREAT for all sessions, but G2 did not have access to it for the first
two sessions and was then introduced to it in session three. Details regarding G2’s ‘traditional
explicit instruction’ (p. 15) during the first two sessions are unfortunately not provided in the
thesis, though a personal communication from Ciobanu stated ‘a couple of online bilingual
dictionaries and some rather academic Romanian grammatical resources’ were available to
them. For both groups, the first two sessions consisted of ‘a lot of grammatical and syntactic
. . . work on Romanian texts’ (personal communication, 22/12/08) and the remaining four
sessions consisted of four L3–L1 translation tasks, and summarising and skimming tasks.
Before using TREAT, both groups were given a 15-minute introduction to it and a brief
description of L3 morphology. The learners also had to translate a number of nouns which
required morphological nominal affixes from L1 into L3, e.g. right, the right, rights. As far as we
understand, the translation and morphological tasks also served as the outcome measures.
The translations were rated by L3 native speakers for content and style.
Ciobanu acknowledges that his samples are small, but argues his data suggest that although
G1 had less prior knowledge, they performed better than G2 in the tasks (e.g. achieving a
mean score of 82.95% in the morphology tests, compared to 50%). Most of the comparisons
presented suggest an improvement between G2’s scores without access to TREAT and those
once they had access to it.
Ciobanu also reports on a questionnaire eliciting attitudes and self-reported use of TREAT.
He states that all participants used the L3 linguistic information provided. Although no direct
tracking or think-aloud protocols were actually used to corroborate this, a user-tracking
mechanism is proposed for future work. He also reports that participants thought their L2
had improved, though no measures of L2 knowledge were taken.
This study was not a formal experiment. Technical changes were made as the study
progressed and task-familiarity (rather than learning per se) may have led to improvements,
as learners became more familiar with the environment. As a result of these, and other
potential alternative explanations, the effectiveness of TREAT compared to the (somewhat
vague) comparison treatment was not entirely clear. Also, Ciobanu acknowledged that further
work is required to investigate, and incorporate into CALL packages, lower and higher-level
online reading processes, such as lexical access, parsing, and inferencing. Nevertheless, this
work demonstrates how state-of-the-art technology can create rich sources of written input
and metalinguistic knowledge for language learners. Also, as Ciobanu suggests, such online
environments may offer one way of tracking reading processes, as they provide on-demand
lexical and morphological assistance.
Niño (2006) also evaluated the use of computers in the language classroom. The study
aimed to (i) describe and evaluate an intervention which required learners to edit machine
translations (MT), (ii) categorise errors in the raw MT, in the MT once it had been edited
by students, and in student-alone translations, (iii) compare the errors found in edited MT
and student-alone translations, and (iv) make pedagogical suggestions for using MT. Niño
developed an error typology and an error tagset, and reliability measures were taken. The
error tagging system aimed to satisfy Granger’s (2003) four principles: Informative but
manageable; Reusable; Flexible; Consistent. The unit of accuracy was ‘words’, and the
system consisted of 50 error codes corresponding to 50 error categories, belonging to four
error domains (lexical, grammatical, discursive, and spelling). She used a semi-automated
error tagger (Markin7 ) to retrieve error statistics and also investigated the perceptions of
teachers and learners on the use of MT in the language class.
In the ‘experimental’ group were sixteen adult learners of L2 Spanish, with no prior
experience of MT, at Common European Framework ‘Vantage’ or B2 level, from three
different institutions in Manchester. The ‘control group’ had sixteen students who were from
one of these institutions, which perhaps weakened parity between the groups.
The students in the experimental group attended a ten-week course of two hours a week
on editing MTs and writing practice for advanced-level Spanish. The first session consisted of
general instruction in FL writing, including provision of some additional resources. They also
had an introduction to MT, and guided practice at editing MTs.8 In each of the following eight
weeks they had one instructed session to practise editing MTs of different genres of writing,
and then had one week in which to translate a text. They could also use other language
resources (online dictionaries, glossaries, etc.). The students in the ‘control’ group had to
translate the same texts but by hand. They were provided with the same course materials as
the experimental group, except for the MTs, and they did not have the introduction to MT.
The results included details of error frequencies per error domain, per error category, and
per text type. The MT output had 507 errors, 52% of which were grammatical, 38% lexical,
7% spelling and 2% discursive. It was found, unsurprisingly, that the students improved
the MT texts. Medium effect sizes suggested that the edited MT had fewer errors (overall,
and in grammatical, lexical and discursive domains) than the student-alone translations
(3,282 compared to 4,250 errors). Critically, however, these differences were NOT statistically
significant. The only error domain in which there were statistically significantly fewer errors
in the MT group was in spelling. Although not discussed, this difference could partly be
accounted for by typos, which computers are less prone to!
Niño quantified successful and unsuccessful editing. She found that a mean of 60% of all
the MT errors were corrected by the learners, 74% of the correct MT was left as correct, 12%
of the MT errors were left as incorrect, and 2% of the correct MT was changed unnecessarily.
As far as we can calculate, this analysis accounted for 72% of all errors in the MT, and 76%
of the correct MT. Niño argues that MT editing and translation activities are similar in terms
of difficulty, and that this warrants the recommendation that MT editing should be used as
a written production activity in the same way as translation. It was not entirely clear to us
how comparable the experimental and control interventions were as it seemed, according to
some parts of the thesis, that the MT group perhaps received more, and potentially better,
instruction, in addition to the ‘MT’ texts. However, as Niño drew conclusions based on the
7We were unable to track any detailed reference entry for this work
8Systran Professional Standard 3.0. was selected because, compared to three other systems, it had the lowest overall number
of errors (79 in total) on the same set of 112 difficult sentences.
similarity of the results from different groups (not on differences between them), this issue
may not threaten the validity of the findings too seriously in this case.
Attitudinal data were also collected from the MT group, via a questionnaire, and opinions
about using MTs were generally positive. A survey sent to teachers (including some sent
‘randomly to language teachers around the world’ (p. 111)) on the use of translation and MT
in the FL class revealed that 23% of the respondents had used MT in their lessons. The data
collected therefore generally tapped teachers’ perceptions, rather than their direct experience
of how effective it might be for learning.
The author goes on to make several strong recommendations for using MT in lessons,
including with learners at a different proficiency level. As acknowledged by Niño, future
research will have to determine whether MT aids learning in the longer term, by using a
pre–post-test, control group design. Niño also appropriately suggests that future research
should investigate whether editing MT promotes the use of learner strategies. The study
demonstrated that MT is a good source of human-like errors, useful if we consider explicit
error correction beneficial. The findings should help raise awareness of the nature of MT
output, particularly in conjunction with issues of plagiarism. Although unacknowledged,
perhaps the similarity in type and number of errors of edited MT and student-only translations
could be used to demonstrate that MT is UNLIKELY to help you get a better grade?
3.1 Summary and further commentary
This review suggests that process–product, effectiveness-of-intervention studies are receiving

due attention in Ph.D. work, although all those reviewed were with learners in post-
compulsory, higher education settings. The studies reviewed tended to use experimental or
quasi-experimental designs, and quantitative data and analysis as their main measurement
of effectiveness. Several studies also investigated what the teachers or learners thought of
the intervention. In the studies which set up interventions (i.e. all except Al-Ghamdi’s), most
tried to justify, to some extent, the naturalness and appropriateness of these interventions,
and therefore, their likely external validity. It was noted that none of the studies directly
addressed the debate among educationalists about the usefulness, feasibility and methodology
of educational experiments (e.g. Hammersley 1997; Torgerson & Torgerson 2003). Perhaps
most surprisingly, Norris & Ortega’s (2000) seminal paper, relating specifically to L2
teaching and learning experiments was not referred to. This body of literature discusses
the roles of randomisation, control/comparison groups, and outcome measurements which
have the potential to indicate reliable and valid comparisons. Perhaps because of their
lack of engagement with this agenda, several studies reviewed here made pedagogical
recommendations which were not warranted by their research design or findings. In most
studies there was a tendency to imply greater generalisability than was warranted, often by
using present rather than past tenses to report and discuss findings. Some researchers did not
consider the role of extraneous variables in explaining their findings, such as the teacher effect,
class or school (cluster) effect, test effects, maturational effects, or Hawthorne effects. Some did
acknowledge such threats to validity, but their designs were not able to address them. Critically,
there was often a lack of detail regarding the control or comparison groups’ intervention
(except in Skoufaki and Sheen’s theses). Descriptions of the nature and educational objectives
of all the conditions (experimental, comparisons, and control) are useful if readers are to
judge the relevance of the study to other contexts, and if researchers are to claim that the
outcome measurements did not favour the learning objectives of one of the intervention
types. Nevertheless, some studies reviewed, most notably Sheen’s and Skoufaki’s, illustrated
that experiments with good internal validity can also contribute something externally valid
to pedagogy.
4. Individual differences
Three studies looked at aspects of motivation, although from different perspectives:

