Evidence-Based Second Language Pedagogy

A Collection of Instructed Second Language Acquisition Studies

Masatoshi Sato, Shawn Loewen, Masatoshi Sato, Shawn Loewen

• Editorial: Routledge
• Año: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781351190534
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Lingue e linguistica
• Categoría: Linguistica

Evidence-Based Second Language Pedagogy is a cutting-edge collection of empirical research conducted by top scholars focusing on instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) and offering a direct contribution to second language pedagogy by closing the gap between research and practice. Building on the conceptual, state-of-the-art chapters in The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (2017), studies in this volume are organized according to the key components of ISLA: types of instruction, learning processes, learning outcomes, and learner and teacher psychology. The volume responds to pedagogical needs in different L2 teaching and learning settings by including a variety of theoretical frameworks (sociological, psychological, sociocultural, and cognitive), methodologies (qualitative and quantitative), target languages (English, Spanish, and Mandarin), modes of instruction (face-to-face and