learner autonomy (Bavendiek 2006); the relationship between attitudes, learning styles and
experiences of language learning (Hemmings 2006); and attitudes to project-based learning
(Stolyar 2006).
The questions underpinning Bavendiek’s research are the extent to which a guided
independent learning programme, based on portfolio learning and ‘advisor’ sessions, can
increase undergraduate students’ degree of reflectivity and hence their use of metacognitive
language learner strategies, feeling of control, confidence and motivation, in both the short
and long term. She also investigated the relationship between these variables. Bavendiek
bases her study on a constructivist and experiential view of learning, following Kolb’s
(1984) experiential learning cycle and Thomas & Harri-Augstein’s (1985) theory of self-
organised learning in which awareness of the learning process is especially important. From
this background, Bavendiek develops a process model of learner autonomy, which suggests
that learners’ engagement in portfolio work should improve their language learning skills
and strategy use and therefore their sense of control over their learning, their confidence
and hence their motivation. Thus, her initial assumption is that the PROMOTION of learner
autonomy is possible, and she asserts that her study seeks to ‘investigate the claimed effects
identified from the model’ (i).
The portfolio programme was implemented as a compulsory element in the first year of
a degree course in German in an English university. Students completed four ‘projects’ as
part of the portfolio, in which they recorded their reflections on work completed in a journal
format. Each project was then discussed in an ‘advisory session’, with the researcher, in either
the L1 or the L2. The impact of the portfolio was assessed by a variety of means, over a period
of four years, giving an impressive array of data. Changes in learners’ use of metacognitive
strategies and their feeling of control were measured through two questionnaires administered
before and after the portfolio intervention to an ‘experimental’ group of 55 learners, and to
a ‘control’ group of 22 learners from other universities (the appropriateness of these terms is
only briefly addressed by the author). Items to assess metacognitive strategy use were adapted
from Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning, described as ‘an established
instrument in the field’ with ‘well documented’ validity (Bavendiek 2006: 93), although the
reliability and validity of the adapted version used in the study do not appear to have been
assessed. Feeling of control was elicited through a set of attributional statements (explanations
for perceived achievement in language learning) which participants ticked as they applied to
them. Contrary to expectations, the pre-test and post-test questionnaires showed a significant
reduction in the mean metacognitive strategy use of the experimental group. The control
group’s strategy use declined even more (but not significantly more) than the experimental
group’s. Students’ feeling of control hardly changed over the year regardless of their group,
and no significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of changes. In
addition, no significant relationship was established between metacognitive strategy use and
feeling of control.
An ANOVA was used to explore the level of reflectivity shown in journals over time.
Bavendiek reports a significant positive relationship (p = .041), though it was weak (r2 = .054)
and that ‘the relationship shows a drop over time on this variable’ (p. 129). She concludes that
students who appreciated the project journals from the start continued to do so, and those
who did not, retained their view of them, seeing them as burdensome and simply recording
activities completed rather than their reflections on them.
An additional questionnaire completed at the end of the first year by participants in the
experimental group sought to evaluate perceptions of the portfolio in terms of its impact
on participants’ language learning skills and strategies, target language proficiency, feeling
of control over the learning process, confidence and motivation. Most learners felt that the
programme had had a positive impact on these areas. Correlational analysis established a
significant and moderately strong positive relationship (r) between: motivation and perceived
improved language proficiency (.636), motivation and acquisition of new language learning
skills and strategies (.609), and perceived improved proficiency and confidence (.589). Weaker
correlations were found between motivation and a sense of control (.424) and confidence and
a sense of control (.450), leading the author to conclude that a sense of control is not always
translated into increased confidence, as the process model of learner autonomy predicted it
would be. A later questionnaire likewise produced mixed results, with 72% of respondents
feeling that the programme had made them more conscious of the language learning process.
While 94% of those who had not yet completed their year of study abroad generally felt the
portfolio would help them, only 39% of those who had completed the year abroad felt the
programme had assisted their language learning.
Finally, case studies were composed, using questionnaire, project data and semi-structured
interviews with four learners, in order to explore whether any individual difference variables
could be associated with different perceptions of the portfolio. Bavendiek concludes that a
positive attitude towards a portfolio programme seems to be found among students with
higher language proficiency at the end of the degree programme, an integrative orientation
for language learning and those who already show a degree of independence in their language
learning at the start of the course. In other words, the programme seemed to benefit most
those who needed it least. In addition, Bavendiek claims that the study does not confirm
‘the virtuous circle of learner autonomy’ (p. 245) which suggests that reflection increases
metacognitive strategy use and hence a sense of control (although she admits, perhaps with
justification, that the validity of her instrument for measuring the latter may be open to
question). In spite of these less than positive findings, however, Bavendiek argues that the
portfolio programme seems to have at least lessened the decline in sense of control and
metacognitive strategy use, as compared with what students in other universities appear
to display during the transition to Higher Education. Consequently, the programme is still
being implemented at Bavendiek’s university, but in a modified form, without the project
journals.
The relationship between various factors that might contribute to learners’ motivation is
also explored by Hemmings (2006), one of only two theses reviewed in depth that investigated
non-adult learners. The main focus of her study is the learning styles and attitudes towards
language learning of pupils in the first year of secondary school in England (Year 7, aged
between eleven and twelve), resulting in three main questions: (i) Is there a relationship
between pupils’ initial attitude towards language learning and their preferred learning styles?
(ii) What is the influence of pupils’ initial attitudes and preferred learning styles on their
experience of language learning during Year 7? (iii) Is there a relationship between pupils’
learning styles and the extent of their success in learning German by the end of Year 7?
The learning preferences and initial attitudes towards language learning of 162 learners
at the start of Year 7 were assessed through a questionnaire, which included items on pupils’
creativity, self-awareness, attitudes towards social interaction, experience of language learning
at primary school, visits abroad, and expectations of language learning at secondary school.
Language teachers at the project school also completed a questionnaire on their beliefs about
language learning. A purposive sample of pupils learning German (80 pupils, three classes) and
their teachers then completed three commonly-used learning style inventory questionnaires
to establish the dominant learning style for pupils and teachers: a questionnaire based on
Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning model; Ginnis’ (2002) sensory learning style inventory,
based on the visual, auditory and kinaesthetic model of sensory preferences widely used in UK
schools; and an inventory based on Sternberg’s mental self-government model (1997), which
was used at the school where the study took place. Acknowledging the shortcomings of the
learning style inventories employed (as highlighted in the literature), Hemmings reviews the
theoretical background of these, alongside theories of motivation and ‘The Good Language
Learner’ study by Naiman et al. (1978). The attitudes and learning preferences of a smaller
sample of pupils (n = 48) were further explored through group interviews. Their teachers were
also interviewed and German lessons observed. Pupils’ success in German was ascertained
by the ability group they were placed in for German in the following year, and scores on
a test of cognitive and academic ability (CAT) scores (see Thorndike & Hagen 19869 ) were
taken as an indication of their general academic ability. Hemmings summarises her findings
thus: some pupils displayed a negative attitude towards language learning even before they
had started studying in Year 7; these pupils were more likely to be placed in a low set in
Year 8 for German; more boys than girls showed an initial negative attitude; pupils with an
initial negative attitude had a range of CAT scores (i.e. negative attitude was not linked to low
academic ability); pupils with negative attitudes were more likely to be kinaesthetic and/or
legislative and/or accommodative learners. However, from her pupil interviews, Hemming
suggests that other factors (such as anxiety and fear of embarrassment in class) influence
pupils with negative attitudes more their learning style does. She goes on to conclude that
initial attitude seems to be the most important factor in determining success in language
learning but adds (reasonably) that the high level of teacher control she observed in lessons
made it difficult for learners to demonstrate a learning style preference in any case.
9 This reference is suggested by the current authors, and was not cited by Hemmings.
In the other study that involved school-aged learners, Stolyar (2006) looked at attitudes
towards one particular approach to language learning: project-based learning (PBL), within
the context of Israeli learners of EFL in junior to high school (i.e. aged 11–18 years). She
investigated both the nature of students’ attitudes towards PBL and the extent to which certain
factors (working in groups, level of interest in the project, prior experience of project-based
work, age, place of residence and gender) contributed to positive attitudes towards PBL. The
underlying premise of her study is that attitudes have a fundamental impact on attainment
in foreign language learning. Project-based learning is described as a form of teaching whose
goal is ‘the satisfactory completion of a meaningful communicative task or enquiry’ (Stolyar
2006: 30) with roots in the approaches of Dewey and Vygotsky.
Stolyar investigated learners’ attitudes and factors contributing to them using mixed
methods, beginning with a questionnaire to 531 learners from 13 schools. Participants were
selected on the basis of their teacher’s participation in a course on PBL led by the researcher
(i.e., their teacher had knowledge of PBL). The students sampled differed in how much
PBL experience they had: 53% were classed as ‘experts’, having done between two and four
projects, and the rest were ‘novices’, on their first project. The questionnaire was based on
published instruments, was piloted, and reliability assessed through factor analysis and
Cronbach’s alpha (steps that were not taken in the other theses reviewed in this section).
Respondents had to indicate whether their project work was carried out in groups or
individually. Two cycles of qualitative data collection were also completed with the researcher’s
class as they engaged in project-based learning, involving semi-structured interviews, lesson
observations, field notes and video recorded lessons.
Factor analysis of the questionnaire revealed six constructs which accounted for 50% of the
common variance: attitudes towards group work, general attitudes towards PBL, attitudes
towards oral presentations, attitudes towards the perceived effect of PBL on students’ learning,
difficulties experienced in the PBL process, and attitudes towards the use of computers.
Independent samples t-tests indicated that students who worked in groups had significantly
more positive attitudes overall than those who worked individually. Correlational analyses
showed a significant positive relationship between students’ attitudes and the number of
projects completed. In addition, ANOVAs followed by post-hoc tests (Scheffé) indicated that
students on their fourth project were more positive towards PBL than those on their third
project, who in turn were more positive then those on their first or second. Stolyar also found
that level of ‘interest’ in the subject of the project correlated significantly with all six constructs.
In order to investigate whether attitude toward PBL can be predicted by personal background
variables (gender, junior/high school, working in groups/alone, age, level of interest in the
project subject, school grade, project exposure), a least squares linear regression analysis was
conducted. This revealed that ‘level of interest’ accounted for more than 35% of the variance
on attitude towards PBL, with all other variables together adding only another 4%. The
general trend was for Grade 7 learners to have the most positive attitudes towards PBL, and
for Grade 9 learners to be the most negative.
Learners from whom qualitative data were collected were taught by the researcher and
were working on two projects, each lasting nearly two months. At the time of the first project,
the class consisted of 30 Grade 10 students, with a range of proficiency levels in English.
Students chose their own groups to work in. For the second project, 14 additional students
had joined the class, four of whom had had no previous PBL experience. Eight students from
the first project and 34 students from the second were interviewed about the PBL experience.
Students interviewed perceived group work positively and most expressed a high level of
interest in the topic of the project, leading Stolyar to conclude that giving students a choice
of topic for the project is important. Generally, students who joined the class for the second
project, with no previous PBL experience, were more negative than those who had been in
the group at the time of the first project.
Stolyar draws a number of main conclusions: (i) that younger learners are more positive
towards PBL, suggesting it should be introduced in early grades; (ii) that students’ attitudes
towards PBL are influenced positively by group work, by prior (positive) experience with PBL
and by interest in the project of the topic; and (iii) that the end result is more positive attitudes
towards ‘learning in general’ (p. 212). While the study provides a range of evidence for the
first two of these conclusions, the last is based on more limited data from the qualitative
interviews and is more debatable, with Stolyar arguing that ‘once PBL creates a genuine
interest in the subject matter, it can be ASSUMED that this results in better attitudes toward
learning’ (p. 199; emphasis added).
In the area of learner strategies, two studies were interventions (both concerned with
reading strategies) and one a descriptive study of strategy use. Walters (2006) focussed on
context-based forms of strategy instruction, and in her literature review she determines
three main approaches: the teaching of specific context clues; cloze exercises as a way of
enhancing awareness of the role of context; and the teaching of one general strategy for
dealing with unknown words, i.e. looking for other words that might help work out the
meaning. These three approaches then formed the basis of her study, which investigated
whether instruction in the use of context to infer meaning leads to (i) ‘increased ability to
infer meaning from context’, (ii) ‘improved reading comprehension’, (iii) long-term gains in
these areas, (iv) ‘greater vocabulary growth’, and (v) whether the type of instruction in use
of context affects ‘the ability to infer meaning from context, or reading comprehension, or
vocabulary growth’ (Walters 2006: 91). Forty-four ESL university students on an intensive
English language programme, from 12 different countries, took part in a pre–post-delayed
post-test design, using the following instruments to assess each area highlighted in the research
questions: a cloze test with rational deletion, developed by the researcher; three versions of
the reading section of the IELTS ESOL examination; the 3K, 5K, Academic Word List
and 10K subset of the Vocabulary Levels Test (Schmitt, Schmitt & Clapham 2001); the
3K, 5k and Academic Word list subsets of the productive Vocabulary Levels Test (Laufer &
Nation 1999). To establish evidence of strategy use in practice after the training, Walters also
conducted a retrospective verbalisation task with two to three subjects from each condition
(not from the control group). Interactions between the training and the individual differences
of proficiency, learning style and language aptitude were also explored.
Participants were allocated, not randomly, to one of four groups: control, general strategy,
context clue, cloze practice. Students in the three treatment groups received three training
sessions of two hours each, with the researcher delivering the training for the context clue and
general strategy condition. The training was immediately followed by post-tests (between one
and three days after the end of the intervention). In order to assess the effectiveness of each
of the three types of instruction (Research Question 5), Walters compared all four groups
with each other. She also combined the groups, and made two other sets of comparisons:
a group labelled ‘experimental’ (consisting of the general strategy + context clue + cloze
practice groups) which was compared with the control group; and a group labelled ‘training’
(consisting of the context clue + general strategy groups) which was compared with a ‘no-
training’ or ‘practice’ group (cloze practice) and the control group. This gave rise to a complex
set of results, which are not always easy to follow in the thesis, and the most important of
which are summarised below.
No significant differences were found in mean gain scores between any groups in any
comparison in terms of ability to infer from context, although only the combined experimental
group made significant pre to post-test gains. For the reading test, the mean gains of the
combined experimental group and of the training group were significantly higher than those
of the control group. When individual groups were compared (for Research Question 5), there
were no significant differences between the groups for ability to infer (although the general
strategy group alone showed significant pre to post-test improvement), but for the reading
test, the context clue group made significantly greater gains than the control group (and both
context clue and general strategy groups showed significant pre to post-test improvement).
At delayed post-test, there were no significant differences between any groups for mean
gains between the post and delayed post-test in ability to infer. For reading ability, while
the experimental, training and practice groups maintained the gains made at post-test, the
control group had regressed by the time of the delayed post-test. In terms of vocabulary
development, the only significant findings reported are that the combined experimental
group and the training group showed a significant improvement in receptive vocabulary
at the 3K level, and that for productive vocabulary, the experimental and training groups
showed significant or near-significant improvement (at the 3K and Academic Word List
levels).
Walters comments that both context clue and general strategy instruction ‘have a positive
effect on the ability to infer from context and /or reading comprehension’ (p. 151). We felt that
her later appraisal of the findings, that there was only ‘weak’ evidence for the experimental
conditions having an impact on learners’ ability to infer (p. 234), is a more appropriate
conclusion, as is her comment that it seems more likely for the effects of instruction in
inferencing to manifest themselves in general reading ability, rather in the ability to infer as
a separate skill.
In terms of individual differences, some interaction was found between training condition
and language proficiency (advanced, intermediate or beginning based on TOEFL or TOEIC
scores). Significant or near-significant differences were established in the inferencing test, for
the context clue group, where advanced learners’ gains were greater than the intermediate
learners’ (p < .06), and for the strategy group (beginners making more progress than
intermediate learners, p < .05). From these findings Walters concludes that higher language
proficiency may be needed to benefit from context clue instruction, while a general and
simpler strategy for coping with unknown words may be best for beginners.
Although the study has limitations (as Walters acknowledges), including the small number
of participants in each group, no assessment of strategy use before the training, unrandomised
allocation to groups, as well as some doubts about the validity and reliability of the tests
used for assessing ability to infer, it is noteworthy as one of the few studies to consider
vocabulary development as a by-product of strategy instruction in reading and to investigate
the interaction of strategy instruction with a range of individual differences.
One aspect of strategy instruction that is noticeable by its absence from the Walters study is
a metacognitive element, which by contrast features prominently in Wiliwan (2006). Wiliwan
also looked at strategy instruction as a means of improving reading comprehension, again in
the context of adult EFL learners, but this time in Thailand and with a focus on improving
main idea comprehension. She argues that finding the main idea is a crucial skill for effective
reading and, reviewing models of reading comprehension, that successful reading requires an
integration of bottom–up and top–down strategies, with metacognitive strategies regulating
this integration and with skilled readers possessing a clear awareness of how they read.
Linguistic theories of discourse processing (e.g. van Dijk & Kintsch 1983; Hoey 1991) are
drawn on to argue that making students aware of lexical relations and lexical cohesion devices
in a text can help them in establishing the main idea of the passage.
This theoretical background underpins the selection of the types of instruction that were
assessed in the project: metacognitive strategy training alone (taught through a ‘reciprocal
teaching’ method – the RT group); lexical cohesion plus metacognitive strategy instruction
(LRT group); and ‘traditional’ skill-based instruction as a control (the ST group). The
participants were 60 undergraduate students (aged 19–22 years), taking an English reading
course at intermediate level. Stratified random sampling was used to assign students to the
three conditions.
The four research questions addressed were: (1) whether the LRT and RT groups
‘achieve significantly higher scores from the pre-test to post-test’ than the ST group; (2)
whether there are ‘any differences between the mean values of the experimental and control
groups’ (presumably at post-test), and ‘which of the three instructional methods is superior
in producing higher levels of main idea comprehension improvement’; (3) whether the
experimental and control groups differ in their attitudes towards their instructional methods;
and (4) whether the LRT group uses different main idea processing strategies from the RT
and ST groups (Wiliwan 2006: 65–66).
The instruction was carried out over a 15-hour period (the researcher taught the LRT
group). For the ST group, this consisted of (i) pre-reading – e.g. looking at the passage title and
making predictions; (ii) during reading – e.g. in small groups, the students discussed the passage
content and translated each sentence into Thai; and (iii) post-reading – students discussed the
passage content in groups and collectively came up with a main idea statement. For the RT
group, the teacher modelled what Wiliwan calls four metacognitive strategies – summarising,
questioning, clarifying and predicting (although whether all are really metacognitive strategies
was unclear to us). Students took turns to lead the conversation about the text, after the
teacher’s initial modelling of how this should be done. Finally, the group came to a collective
conclusion about the main idea of the text, which was then verified by the teacher. The
instruction for the LRT group followed the same pattern as for the RT group, except they
also learnt how such lexical cohesion devices as repetition and restatement link phrases and
sentences together to convey the main idea of a passage. Practice activities were conducted
involving lexical cohesion devices.
The impact of the three instructional approaches on students’ main idea comprehension
was assessed using a test designed by the researcher, including multiple-choice questions and
production sentences, in which students had to write down details of the main idea expressed
in texts. Each of these two sections was further sub-divided into ‘stated’ and ‘unstated’ main
idea sections. Students’ strategy use was investigated through a think-aloud interview with
a selection of participants (before and after training, an approach not always followed in
strategy-based interventions), and then through strategy interviews with a sub-section of
this group. Finally, students’ perceptions of the instruction they had received were explored
through a post-test questionnaire, given to all 60 participants.
For Research Question 1, paired sample t-tests compared pre and post-test means for the
main idea test per group. Each group made a statistically significant improvement, with the
LRT showing the biggest gain, followed by the ST group. Wiliwan (2006: 111) comments that
‘it is obvious that the LRT treatment was the most effective instructional approach’, although
this claim is hard to justify, given that differences between the groups in mean gain scores were
not explored through statistical tests. For Research Question 2, ANOVAs were conducted
for the post-test scores (although group differences at pre-test were not explored), looking at
the overall scores, and also each part of the test separately. No significant differences were
found for any part or the whole of the test, although the LRT group had the highest score in
each section, except for the stated main idea production section, in which the ST group had
the highest score. In the questionnaire, all participants were generally positive about their
instruction, although the means for individual items suggest that the LRT group was the
most satisfied, and the RT group the least. Differences were, however, small and as no tests
of significance were applied, firm conclusions are hard to draw from these data.
Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the transcripts from the think-aloud and strategy
interviews indicate differences in strategy use between the three groups after instruction
(Research Question 4), thus lending some support to the conclusions drawn from the test
data: the LRT group used more bottom–up strategies than did the RT and ST group, and
reported using a wider range (especially word recognition skills involving word relations
between sentences). All three groups increased their use of top–down strategies from pre to
post-test, especially RT students, while LRT students used the widest range. LRT and RT
students showed an increase in metacognitive strategy use and used a wider range, while ST
students used such strategies sparingly. The latter group made few comprehension checks and
commented rarely on their reading or evaluated their understanding. In addition, Wiliwan
reports that the LRT group combined bottom–up, top–down and metacognitive strategies at
post-test more than the other two groups did, and showed a much greater sense of awareness
of how they read, commenting more frequently on their own behaviour. She attributes the
greater progress made by this group in the main idea reading comprehension test to this
combination of a wider range of strategies. In addition it is argued that the metacognitive
component of this group’s training ‘helped students become consciously aware of what they
were doing and be able to manage the use of appropriate strategies for deciding the important
information of the text’ (p. 185).
In terms of a descriptive examination of learner strategy use, Garcia (2006) is also
concerned with lexis, but within the context of L1 and L2 writing. Defining a strategy
as ‘the solution that the subjects devise to overcome their lexical problems when they write’
(p. 7), the author discusses, in particular, communication strategies, which have most often
been considered in relation to oral production. Arguing that L1 and L2 writers undergo
the same processes, but with L2 writers facing more discrepancy between what they want
to say and what they can say, Garcia analyses two variables in his study – the language (L1
Spanish or L2 English) and L2 proficiency (elementary or upper intermediate). He poses

12 research questions with accompanying hypotheses to explore whether lexical problems
faced and strategies employed differ according to these two variables. Participants were 31
Spanish-speaking EFL students from a Mexican university. Two groups were created based
on scores on the Oxford Placement Test, and on Nation’s Vocabulary Productive levels test:
a higher proficiency group of 16 students who had either taken or were taking advanced
courses in English and had mostly studied in the US and a lower proficiency group of 15
students, none of whom had studied in an English speaking country.
Two writing tasks were used, one in English, one in Spanish, completed by all participants,
with one week between them. Participants were given 45 minutes to write, and were instructed
to approach the task as they would in an examination. They could use any dictionary
they wished. The main form of data elicitation was a think-aloud protocol (in the L1 or
L2, as participants wished), concurrent with the writing task. A number of retrospective
interviews were also conducted to further explore with think-aloud participants instances
where problems seemed to occur. Questionnaires on writing practices were also completed.
Garcia identified 804 instances of lexical problems in the transcripts and classified them
using an adapted version of Hemmati’s (2001) taxonomy. This resulted in thirteen individual
problems, of three main types: ‘no-word’ problems, where the L2 word was either unknown or
could not be retrieved; ‘one-word’ problems, where the required word was known but there
were problems with it, such as mis-spelling; and ‘more-than-one-word’ problems, where
more than one word was retrieved and the student had difficulties in choosing between
them. Problems were also categorised as either competence-based (the word is unknown) or
performance-based (the word is known but cannot be fully retrieved). A taxonomy of eight
strategies used to solve these problems was also created and grouped into four categories:
‘trying to solve the problem, de-problematising the problem, giving up and modifying the
content, and postponing the solution’ (Garcia 2006: 254).
For lexical problems, Garcia reports that writers paid more attention to and acted upon
more lexical problems when writing in the L2 compared with L1, facing mainly ‘no-word’
problems in the L2 and mainly ‘one-word’ problems in the L1. In the L2, both proficiency
groups faced more competence-based than performance-based problems, although in the
lower proficiency group there was a higher frequency of competence-based problems, and
in the higher proficiency group, more performance-based ones, as might be expected. Both
groups were motivated by a desire to compensate for insufficient lexical resources and/or to
enhance what they had written. There were significant differences in how often the groups
met certain problems (Garcia 2006: 258) – ‘delayed retrieval of some aspect of a word’ and
‘selection dilemma of two or more suitable candidates in the L1’ were more common in the
higher proficiency group, and ‘no L2 form for a given meaning’ was more common in the
lower proficiency group. Contrary to what Garcia anticipated, both groups tackled lexical
problems at the moment they occurred, rather than waiting until they had developed their
ideas.
Regarding L1/L2 strategy use, the dictionary was widely used for solving lexical knowledge
problems, although less often in the L1 and with more success than in the L2 (again, as one
might expect). For lexical retrieval and enhancement problems in both languages, students
tended to turn to their own resources (e.g. using the text they had already written). Overall,
and perhaps unsurprisingly, students were more successful in solving lexical problems in
the L1 than in the L2, although success tended to depend on the knowledge source used
to help solve the problem. However, Garcia argues that the problems learners faced in
using the dictionary in the L2 underlines the importance of training learners to use this
resource effectively. Finally, higher proficiency learners seemed to be more flexible in their
strategy use, to be more efficient in their use of the dictionary and to retrieve words more
accurately.
Garcia concludes by relating his findings to theories of writing and argues, with justification,
that lexical problems are particularly present in the formulation stage of composing, which
has received little research attention. He adds that these problems and the strategies used
to solve them are not merely compensatory but are also aimed at enhancement of what is
written. He suggests that his findings be used to help teachers plan instructional materials that
help students to deal with lexical problems, to transfer L1 writing communication strategies,
and to use a dictionary more effectively, recommendations which are largely supported by
his study.
4.1 Summary and further commentary
This group of theses indicates that, in spite of the wealth of studies that already exists
into attitudes and motivation in language learning, the topic continues to be a focus
of interest among novice researchers. Two of them, Bavendiek (2006) and Hemmings
(2006), seem to come to similar conclusions that pre-existing attitudes to language study
or autonomous behaviour are difficult to change. By contrast, Stolyar’s (2006) study suggests
greater possibilities for the fostering of positive attitudes through a teaching approach that
focuses on the key area of learner interest. In the area of learner strategies, that all three
studies were concerned with lexis in one form or another may reflect a growing interest in
the research community in the area of vocabulary.
All six theses used a mixed-methods approach, collecting both quantitative and qualitative
data. These were used most effectively when one set of data complemented the other, as
was particularly the case in Stolyar’s (2006) and Wiliwan’s (2006) study. Quantitative data
were used most convincingly when the researchers justified their choice of the statistical test
employed and demonstrated that their data met the necessary conditions for the use of the
test. These steps were rarely taken, however, in the theses reviewed.
5. Discussion and concluding remarks
Here, we briefly discuss how the studies used theory, and we make a few general remarks
about the reporting in the theses and about our review process itself.
The use of theory in educational research has been widely discussed, in terms of whether the
theories used are falsifiable, whether research designs allow them to be falsified, and whether
theory testing or building is possible if the research is genuinely useful to practitioners (Pring
2000; Thomas 2005; Marsden 2007). Space constraints do not allow us to discuss the nature
of the theories used in the theses we have reviewed. Here we briefly describe HOW theory was
used.
None of the theses reviewed set out to test a learning theory, in the sense that the research
designs did not allow for data to be elicited which could falsify a specific theory (though
Bavendiek’s aims were to investigate the ‘claimed effects’ of a process-model of learner
autonomy). One study (Hill) claimed to build a new theory by describing a new perspective
(‘sociocognitive metaphorm’) on how learners might understand and learn tense and aspect.
Several theses collected data which were compatible with or illustrated a theory: Sheen’s
data were compatible with the Noticing Hypothesis and the Interaction Hypothesis (though
could not falsify them as the control group did not have the same stimulus materials with no
interaction); Stolyar’s study was underpinned by a constructivist view of learning; Wiliwan
draws on linguistic theories of discourse processing; and Walters’ study is largely underpinned
by theories of vocabulary acquisition (e.g. de Bot, Paribakht & Wesche (1997), who suggest that
inferencing from context aids the process of creating and filling an empty lemma structure).
Several theses used one or more theoretical frameworks, drawing on their terminology,
categories and assumptions, rather than providing valid evidence for or against a theory. For
example, Hemmings reviewed a range of theories relating to learning styles, motivation and
‘The Good Language Learner’ (Naiman et al. 1978). A few studies used theory to provide a
rationale for a teaching approach or pedagogical decisions, rather than providing insights into
(e.g. supporting or refuting) a specific learning or teaching theory. For example, Tuncel found
evidence that his classroom activities helped learning, and used a pedagogical perspective
(CLT) as a backdrop to describing these activities. Skoufaki used linguistic idiom theory
(e.g. defining metaphor types) to describe the idioms and presentation groups she used, and
suggested that a cognitive perspective on learning could explain how figurative language is
learnt. Ciobanu drew on several SLA theories to justify certain decisions he took in designing
his CALL programme. Niño did not draw on learning theory in the design or analysis of
her study, but provided evidence compatible with her own pedagogical hypothesis that using
machine translations would be useful for learners.
One feature which struck us on reading so many theses together was the sheer volume
of data collected. This included observation notes, classroom recordings, performance and
achievement data (production and comprehension, in oral and written modalities), teacher
and learner interview transcripts, and questionnaire data. For example, Niño created a
learner corpus of 128 post-edited and 128 translated texts, an overall size of 56,893 tokens;
Al Ghamdi collected 35 hours of lesson observation notes; Hill produced a 30,000-word
database of transcriptions of 13 hours of audio-recorded L2 learner oral interaction. Most of
these data are digital, and, therefore, uploadable to online repositories. We suggest that that
making such data, and the collection instruments, available to researchers’ would improve
the replicability of postgraduate research and the usefulness of the findings for teaching and
research.
During the initial ‘key word’ search, it became obvious that abstracts were not as helpful as
one might expect. Some titles and abstracts did not mention generic terms such as ‘teaching’,
‘learning’, ‘pedagogy’, ‘second’ or ‘foreign’. On the other hand, some abstracts did not
provide key details, such as research questions, details of the methods (e.g. participants’ age,
proficiency, native or target language), or main findings. In their place were often detailed
rationales and/or theoretical backgrounds. Similarly, the methods and procedures used were
not always as accessible in the body of the theses as one would wish, and key details could
be hidden in unexpected places. We do, however, acknowledge that we have not been able
to report fully on the detail of the theses that we have reviewed. We strongly recommend
readers pursue the publications that have emanated from these doctoral studies, but which
space constraints did not allow us to reference.
We have shown that 2006 was a prolific year for second and foreign language education
Ph.D.s from English universities with very wide range of substantive areas and methodological
approaches. However, a few key areas did not emerge in that year, such as: process–
product research into teaching languages in primary schools; studies relating to task-
based teaching and learning; research into content and language integrated learning;
investigations of relations between socio-cultural awareness, attitudes and language learning;
and psycholinguistic research into how input is processed by learners, such as parsing,
segmentation or attention and related pedagogical issues. We might also hope for more
studies directly related to foreign and L2 education in the UK, particularly among primary
and secondary school pupils. Finally, although generativist perspectives were well-represented
in the initial group of theses, it would be useful if doctoral studies could connect more clearly
with other specific theories of L2 acquisition and could be designed to test, for example,
theories from cognitive, functional and socio-cultural perspectives (at least, those which are
testable).
References
Al-Ghamdi, H. (2006). The effectiveness and appropriateness of a medical English course. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Essex.
Andersen, R. W. & Y. Shirai (1994). Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition principles.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, 133–156.
Athanasopoulos, P. (2006). The effects of second language acquisition on cognition: The case of number.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essex.
Bavendiek, U. (2006). Portfolios and learner autonomy: The case of undergraduates learning German.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Liverpool.
Bin Yusot, Y. (2006). The teaching of Arabic language at the International Islamic University Malaysia:
The instructors’ and students’ perceptions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Exeter.
Brereton, A. (2006). Opportunities for participation: Sign language use with hearing children in an
early years classroom. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge.
Carlson, A. (2006). Computers, literacy and the bilingual/bicultural child. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Kent.
Cheng, H-F. (2006). Motivational teaching practice of Taiwanese English teachers. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Nottingham.
Ciobanu, D-I. (2006). Acquiring reading skills in a foreign language in a multilingual corpus-based
environment. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leeds.
Coluzzi, P. (2006). Minority language planning and micronationalism in Italy: Three case studies.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bristol.
de Bot, K., T. S. Paribakht & M. B. Wesche (1997). Toward a lexical processing model for the study of
second language vocabulary acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 309–329.
Doughty, C. & J. Williams (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, P. (2006). Willingness to communicate among Korean learners of English. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Nottingham.
Field, M. (2006). How do cultural expectations impact on the use of ICT for second language learning
university students in Japan? Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge.
Garcia, S. S. (2006). Lexical strategies in L1 and L2 writing: A study with Mexican university EFL
students. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essex.
Ginnis, P. (2002). The teacher’s toolkit: Raise classroom achievement with activities for every learner. Bancyfelin:
Crown House Publishing.
Goglia, F. (2006). Communicative strategies in the Italian of Igbo-Nigerian immigrants in Padova
(Italy): A contact linguistic approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Manchester.
Grabe, W. & F. Stoller (2002). Teaching and researching reading. London, Longman.
Granger, S. (2003). Error-tagged learner corpora and CALL: A promising synergy. CALICO 20,
465–480.
Guo, X. (2006). Verbs in the written English of Chinese learners: A corpus-based
comparison between non-native speakers and native speakers. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Birmingham.
Hammersley, M. (1997). Educational research and teaching: A response to David Hargreaves’ TTA
lecture. British Educational Research Journal 23, 141–161.
Hemmati, F. (2001). Vocabulary problems in the EFL writing of Iranian students: Taxonomies and
strategies. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essex.
Hemmings, E. (2006). An exploration of the relationships between attitudes, learning styles and Year
7 pupils’ experiences of language learning. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nottingham.
Hill, K. (2006). Sociocognitive metaphorm. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nottingham.
Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kasemsin, G. (2006). Interlanguage refusals: A cross-sectional study of Thai EFL learners’ refusals in
English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leeds.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiental learning: Experience as source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Laufer, B. & P. Nation (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing
16, 33–51.
Lee, H-C. (2006). Using children’s literature in particular Arthur Ransome’s Swallows and Amazons for
teaching EFL in Taiwan. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Birmingham.
Liang, S-C. (2006). Teaching English vocabulary in the primary classroom in Taiwan: A case study.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essex.
Lonsdale, M. dos S. (2006). Effects of the typographic layout of reading examination materials on
performance. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Reading.
Lu, Y. (2006). A discourse analytic study of EFL test-takers’ spoken discourse competence and its
impact on their oral proficiency and spoken grammatical competence. Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Reading.
Manners, L-M. (2006). A Medau approach to promoting language skills in pre-school children with
SLI and EAL. Ph.D. dissertation, Liverpool John Moores University.
Marsden, E. (2007). Can educational experiments both test a theory and inform practice? British
Educational Research Journal 33.4, 565–588.
McKenny, J. A. (2006). A corpus-based investigation of the phraseology in various genres of written
English with applications to the teaching of English for academic purposes. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Leeds.
Mertin, P. A. (2006). The role of culture in second language learning with special reference to the
Japanese students at the international school of Düsseldorf, Germany. Ph.D. dissertation, Goldsmiths
College, University of London.
Naiman, N., M. Fröhlich, H. H. Stern & A. Todesco (1978). The good language learner. Toronto: Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education.
Niño, A. (2006). Evaluating the suitability of using raw machine translation output as input for foreign
language written production. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Manchester.
Norris, J. & L. Ortega (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative
meta-analysis. Language Learning 50, 417–528.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Pring, R. (2000). Philosophy of educational research. London: Continuum.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11,
129–158.
Schmitt, N., D. Schmitt & C. Clapham (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new
versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing 18, 55–88.
Sheen, Y. (2006). Corrective feedback, individual differences, and the acquisition of English articles by
second language learners. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Nottingham.
Skoufaki, S. (2006). Investigating L2 idiom instruction methods. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Cambridge.
Souza, A. B. B. de. (2006). ‘Should I speak Portuguese or English?’ – Ethnic and social identity
construction in the language choices of Brazilian mothers and their mixed-heritage children. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Southampton.
Spada, N. (1987). Relationships between instructional differences and learning outcomes: A process–
product study of communicative language teaching. Applied Linguistics 8, 137–161.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stolyar, R. (2006). Project-based learning: Affect and effect. Ph.D. dissertation, Manchester
Metropolitan University.
Thepsiri, K. (2006). Scaffolding in project work: A study of a project-based course implementation in
a Thai university context. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Thomas, G. (2005). Strangers in paradigms: Education and theory in the twentieth century. Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Thomas, L. F. & E. S. Harri-Augstein (1985). Self-organised learning: Foundations of a conversational science of
psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Thorndike, R. L. & E. Hagen (1986). Cognitive abilities test (2nd edn.). Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
Ting, K-Y. (2006). The effect of using multiple intelligences approaches and Internet resources in
English Language courses for university students in Taiwan. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Exeter.
Tonkyn, A. (2006). Towards progress-sensitive measures of L2 speaking proficiency: A case study of
instructed learners. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Reading.
Torgerson, C. & D. Torgerson (2003). The design and conduct of randomised controlled trials in
education: Lessons from health care. Oxford Review of Education 29, 67–80.
Tuncel, E. (2006). An evaluative study of the relationship between instructional differences and learning
outcomes: A survey based and experimental study of a more communicative approach to language
teaching in a traditional setting. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essex.
van Dijk, T. A. & W. Kintsch (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. London: Academic Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walters, J. M. (2006). Beyond exhortation: Training students of English as a second language to infer
meaning from context. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nottingham.
Ward, J. W. (2006). The lexical aspect of reading English as a foreign language for engineering
undergraduates. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Birmingham
Wiliwan, S. (2006). Lexical cohesion and metacognitive strategy training: An integrated approach to
main idea comprehension. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leeds.
EMMA MARSDEN is a lecturer in L2 education in the Department of Educational Studies at

the University of York, England, UK. Her work includes investigating L2 grammar pedagogy,
morphosyntactic and lexical development, and input processing. Her publications have appeared
in Language Learning, Second Language Research, The British Educational Research Journal, Language Learning
Journal, and several book chapters. She was a founding co-convenor of the British Association of
Applied Linguistics’ Language Learning and Teaching Special Interest Group.
SUZANNE GRAHAM is Senior Lecturer in Language and Education at the Institute of Education, the
University of Reading, England, UK. Her publications include articles in a range of journals (e.g.
Language Learning, The Modern Language Journal, System, Language Learning Journal), books and systematic
reviews in the areas of language learner strategies, motivation and listening comprehension. She is a
member of the Editorial Board for the Language Learning Journal and has acted as reviewer for a number
of international journals in the field of applied linguistics. She is an active member of the UK Project
on Language Learner Strategies research group.
Lang. Teach. (2009), 42:3, 397–403
doi:10.1017/S0261444809005795
Research in Progress
Centre for Applied Language Research at the University of

Southampton
The Centre for Applied Language Research at the University of Southampton is one of
two research centres within the discipline of Modern Languages. Established in 2004,
CALR now has more than 50 members, predominantly faculty members working in the
School of Humanities/Modern Languages, as well as growing number of postgraduate
researchers. The Centre has always sought to work collaboratively with other centres and
institutions worldwide and regularly hosts visiting international scholars. Additionally, many
of its members work closely with the Centre for Transnational Studies, which also comes
under the School of Modern Languages. CALR promotes an extensive applied language
research agenda, including language education policy, second language acquisition (SLA),
foreign language learning (FLL) and teaching, sociolinguistics, intercultural communication
and language globalisation. Emanating from the legacy of Christopher Brumfit, the founder
of the Centre, CALR work has always reflected an awareness of global and local issues in
language use and learning. Brumfit was renowned for balancing his concerns for the rights
and freedoms of the language learner with his influential work on classroom pedagogy. Since
his passing in 2006, these values have lived on in the work of the Centre.
Throughout the year, CALR organises a seminar series, at which talks are given by visiting
researchers from the UK and beyond. The Centre also hosts an assortment of conferences,
as well as an Annual Lecture; in 2008 this was given by Professor David Crystal on ‘The
future of Englishes’ and was attended by University members as well as former students of
Professor Crystal, and interested members of the public.
The overview that follows has been divided into four research areas: Pedagogy, Language
Acquisition, World Englishes and Bilingualism/Multilingualism, although there are obvious
overlaps between these areas. While the range of research in the Centre covers much of the
wider research arena within applied linguistics, the following research summary is focussed
on issues broadly concerning language teaching and learning. Further information on the
work of the members mentioned here can be found online (www.calr.soton.ac.uk).
Language teaching
International and technological trends in education have opened many new issues in language
teaching and also brought many researchers with diverse language and cultural backgrounds
into the centre. What follows is a brief overview of some prominent research areas and specific
studies, with the caveat that the space here does not allow us to cover all the research currently
being undertaken in sufficient detail.
398 RESEARCH IN PROGRESS
Rosamond Mitchell was one of the two founders of CALR (along with Christopher
Brumfit), and continues to play a pivotal role within the centre. Mitchell’s fields of interest
could hardly be wider, as she actively contributes to the fields of SLA, foreign language
education in British education and wide areas of EFL pedagogy from children’s learning to
various issues in higher education. Her latest collaborative research project for the state
Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) takes place in British primary
schools, reviewing the introduction of foreign language learning in Key Stage 2 (ages 8–
11). It investigates the nature and quality of language provision, and assesses the impact
of this on both language learning and wider learning across the curriculum. The early
results show positive implications for primary school language learning, with beneficial areas
including a perceived benefit to children’s general literacy skills, cultural awareness, oracy
skills, enjoyment, and dispositions and strategies for learning generally.
Mitchell’s other work includes a joint project on multicompetencies, funded by LINEE
(Languages in a Network of European Excellence). The study focuses on students with
multilingual competencies stemming from their backgrounds as immigrants in three
European countries. The research focus is on how the students use language inside and outside
the classroom, how this interacts with their perceptions and attitudes towards languages,
multilingualism and ‘legitimate’ varieties in education, and the part that language policy and
school practice have to play in tensions between institutional ideas of multi-competence and
actual student experience. The second stage of this research focuses on further issues relating
to multicompetencies, attitudes and language learning (see below). Immigration and identity
are also key aspects of Alma Rodrı́guez-Tsuda’s research into adult L2 learning in an urban
English context. Her approach emphasizes how the learner’s profile, including their gender,
various social memberships and oppositions and wider cultural and linguistic factors have a
strong and interwoven influence on their attitudes towards, and success in, language learning.
Another research focus within CALR is the current work on language learning strategies.
This area of research has been evolving over the last decade, and has been enriched by
the work of Mike Grenfell of the School of Education (Southampton). His most recent
publications compare the strategies employed by students with multilingual competencies to
those used by monolingual students in language learning environments, and the variations in
the roles and effects of strategy intervention in the classroom (see Grenfell & Macaro 2007).
This research strand is being supported by related work in the centre, including Tiwaporn
Kongsom’s forthcoming research into the effects of teaching communicative strategies in
Thailand.
The Centre for Language Study (CLS) works within modern languages and contributes
a great deal to the work of CALR. Under the direction of Vicky Wright, who is engaged
in several research projects into aspects of the learning of modern foreign languages, CLS
is currently overseeing important research on learner autonomy, resource-based learning
and the role of technology in language learning and teaching. Notable work includes that of
Julie Watson, who has had a pivotal role designing and implementing a variety of online
resources for international students in her role as Manager of Academic Development
on an e-learning project in CLS. The project has been investigating the value of such
online tools to enhance students’ experiences through pre-arrival online preparatory courses.
A website developed for the UK Council for International Student Affairs is in full
APPLIED LANGUAGE RESEARCH AT SOUTHAMPTON 399
operation (www.prepareforsuccess.org.uk), and its the success has implications for the future
of international student recruitment and preparation. Other research in the field includes the
work of Kirsten Söntgens, whose research interests are on the use of technology to transform
the traditional roles of learners. Her previous studies have looked at the use of online portfolios
and explicit skills training to this effect, and made recommendations for further curriculum
development and associated staff development needs. Her current focus is on the potential
benefits of using podcasts to transform language course content, the roles of learners as well
as language skills developed in the learning process.
SLA and foreign language learning
Of particular importance within CALR is the number of projects, both ongoing and
recently completed, in the area of SLA, both from the perspective of the teacher and the
learner. Two of the most well-known CALR studies are the Spanish Learner Language
Oral Corpus (SPLLOC; www.splloc.soton.ac.uk) and the French Learner Language Oral
Corpora (FLLOC; www.flloc.soton.ac.uk), both of which aim to promote research relating
to the acquisition of Spanish and French as a second/foreign language, by providing access
to a growing database of oral corpora to other researchers. SPLLOC is funded by the
UK Economic and Social Research Council and was built through collaboration between
the Universities of Southampton, Newcastle and York. The project is led by Dr Laura
Domı́nguez, whose expertise lies in the area of syntactic development in L1 and L2 acquisition
with particular relevance to Spanish. There are two SPLLOC corpora: in SPLLOC1 (April
2006 – March 2008) data was collected from L1 English classroom learners of Spanish, with a
view to investigating the acquisition of central morphosyntactic properties of Spanish, such as
word order and clitic pronouns, and to providing a description and analysis of developmental
sequences of L2 Spanish from an interface perspective; SPLLOC2 (August 2008 – January
2010) will expand this corpus further by researching the development of Tense and Aspect in
L2 Spanish by L1 English learners. The aim of FLLOC has been to create a corpus of spoken
L2 French from beginner to advanced level. The latest FLLOC phase ran from 2005 to 2008
and was funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Its objectives were to add
further intermediate-level data to the corpus and to investigate lexical and morphological
issues in French interlanguage.
Other current or recently completed SLA/FLL research projects have focussed on
instructed language learning in the UK and abroad. Patricia Romero de Mills uses
ethnographic investigation to provide an in-depth analysis of the elements involved in the
development of criticality among undergraduate students of Spanish in the UK in both oral
and written work. Competence in writing is central to the work of Wisut Jarunthawatchai,
who employs a process-genre approach to the teaching of rhetorical and linguistic features
in developing the writing competence of Thai university students, and Majad Alqahtani,
who explores pedagogical and theoretical aspects of the writing in English of students in
Saudi Arabia. Further studies range from the sociolinguistic within SLA (Alma Rodriguez-
Tsuda, mentioned above) to the acquisition of an L2 phonology, as in Caroline Hyde-
Simon’s investigation into the relative difficulty of acquiring an L2 (Zürich German)
400 RESEARCH IN PROGRESS
which is phonologically closer to the L1 (Standard German), compared to an L1 which

is phonologically more distant (English). The sounds explored are both similar and dissimilar
in the L1 and L2. Data will be collected from learners at beginner and advanced level from
each L2 group, and will subsequently be analysed using the acoustic analysis programme
PRAAT (www.praat.org). Results will be compared to native speaker productions of the
sounds in question.
World Englishes
Jennifer Jenkins chairs the centre and has brought a fresh focus to global issues in the teaching,
learning and uses of English. Jenkins, a distinguished linguist who has produced seminal works
in the fields of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) and World Englishes, is currently extending
her field of research, with new projects including her role as leader of a LINEE work package
focussing on the acquisition of ELF in conversational settings. The findings will be relevant to
pedagogy, issues of correctness, effectiveness, skills and norms in multilingual communication,
and will look at the effectiveness of native speakers in ELF communicative environments.
There are a number of postgraduate research students studying various aspects of ELF,
with foci ranging from ELF communication in China (Wang Ying) and Japan (Mariko
Kitazawa), to Nicola Galloway’s work on implementing ELF awareness in ELT pedagogy
in Japan. Continuing the theme of pedagogical issues in the changing roles of English,
Robert Baird’s work concentrates on current developments of English usage in international
higher education, and the consequences for academic writing and writer identities. Identity
and culture are central themes in William Baker’s work on intercultural awareness and its
development among Thai English users in higher education. In this study, Baker investigates
the role of culture(s) in L2 use and learning, and attempts to construct a model of intercultural
awareness to elucidate the ‘cultural dimension’ in such use, and learning and intercultural
communication in ELF.
Bilingualism and multilingualism
Another area of research focus, clearly connected to that above, is that of the relationship
between two languages which are of a similar status in a linguistic repertoire, as in that
of a bilingual speaker. Activity within CALR includes Gabi Budach’s project looking at
bilingual literacy teaching and learning in an Italian–German two-way immersion project
based in a primary state school in inner Frankfurt (Germany). The environment uses German
and Italian as target languages and medium of instruction, and the main objective of the
study is to understand processes of the children’s learning that are enhanced by this specific
environment encouraging the inclusion of various resources: multilingual, various genres,
and content from different ‘national’ curricula (Italian and German). Mike Grenfell’s work
on language learner strategies and bilingualism addresses the topic of the strategy use of
students who are learning L3 French with a view to opening a research agenda which
brings together psycho- and sociolinguistic perspectives. There is a long research tradition
COLLOQUIUM ON LANGUAGE IN AND OUT OF THE CLASSROOM 401
in studying bilingual learners from such perspectives, and extensive research literature on
language learner strategies within the field of SLA, yet there is little literature which brings
together these three components. The research will explore the theoretical, practical and
policy-related issues of bilingual students learning an L3 in a formal classroom context.
Elena Ioannidou, fosussing on multilingual immigrant students in Italy, England and
Austria, focuses on how multilingual repertoires are used in the school context, and whether
knowledge of more than one language reinforces language learning in other languages. The
exploration of immigrant speakers is also fundamental to Laura Domı́nguez’s study of the
ways in which immigrant bilingual speakers (Cuban exiles who have settled in Miami and
Spaniards who have moved to the UK) modify their L1 (including their vocabulary and key
syntactic structures) under the influence of the new linguistic environment.
References
Details and web links for current and previous research projects and members of The Centre for Applied Language
Research (CALR) are available at http://www.calr.soton.ac.uk/. Details of Languages in a Network of European
Excellence (LINEE) research projects are available online at http://www.linee.info/.
Grenfell, M. & E. Macaro (2007). Language learner strategies – claims and critiques. In A. D. Cohen &
E. Macaro (eds.), Language learner strategies: 30 years of research and practice. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 9–28.
Robert Baird & Caroline Hyde-Simon

University of Southampton, UK
rdb1v07@soton.ac.uk
C.V.Simon@soton.ac.uk
Language in and out of the classroom: Connecting contexts of language use with
learning and teaching practices
A colloquium presented at the Second Language Research Forum on 16 October 2008 at

the University of Hawaii at Manoa
Rationale for the Colloquium
For some time, researchers in applied linguistics have recognized the importance of access
to and participation in second/foreign/heritage (L2) communities as essential aspects of
language learning (e.g., Norton 2000; Pavlenko & Lantolf 2000). This research often seeks to
understand how L2 learners negotiate their participation in academic contexts (e.g., McKay &
Wong 1996; Miller 2003; Morita 2004), while a smaller number of studies focuses on contexts
beyond classroom walls (e.g., Lam 2000; Norton 2000; Black 2008). While both bodies of
research have offered insights into the affordances and obstacles to participation faced by
L2 learners, little research thus far has focused on the links between instructed contexts of
402 RESEARCH IN PROGRFESS
L2 learning and L2 use in other contexts. Given this state of affairs, it is possible to argue
that the relationship between instructed language learning and L2 use outside of classroom
contexts is radically under-theorized. Accordingly, this colloquium sought to address this
gap by taking up the following question: what is the relationship between in-the-classroom
language practices and engagements with the L2 beyond-the-classroom?
Themes
A dominant theme in the papers that examined the EFL contexts of Japan and Chile was a
mismatch between the status of English as a language of economic opportunity and the lack
of opportunity to use English as a language for communication outside of the classroom. This
theme calls into question the rationale upon which educational policies requiring English as
a language for international education is built.
In their analysis of interviews with Japanese learners of English, Sandra Lee McKay (San
Francisco State University) and Ryuko Kubota (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill)
found that the discourses of English as an international language in Japan often promoted
English language learning as a way to participate in an imagined global community. However,
they argue that this imagined community is resided in only by economically advantaged elites,
distanced from the local linguistic reality. McKay & Kubota found more opportunity for L2
learners of Portuguese to use their L2 in Japan, and yet, very few instructional resources are
available for Japanese learners of Portuguese. Similarly, Julia Menard-Warwick (University
of California, Davis) reported that Chilean English teachers found few opportunities to link
their classroom practices with their students’ experiences beyond the classroom walls. Though
most of her participants reported almost no opportunity to use English outside of schooling
contexts, Menard-Warwick did find a strong interest in English language popular music,
television, and film. Rather than viewing English as a language to be used for communicative
purposes as a global lingua franca, then, the Chilean teachers and their students invested in
English as consumers of English language popular culture.
The other three papers in the colloquium focused on contexts in which L2 speakers had
much greater access to using the L2 outside of the classroom. However, these papers also
illustrated many gaps between assumed goals of learners and learners’ chosen forms of
participation in L2 communities, including resistance to ‘target-like’ linguistic competence in
the L2, and ambivalence toward engaging in the cultural practices of the new community.
Noriko Ishihara (Hosei University) examined how learners of Japanese in Japan resisted
following the pragmatic norms they had been taught in their language classrooms in the
United States. She found that L2 learners sometimes intentionally used language which would
distance themselves from L1 Japanese speakers in order to achieve their own interactional
goals. Her study also illustrated how the teaching of L2 pragmatics can take learners’
subjectivity more fully into account to help fill the gap between instructional practices and
learners’ actual L2 use. In the context of L2 learners of English in the United States, John
Hellermann (Portland State University) examined how community college learners used
issues from daily life in their classroom to provide opportunities for meaningful discussion with
their classmates, rather than with L1 speakers of English. Finally, Jane Zuengler (University
COLLOQUIUM ON LANGUAGE IN AND OUT OF THE CLASSROOM 403
of Wisconsin, Madison) discussed immigrant and minority youths’ responses to nationalist

discourses connected to American cultural identities. Both in and outside of school contexts,
she found that the youth found ways to resist and reconstitute ‘being American’.
In sum, the five papers suggest that more attention to the connections among L2 learning,
teaching, and use could serve to inform language policy decisions and to improve pedagogical
practices in classroom contexts.
References
Black, R. (2008). Adolescents and online fanfiction. New York: Peter Lang.
Lam, E. (2000). Second language literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing
on the internet. TESOL Quarterly 34.3, 457–483.
McKay, S. & S. Wong (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Investment and agency insecond-
language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students. Harvard Educational Review 66.3,
577–608.
Miller, J. (2003). Audible difference: ESL and social identity in schools. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities.
TESOL Quarterly 38.4, 573–603.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. London: Longman.
Pavlenko, A. & J. Lantolf (2000). Second language learning as participation in the (re)construction
of selves. In J. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 155–177.
Christina Higgins
Department of Second Language Studies
University of Hawaii at Manoa
cmhiggin@hawaii.edu
Lang. Teach. (2009), 42:3, 405–414
doi:10.1017/S0261444809005813
Comparative Book Review
L2 vocabulary: Perspectives on teaching, learning, testing, and

formulaic sequences
Stuart Webb Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

stuart.webb@vuw.ac.nz
I. S. P. NATION (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. Pp. xiv + 477. ISBN 13 978-0-521-80498-1 (pbk).
I. S. P. NATION (2008). Teaching vocabulary: Strategies and techniques. Boston, MA: Heinle. Pp. xiii +
222. ISBN 13 978-1-4240-0565-9 (pbk).
JOHN READ (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. xiv +
279. ISBN 0-521-62741-9 (pbk).
NORBERT SCHMITT (ed.) (2004). Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pp. ix + 303. ISBN 90-272-1708-4 (pbk).
Introduction
There is currently a great deal of attention given to vocabulary in the literature on language
learning. It is now the norm rather than the exception to find research on vocabulary in most
issues of applied linguistics journals. Accompanying this increase in research, there has been
a growth in the number of books on different aspects of vocabulary studies. The aim of this
review essay is to look at work on vocabulary that covers a wide range of topics and may
enhance one’s perspective of the different areas of vocabulary studies. Because each of the
books has a different perspective, I examine how each book may be useful to teachers and
researchers.
The four books reviewed demonstrate the extent to which the study of vocabulary
has grown. Each book focuses on theory, research, and practice from a slightly different
standpoint. Paul Nation’s Learning vocabulary in another language provides the most comprehensive
review of research and theory on teaching and learning vocabulary, and remains the essential
reference on vocabulary. Nation’s Teaching vocabulary: Strategies and techniques is clearly focused
on pedagogy, describing over sixty techniques, and provides instruction on the most effective
methods of teaching and learning vocabulary. John Read’s Assessing vocabulary provides a
detailed analysis of the issues related to measuring vocabulary knowledge and presents a
framework that both teachers and researchers may use to analyze vocabulary tests. The
volume Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use edited by Norbert Schmitt examines
one area of vocabulary studies which has received little attention: multi-word items. It includes
ten original studies investigating the acquisition, processing and use of formulaic sequences.
406 COMPARATIVE BOOK REVIEW
The books reviewed were selected for two reasons. First, together they provide a detailed
account of the work on vocabulary which has received the greatest interest in recent years:
teaching and learning vocabulary, researching vocabulary, testing vocabulary, and multi-
word items. Second, each of the books was written or, in the case of the volume, edited, by
researchers who are at the forefront of work in the field. Nation has helped to define the
field of vocabulary. His first book, Teaching and learning vocabulary, as well as his work analyzing
text, creating word lists and vocabulary tests, has helped to spark the interest in vocabulary
today. Read, who may be best known for developing the Word Associates Test (Read 1993,
1998), has become the leading figure in testing vocabulary. Schmitt has been one of the most
productive scholars researching vocabulary in the last decade, having published a number of
books and many articles on the subject.
Overview
Nation’s Learning vocabulary in another language is the essential text for anyone interested in
research on vocabulary. It was written with an audience of second and foreign language
teachers in mind. However, it may be even more useful for graduate students and researchers
because Nation provides the most comprehensive review of research on vocabulary available
with reference to over 600 books and articles. Because of the length of the text and the
fact that some topics relate to several chapters, the reader may sometimes find it difficult to
locate a particular issue. This is particularly true for chapters 5 and 7, which both deal with
learning vocabulary through reading. However, an author index, as well as a subject index,
allows readers to quickly track down references and topics. Despite the amount of detail, the
text is surprisingly accessible because Nation skilfully applies experimental findings to the
teaching and learning of vocabulary. The text juxtaposes the theory supported by detailed
reviews of studies and the pedagogical implications of the research with frequent instructions
for teachers and examples of teaching tasks included. For example, in the third chapter,
Nation begins by describing the ‘What is it?’ vocabulary teaching technique, explaining the
learning goal of the activity, and reporting the best ways to use teaching techniques. The
chapter soon moves from the practical to the theoretical with sections on the psychological
conditions necessary for vocabulary learning (noticing, retrieval, creative or generative use).
From there, the chapter moves back to the practical with short sections on designing activities
to encourage noticing, retrieval, and generation.
The book begins by looking at the different ways in which words can be counted (tokens,
types, lemmas, and word families), the number of words which native speakers know, and
the different types of vocabulary (high-frequency, low-frequency, academic, and technical
words). While providing useful insight, this is one of the few places in the book that needs
to be updated because subsequent research has shown that the percentage of technical
vocabulary found in academic text is higher (Chung & Nation 2003). The second chapter
deals with what is involved in knowing a word. Here Nation presents a new framework with
nine different aspects of vocabulary knowledge which can then be broken down into receptive
and productive knowledge. The description of vocabulary knowledge is the most detailed
account available and expands upon the framework he created in his earlier book (Nation
STUART WEBB: L2 VOCABULARY 407
1990), which listed eight different aspects of vocabulary knowledge. In chapter 3, Nation looks
at the psychological conditions necessary for vocabulary learning to occur and follows up his
description of vocabulary knowledge by discussing which teaching activities may contribute
to each aspect of knowledge. The next two chapters focus on the relationship between
vocabulary on one hand and listening and speaking (chapter 4) and reading and writing
(chapter 5) on the other. Perhaps because Nation has done considerable work analyzing the
vocabulary in texts, chapter 5 in particular provides great insight into the research on learning
vocabulary through extensive reading and the vocabulary size necessary to understand written
text.
Chapter 6, ‘Specialized uses of vocabulary’ (pp. 187–216) is also particularly valuable
because it draws on the work Nation, his colleagues, and graduate students have done on
word lists and technical vocabulary. Great detail is provided on the Academic Word List
(Coxhead 2000), the importance of learning academic vocabulary, and the methodology
involved in making word lists. This chapter should be of value to anyone with an interest
in creating or working with word lists. The next two chapters focus on vocabulary learning
strategies. Nation clearly demonstrates the need for teachers to spend significant time in the
classroom teaching learners strategies to increase vocabulary learning. Although there are
many different strategies associated with vocabulary learning, Nation focuses for the most
part on four: guessing from context, learning word parts, using dictionaries, and learning
from word cards. Of particular interest here is the strong argument behind learning through
L1–L2 translation on word cards and in bilingual dictionaries. Although Nation has long
been an advocate of using decontextualized tasks together with extensive reading, his has
been one of the few voices in support of this approach. Chapter 8 is especially useful for
language teachers as it focuses on vocabulary learning strategies which have not received
much attention in the literature (word parts) or strategies which have often been criticized
(learning from word cards).
Nation devotes one chapter to multi-word items, examining research on describing and
classifying collocations. This chapter is not nearly as dense as the other sections of the book,
perhaps because of the lack of research in this area at the time of publication, and it is the one
chapter of the book which may need to be expanded upon in a future edition. The chapter
on testing is another of the very strong ones in the book, organized around the questions
which teachers may ask when considering vocabulary tests. A large number of examples of
question types are provided, making the chapter very accessible despite the complexity of the
issues surrounding testing. The final chapter has much greater pedagogical focus looking at
‘designing the vocabulary component of a course’ (p. 380).
Teaching vocabulary: Strategies and techniques was written for teachers and is clearly focused
on pedagogy. There are several similarities to Learning vocabulary in another language. In the
first chapter there is an explanation of the different types of vocabulary (high-frequency,
low-frequency, technical, academic words) and suggestions about the types of words teachers
should spend time on in class. Several chapters are organized around the different skills.
In the earlier book, reading and writing, and listening and speaking are grouped together
while in this book they are separated into individual chapters. There are also chapters on
specialized vocabulary, testing vocabulary, and planning the vocabulary component of a
language course, which deal with many of the same issues as the previous book. Thus, in its
organization, Teaching vocabulary: Strategies and techniques has a structure similar to the earlier
book. However, in its content there are many differences between the two.
The biggest difference is how the books read. While the earlier book was ‘intended to be
used by second and foreign language teachers’ (p. 4), its depth and numerous summaries of
research may have made it difficult to quickly find the sections which applied to the classroom.
However, in the later book the focus is clearly on pedagogy from beginning to end. While all
of the chapters and subsections draw on research findings, only the most relevant research is
referenced, thereby keeping the focus clearly on teaching vocabulary. This is also apparent
from the table of contents, where one can see that many of the subsections in the chapters
are written as questions which readers may have about teaching and learning.
One of the central features of the book are the 68 clearly described teaching techniques
organized around the topics in each chapter. They are all clearly signalled with double lines
before and after each mention, and range from fairly simple and well-known activities such
as Twenty questions (p. 46) and Spelling dictation (p. 86) to much more complex activities such
as Beating the odds (pp. 47–48), which involves four tasks: ranking, finding causes, classifying,
and analyzing. The wide range of techniques described makes the book a valuable resource
for teachers searching for vocabulary related activities in the classroom and they are all
conveniently listed in the index. This may not be clear to the reader at first, however, and it
would have been useful to have them listed in a separate index.
With the increased focus on vocabulary, there has been an increase in the number of ways
in which vocabulary has been measured. For example, research has focused on measuring
both receptive and productive vocabulary size, depth of vocabulary knowledge, strength
of vocabulary knowledge, the ability to infer the meaning of words met in context, and the
frequency of words used in writing. A book on testing vocabulary therefore has great relevance
to research and pedagogy. Read’s Assessing vocabulary is an essential reference for those who are
involved or interested in vocabulary tests. It provides the background knowledge necessary
to analyze specific vocabulary tests as well as to develop valid measures of vocabulary. The
book was written for teachers, researchers and test developers, and the topics covered apply
to each of these groups. However, the analysis of research on vocabulary and testing and the
focus on comprehensive measures of vocabulary may appeal more to the latter two groups
and graduate students. Although books on testing may be intimidating for some readers, the
explanations provided of terms and examples of the various tests make it very accessible.
Moreover, each chapter begins with an introduction and finishes with a summary making it
easier for readers to follow.
Read provides a useful framework consisting of three dimensions which can be used to
examine instruments used in vocabulary assessment. The first dimension, discrete–embedded,
relates to the extent to which a test measures an independent construct (vocabulary) or a
larger construct (language ability). The second dimension, selective–comprehensive, refers
to the extent to which a test measures specific vocabulary items or the entire vocabulary
encountered or used. The final dimension, context-independent–context-dependent relates
to the extent to which the test-taker needs to engage with the context to produce the correct
response in a test. The dimensions help to reveal critical differences between tests which
may not always be clearly apparent. Throughout the book Read applies these dimensions
to different vocabulary tests. For example, multiple-choice tests, which have been widely
used to measure vocabulary knowledge, are discrete, selective, and context-independent. In

chapter 5, where Read begins his analysis of four influential vocabulary tests (the Vocabulary
Levels Test, the Eurocentres Vocabulary Size Test, the Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, and
the Test of English as a Foreign Language) he classifies all four tests as selective, and three of
the tests as discrete, context-independent tests. In his analysis of the various tests, it becomes
clear that no single test is likely to be perfect.
Read reviews research on vocabulary assessment, looking at a number of test types and
the construct validity of vocabulary tests. The differences between measures of breadth and
depth of knowledge are discussed along with background on studies which have used these
test types and the reasons for using them. Related topics such as what is involved in knowing
a word and how words are counted are also covered and applied to testing. This introduces
some of the key issues which need to be considered when selecting or developing tests.
Schmitt’s edited collection Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use is a valuable
addition to the research on vocabulary because it highlights an area that until recently has
received very little attention. The collection of thirteen papers includes chapters from highly
regarded researchers on vocabulary such as Alison Wray, Koenraad Kuiper, John Read and
Paul Nation, Norbert Schmitt, Ronald Carter, Zoltán Dörnyei, and Michael McCarthy. The
majority of the studies were completed by a team of researchers at the Centre for Research in
Applied Linguistics at Nottingham University. Although the book may be of some interest to
teachers, it may have greatest appeal to researchers and graduate students as it sheds light on
an emerging area of interest in vocabulary and demonstrates that there are a large number
of questions which remain to be answered on multi-word items. This is clearly apparent in
the first chapter, by Schmitt & Carter, in which the authors provide some of the background
on research into formulaic sequences and repeatedly state that research is lacking. This is
also apparent in the trouble they had in deciding on the label for the notion of formulaic
sequences used in the chapter, finally adopting Wray’s (2002: 9) definition.
The second chapter, by Read & Nation, provides a satisfying continuation of the first,
examining as it does the methodological issues relating to measurement of formulaic
sequences. In particular, the difficulty with finding an adequate definition of formulaic
sequences at both the conceptual level and in operational terms suggests that what is classified
as formulaic language in one study may not be the same in another. Kuiper looks at how
language has been conventionalized in the speech of certain professions such as auctioneers
and race callers. The examination of how formulaic sequences are used in these situations
may indicate how different segments of society may have their own traditions of formulaic
language. Together, the first three chapters provide a useful overview of multi-word strings
and there is a logical progression into the following chapters which introduce original research
on formulaic language. Many of the articles draw on the work of Wray (2002), whose highly
regarded book was also a valuable addition to the field. Both the chapters which provide
background and those which present research make it clear that research on formulaic
language is in its infancy. Each of the chapters probably raises as many questions as it answers
and this makes the book both enlightening and interesting. Editor’s comments sections at the
end of each of the sections on acquisition, processing and use would have helped to show how
the studies together shed light on research on multi-word units and this would be a useful
addition in a future edition.
Researching vocabulary
Three of the four books reviewed here are useful for researchers interested in vocabulary.
While Nation (2008) is clearly focused on pedagogy and is of limited value to researchers,
they may find the volume on formulaic sequences of great interest as there are ten studies
which used a number of different methodologies. For example, chapters 4, 5 and 6 all
deal with the acquisition of formulaic sequences for learners from an English for Academic
Purposes (EAP) course. However, in chapter 4, Schmitt, Dörnyei, Adolphs & Durow used a
pre-test/post-test design to measure receptive and productive knowledge of a set of formulaic
sequences as well as measures of aptitude and attitude/motivation. In chapter 5, Dörnyei,
Durow & Zahran used the quantitative results from the first study but also added a qualitative
component, and interviewed seven of the participants from the previous study (four of whom
were identified as good learners and three as poor learners) and their tutors to gain greater
insight into the findings of the previous study. The methodology used by Adolphs & Durow
in chapter 6 involved case studies in which participants from the same EAP course were
interviewed over a period of time. However, in this paper the transcripts of the interviews were
analyzed to determine the learner’s progress in their use of three-word formulaic sequences.
Chapters 8 and 9 are particularly innovative in their designs, drawing on methodologies
employed in research in psychology. In chapter 8, Underwood, Schmitt & Galpin monitored
the eye movements of participants reading passages containing target formulaic sequences
to determine whether there is any difference between how words in formulaic sequences
and words which are not in formulaic sequences are processed. In chapter 9, Schmitt &
Underwood measured the time it takes participants to read the same passages to determine
the difference in the time necessary to recognize words embedded in formulaic and non-
formulaic sequences. Together, the ten chapters with original studies in the volume provide
not only interesting data on the acquisition of formulaic sequences for L2 learners but models
for experimental designs for future research in this area.
While Schmitt’s volume provides insight into research design, one of the useful features
of Nation’s 2001 book is that there is such a comprehensive review of research that it
becomes quite clear where further research is warranted. However, if readers are still
struggling for potential areas to research, there are also research topics aimed at graduate
students and researchers which are listed according to each chapter on the website linked to
the book, http://www.cambridge.org/elt/nation/, which also provides additional resources
for teachers and researchers. These include a bibliography of over 2000 publications on
vocabulary which are listed alphabetically or according to 24 specific categories related to
vocabulary. For example, the bibliography linked to specialized word lists shows over 50
publications associated within this area. Finally, there is a 30-item test which evaluates the
degree of knowledge which the reader has acquired on topics covered in the book together
with activities designed to either review or apply the material.
Although the focus in Read’s volume is clearly on testing, there is a lot of background
provided on researching vocabulary. This is useful for researchers because it provides the
contexts for different types of vocabulary tests. It also makes the book much more reader-
friendly for those who do not have such background knowledge. In chapter 3, Read reviews
research on systematic vocabulary learning, incidental vocabulary learning, inferring the
meaning of words from context, and communication strategies. In each case, he reviews
notable research and then looks at issues which relate to assessment, providing insight
not found in other publications since it highlights different methodological issues faced
by researchers developing vocabulary tests. For example, when discussing assessment issues
relating to incidental vocabulary learning, Read looks at the advantages and disadvantages
of using a pre-test to measure vocabulary knowledge, how researchers have investigated
incidental learning without using a pre-test, and how researchers have measured for partial
knowledge of words encountered during reading. Looking at the research and then examining
the issues relating to testing may be particularly useful for those readers who are planning
to conduct research on vocabulary. The research is reviewed in sufficient detail to provide a
useful background on specific areas of vocabulary studies, and the subsections on assessment
issues are essentially a tutorial on the advantages and disadvantages of different experimental
designs in each of these areas.
Teaching and learning vocabulary
Despite the different perspectives of the books, each makes useful contributions which may
enhance our understanding of teaching and learning vocabulary. Both books by Nation
provide significant insight on pedagogy. Nation (2001) clearly details the complexity of
planning the vocabulary component in a language course. He presents a seven-part model
of the course design process, which draws on points raised throughout the text and follows it
up with a list of eight principles necessary for language learners to become autonomous
vocabulary learners. Nation (2008) devotes considerable space to course planning for
vocabulary learning but presents it in a format which may be more easily applied to teaching.
He begins by outlining the need for learning to be balanced equally between the four
strands of meaning-focused input, meaning-focused output, language-focused learning, and
fluency development. He states that the teacher has four jobs – planning, strategy training,
testing, and teaching vocabulary – and that teaching vocabulary is only a small part of
that job. Of greater importance is the type of vocabulary which should be taught. High-
frequency and academic words should be taught alongside vocabulary learning strategies.
What may also be of great value to teachers is the final chapter discussing the steps involved in
planning for vocabulary learning in a course. This consists of measuring the vocabulary size
of learners, determining the type and amount of vocabulary they need to learn, balancing
the learning time equally between the four strands, measuring the extent of learning during
the course, and evaluating the vocabulary features of the course. While both books by
Nation focus on these points, his later book discusses the issues in a more teacher-friendly
format.
The appendices in both texts contain some of the most useful contributions to teaching and
learning vocabulary which Nation has produced, along with some of his graduate students
and a number of well-established colleagues. In Nation (2001) the appendices include the
headwords from Coxhead’s (2000) Academic Word List; two versions of Nation’s (1993)
1000 Word Level Test; Schmitt, Schmitt & Clapham’s (2001) updated Vocabulary Levels
Test, which replaced Nation’s (1983) and (1990) original test; a version of Laufer & Nation’s
(1999) Productive Levels Test; Fountain & Nation’s (2000) Vocabulary Levels Dictation Test;
and a list of function words. Nation reports on studies which showed that 270 function
words provided over 43% vocabulary coverage of the running words in most texts. In Nation
(2008) the first two appendices contain the most useful word lists for teachers: the General
Service List, and the Academic Word List. The next three appendices include the Vocabulary
Levels Test, Nation & Beglar’s (2007) Vocabulary Size Test, and the Productive Vocabulary
Levels Test. The final appendix is Crabbe & Nation’s (1991) eight-section syllabus of survival
language for foreign travel.
While Nation’s books specifically focus on teaching and learning vocabulary, Norbert
Schmitt’s volume includes research which has useful implications for teaching vocabulary.
Bishop’s study (pp. 227–248) indicated that highlighting multi-word items made them
more noticeable to learners. This suggests that teachers may be able to facilitate learning
of formulaic sequences by helping learners notice their typographical boundaries. Wray
(pp. 249–268) demonstrated that learners can make impressive gains of the spoken form of
multi-word strings through memorization in a short period of time, providing positive support
for direct learning of formulaic sequences through word cards. However, the study also showed
that after five months, typical learner errors may occur with memorized material, suggesting
that teaching formulaic sequences without teaching their construction may not always
be successful. Jones & Haywood’s study (pp. 269–300) suggested that teaching formulaic
sequences for two hours a week over a ten-week period is likely to increase awareness of those
items but that it may not lead to the production of those words in writing. This emphasized
the difficulty that learners may have using multi-word items. It is also important to note that
in most language learning classrooms, teachers are not likely to have a similar amount of time
to teach formulaic sequences. Thus, while each of the three studies provided some interesting
results with direct implications for the classroom, they again highlighted the need for further
research on learning multi-word items. Schmitt’s volume indicates that there remains a lot to
learn about how best to teach and learn formulaic sequences.
Read’s book, as well as both of Nation’s texts, provides useful insight for teachers into
vocabulary testing. His analysis of discrete vocabulary tests (chapter 6) may be most applicable
to teaching as it reads like a guide for developing vocabulary tests for the classroom. Issues
such as the purpose of the test, the construct definition, and the characteristics of the test
input and the expected response influence the design of discrete tests. Read breaks down each
issue with examples teachers can relate to. Thus, in the section on the characteristics of the
expected response, self-report as opposed to verifiable response measures are discussed, as
well as monolingual/ bilingual tests. He follows up his analysis with some practical examples
of different formats such as matching, completion, and sentence writing questions, and
discusses what needs to be considered when using each format. The sections may help
teachers develop their own tests as well as answer the questions which they have about testing
vocabulary.
Nation includes one chapter in each book on vocabulary testing although they do not
provide the amount of detail on testing found in Read’s text. However, each chapter is
focused on questions which teachers may have about vocabulary assessment, making it easier
to find answers to specific questions on testing than in Read’s book. In Nation’s earlier
book, he provides many examples of the different types of tests, the different purposes which
teachers may have for using vocabulary tests, and the factors which teachers need to consider
when measuring vocabulary knowledge. In his later book, Nation focuses most on tests used
to measure vocabulary size and the question of how teachers can determine what vocabulary
their students know. This may be the most valuable information about vocabulary testing for
teachers because determining vocabulary size indicates which types of words students need
to learn.
Concluding remarks
The four books reviewed here are complementary, providing some degree of overlap in
their subject matter while examining vocabulary from slightly different perspectives. Nation’s
Learning vocabulary in another language has established itself as the key reference work for scholars
who are interested in vocabulary and is likely to remain the point of reference for future work
on vocabulary for some time. However, with the large amount of research being done on
vocabulary, there will be a need for an updated edition in the near future. Read’s book helps to
increase awareness of the complex issues involved in testing vocabulary and should continue
to be an essential text for anyone interested in researching vocabulary. It may also benefit from
an updated edition in the future as new tests of vocabulary such as Nation & Beglar’s (2007)
Vocabulary Size Test become more common. Schmitt’s volume is an important addition to
the work on vocabulary as it highlights an area which is just beginning to receive the attention
it deserves. Nation’s Teaching vocabulary: Strategies and techniques has much more direct value to
language teachers as it provides them with a clearly illustrated approach to teaching and
learning vocabulary carefully supported by research findings.
References
Chung, T. & P. Nation (2003). Technical vocabulary in specialized texts. Reading in a Foreign Language
15.2, 103–116.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly 34.2, 213–238.
Crabbe, D. & I. S. P. Nation (1991). A survival language learning syllabus for foreign travel. System 19.3,
191–201.
Fountain, R. L. & I. S. P. Nation (2000). A vocabulary-based graded dictation test. RELC Journal 31.2,
29–44.
Laufer, B. & I. S. P. Nation (1999). A vocabulary size test of controlled productive ability. Language
Testing 16.1, 33–51.
Nation, I. S. P. (1983). Testing and teaching vocabulary. Guidelines 5.1, 12–25.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.
Nation, I. S. P. (1993). Measuring readiness for simplified material: A test of the first 1,000 words
of English. In M. L.Tickoo (ed.), Simplification: Theory and application (RELC Anthology Series 31),
193–203.
Nation, I. S. P. & D. Beglar (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher 31.7, 9–13.
Read, J. (1993). The development of a new measure of L2 vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing 10.3,
355–371.
Read, J. (1998). Validating a test to measure depth of vocabulary knowledge. In A. J. Kunnan (ed.),
Validation in language assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 41–60.
Schmitt, N., D. Schmitt & C. Clapham (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new
versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing 18.1, 55–88.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
STUART WEBB is a lecturer in the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies at Victoria
University of Wellington. He has written articles on vocabulary in journals such as Applied Linguistics,
Language Learning, TESOL Quarterly, and Studies in Second Language Acquisition. His research interests include
vocabulary acquisition, testing, and extensive reading and listening.
Lang. Teach. (2009), 42:3, 415–416
doi:10.1017/S0261444809005825
Remarks and Replies
The use of statistics in SLA: A response to Loewen & Gass (2009)
I welcome the opportunity to comment briefly on Loewen & Gass’s Research Timeline: The
use of statistics in L2 acquisition research (Language Teaching 42.2). Having attempted a similar
historical overview in the past, I fully understand the complexity of this task. The numerous
and comprehensive research citations the authors provide should prove very useful for those
who want to read more about statistics in SLA research.
What I find peculiar about the piece is its objective, uncritical stance towards the use of
statistics in SLA. The authors provide evidence of the increased quantity and complexity
of statistical SLA research and rightly point out calls in the field for more rigour in their
use. But what seems equally, if not more, important would be evidence that SLA researchers
are, in fact, using statistical procedures more APPROPRIATELY. It is unclear how reading the
books or articles that the authors include moves us any closer to the goal of judicious and
careful use of appropriate statistical procedures. In other words, just because more books
are published about statistics or more SLA articles use statistics does not mean that we
SHOULD be headed in that direction. A broader contextualization of the SLA research
endeavor and a fuller consideration of how statistical research, and yes, non-statistical,
qualitative SLA research helps us move closer to the larger goals of the field would be quite
welcome.
A newly published article by Benson et al. (2009) drives this point home. Their analysis
of over 2200 published empirical articles in ten applied linguistics journals from 1997–2006
found that 22% (477/2202) were qualitative studies. Interestingly, the lowest percentages
were found in Language Learning (17/215, 8%) and Studies in Second Language Acquisition
(9/199, 5%), two of the three journals Gass & Loewen cite as the basis for claims
about increased use and complexity. Benson et al. note that the increasing prominence
of qualitative research in applied linguistics journals ‘may therefore be a sign not only
of greater methodological openness but also of an increased awareness of the potential
contributions of other disciplines within and beyond applied linguistics’, disciplines which
tolerate, even embrace, qualitative research. ‘Two of the journals surveyed, Language Learning
and Studies in Second Language Acquisition, appear to be resistant to this process’ although they
point out that ‘it may be that the relative absence of qualitative research in their pages has
more to do with the maintenance of a narrow cognitive view of language teaching and
learning as an object of inquiry than it has to do with fixed methodological preferences’
(all three quotations from page 89).
In fact, it may be worth stepping back even farther, to contemplate the implicit and
explicit values that are inherent in research guidelines themselves. Shohamy (2004) wonders
whether such guidelines ‘restrict inquiry by framing it within static, imposed categories’ and
overlook ‘issues of morality, ethics, and responsibility . . . Research is more complex than any
416 REMARKS AND REPLIES
set of guidelines can ever be. It has ethical, social, and political ramifications that must be
addressed’ (p. 730). I could not agree more.
References
Benson, P., A. Chik, X. Gao, J. Huang & W. Wang (2009). Qualitative research in language teaching
and learning journals, 1997–2006. The Modern Language Journal 93, 79–90.
Shohamy, E. (2004). Reflections on research guidelines, categories, and responsibilities. TESOL Quarterly
38.4, 728–731.
Anne Lazaraton
University of Minnesota
lazaratn@umn.edu
Lang. Teach. (2009), 42:3, 417–418
doi:10.1017/S0261444809005837
Publications Received
Books
SIMON BORG, Teacher cognition and language education. London: Continuum Books, 2006. Pp. ix +
209. ISBN 978–1-8470–6333-5 (pbk).
The study of teacher cognition – what teachers think, know and believe – and of its relationship
to teachers’ classroom practices has become a key theme in the field of language teaching and
teacher education. This volume provides a timely discussion of the research which now exists
on language-teacher cognition. The first part of the book considers what is known about
the cognitions of pre-service and practicing teachers, and focuses specifically on teachers’
cognitions in teaching grammar, reading and writing. The second part evaluates a range
of research methods which have been used in the study of language teacher cognition and
provides a framework for continuing research in this field. This comprehensive and accessible
account will be relevant to researchers, teacher educators and curriculum managers working
in language education contexts.
PIERA CARROLI, Literature in second language education. London: Continuum Books, 2008. Pp. ix +
209. ISBN 978–90-272–2376-0 (hbk).
This book proposes the study of literary texts as a vital component of L2 linguistic and cultural
knowledge. The research, conducted with students of Italian in Australia, is situated in the
wider L2 context, and compared to studies of students’ perceptions of English and French
literary texts in countries such as Canada, Italy, Australia, Germany and the Ukraine. The
first part of the book takes the debate on the inclusion of literature in language education as a
springboard for posing crucial questions about how students, and educators, view literature.
The theoretical framework draws from educational, linguistic, philosophical and literary
theories, and focuses on the role of awareness in learning and the role of the learner’s
experience. The second part of the book evaluates an innovative approach to teaching
and learning L2 literature, and discusses the application of this to the language classroom.
Containing a balance of theoretical and practical concerns, this book will be invaluable
reading for researchers of applied linguistics and L2 acquisition.
JOHANNES ECKERTH & SABINE SIEKMANN (eds.), Task-based language learning and teaching.
Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2008. Pp. xii+313. ISBN 978–0-8264–9916-5 (hbk).
This volume is based on a conference session on task-based language learning and teaching
at the 20th Biannual Meeting of the German Association for L2 Research (DGFF) at the
University of Munich in October 2005. Though the empirical studies collected in this book
vary considerably in focus, methodology and perspective, they all revolve around three
central notions: cognition, process, and communication/collaboration. Task-based language
learning and teaching is now one of the most productive fields within the wider domain of
Applied Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition research. This volume brings together
418 PUBLICATIONS RECEIVED
studies that have been conducted in Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, and the USA.
They investigate the acquisition of L2 English, German, and Spanish in secondary and
university education.
Journals
The ESPecialist. EDUC/PUC-SP, Rua Monte Alegre, 984 – Perdizes Cep 05014–001 –
São Paulo – SP, Brazil. ISSN 0102–7077. Vol. 28.2 (2007), pp. 117–232.
This issue contains five articles addressing themes such as genres, the process of teaching
and learning a foreign language, and the description and characterisation of a corpus
in Portuguese. Orlando Vian Jr. (Universidade Federal de São Paolo) & M. Caroline
Moreira-Ferreira (PUC-SP) contrast journals and blogs and discuss the similarities and
differences between these genres. Based on the Australian conceptual view of genre,
Maria Raquel Bambirra (Centro Federal de Educãçao Technológica de Minas Gerais)
reports on experiences with genres undertaken in an ESP undergraduate context directed
towards reading. Rejane Teixeira Vidal (Universidade Federal Fluminense) addresses the
FORM–CONTENT dichotomy and discusses methodological alternatives from the information
processing model perspective. Maria da Glória Guará Tavares (Universidade Federal de
Santa Catarina) reports on a case study involving foreign language teachers, investigating
these teachers’ perceptions on oral skills, on opportunities of speaking the target language
in the classroom, and on the output functions they emphasise. The final paper, by Tony
Berber Sardinha (PUC-SP), presents details of the origins of a mother-tongue corpus in
Portuguese, reflecting on the advantages it may bring to researchers and difficulties related
to its organisation, updating and accessibility.
Lang. Teach. (2009), 42:3, 419
doi:10.1017/S0261444809005849
Forthcoming in Language Teaching

State-of-the-art Articles
Alan Waters on managing innovation in English Language education

Daniela Perani & Jubin Abutalebi on the neural basis of second language processing
and acquisition
Robert Vanderplank on television and language laboratories in foreign language learning
Tony Wright on language teacher education – practice in the early 21st century
A Language in Focus
Johannes Eckerth, Karen Schramm & Erwin Tschirner on L2 German (part two)
Ernesto Macaro on L2 Italian
Marta Antón on L2 Spanish
Yoshiko Mori & Junko Mori on L2 Japanese
A Country in Focus
Larissa Aronin on Israel

Christiane Dalton-Puffer, Renate Faistauer & Eva Vetter on Austria
Cem Alptekin & Sibel Tatar on Turkey
Plenary Speeches
Tracey Derwing & Murray Munro on putting accent in its place and obstacles to
communication
Gerard Westhoff on assessment of language learning tasks by practitioners
Carl Falsgraf on the ecology of assessment
Ph.D. Theses Reviews
Lindsay Brooks on Canada

Tess Fitzpatrick on Wales
Nicole Marx & Sabine Doff on Germany
Research Timelines
James Lantolf on sociocultural theory and SLA

Elaine Horwitz on L2 language anxiety
Ellen Bialystok on cognitive development in bilingual children
Debra Hardison on visual and aural processing of L2 input
Bilingualism
Language and Cognition
Bilingualism: Language and Editors

Cognition David W. Green, University College London, UK
is available online at: Ping Li, University of Richmond, USA
journals.cambridge.org/bil Jürgen M. Meisel, Hamburg University, Germany
To subscribe contact Carmen Silva-Corvalán, University of Southern California, USA
Customer Services
in Cambridge: Bilingualism is an international peer-reviewed journal
Phone +44 (0)1223 326070 focusing on bilingualism from a cognitive science perspective.
Fax +44 (0)1223 325150
Areas covered include: bilingual language competence,
Email journals@cambridge.org
peception and production, bilingual language acquisition in
in New York:
children and adults, neurolinguistics of bilingualism in normal
Phone (845) 353 7500
Fax (845) 353 4141 and brain-damaged subjects, and non-linguistic cognitive
Email processes in bilinguals.
subscriptions_newyork@cambridge.org
Price information is available at:

journals.cambridge.org/bil
Free email alerts

Keep up-to-date with new material –
sign up at journals.cambridge.org/register
For a free online sample visit:

journals.cambridge.org/bil
Journal of
Linguistics
Published for The Journal of the Linguistics
Association of Great Britain
Journal of Linguistics
is available online at: Editors
journals.cambridge.org/lin Nigel Fabb, University of Strathclyde, UK
Caroline Heycock, University of Edinburgh, UK
To subscribe contact Robert D. Borsley, University of Essex, UK
Customer Services
in Cambridge:
Phone +44 (0)1223 326070 Journal of Linguistics aims to publish articles that make a clear
Fax +44 (0)1223 325150 contribution to current debate in all branches of theoretical
Email journals@cambridge.org linguistics. The journal also provides an excellent survey of
in New York: recent linguistics publications, with around thirty book
Phone (845) 353 7500 reviews in each volume and regular review articles on major
Fax (845) 353 4141
Email
works marking important theoretical advances.

journals.cambridge.org/lin
Free email alerts


journals.cambridge.org/lin
ReCALL
Published for the European Association for
Computer Assisted Language Learning
Editors
ReCALL
is available online at:
Françoise Blin, Dublin City University, Ireland
journals.cambridge.org/rec June Thompson, University of Hull, UK
To subscribe contact
Customer Services The primary focus of ReCALL is the use of technologies for
anguage learning and teaching. It aims to appeal to
in Cambridge:
Phone +44 (0)1223 326070 researchers and practitioners in the area of computer-assisted
Fax +44 (0)1223 325150 and technology-enhanced language learning, normally but
Email journals@cambridge.org not exclusively operating in universities. ReCALL is also of
in New York: interest to language teachers in secondary and tertiary
Phone (845) 353 7500 education who may be considering the introduction of
Fax (845) 353 4141 technologies into their teachingpractice.
Email

journals.cambridge.org/rec
Free email alerts


journals.cambridge.org/rec

42 3

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

42 3

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Lang. Teach.

(2009), 42:3, 287–315

Annual Research Review

Review of research on language teaching, learning and policy

Richard Johnstone University of Stirling, UK

1.1 Cognitive and social perspectives revisited

1.2 Sociocultural perspectives

1.3 Explicit positive assessment

1.5 Form- and meaning-focused instruction

1.6 Processing instruction

1.7 Memorisation and imitation

1.8 Elicitation and reformulation

2.2 Self-efficacy and self-regulation

In their research on intermediate-level students of French at College in the USA, Mills,

2.3 Falling numbers

2.4 Comparison over ten years

Many studies of L2 motivation are ‘one-off’, whereby the researcher(s) descend on an

2.5 Perceived relevance

One important component of language-related motivation which may be implied by many

3.1 Benefit of retrieval

3.2 Emotional depth

3.3 Understanding polysemous words

3.4 De-contextualised and contextualised approaches

3.5 Effect of repetition

4. Listening and speaking

4.1 Digitally-supported listening

4.2 Beyond prefabrication

4.3 Outcomes of different types of pairing

4.4 Task familiarity

4.5 Code-switching and identity

According to Ellwood (2007), the language-learning classroom is an excellent forum for

4.6 Desktop videoconferencing

5. Reading and writing

5.1 Theoretical background to reading research

Reading in an additional language is a complex process, and there could be no more

5.2 Topic familiarity and working memory

5.3 Topic familiarity and incidental vocabulary acquisition

5.4 Learning to read totally different script systems

5.5 Speech act recognition

5.6 Types of feedback

a choice of evaluative feedback (EF) or knowledge of correct response (KCR). EF consisted of

5.7 Transfer of reading attitudes

5.8 Formative feedback

5.9 The old and the new

5.10 Literacy in bilingual children

6.2 Strategy research

6.4 A learning community

Coyle’s (2007a) perceptive study of the development of learner strategies is sociocultural

6.5 Beginner teachers

Beginner L2 teachers is an under-researched topic, but an admirable contribution is made

6.6 Communicative language teaching (CLT)

6.7 Autonomy through self-access

6.8 Time distribution

Overwhelmingly, the main approach to the distribution of time in L2 provision is ‘a lot of a

6.9 Strategies and other variables

7. Information and communication technologies (ICT)

7.2 Tracking different pathways according to personality type

7.3 Culture-related ICT

7.4 Keeping track of technologies

8.1 Challenging a deficit model

8.2 Cosmopolitan citizenship

8.3 Community language provision

9.1 Research overview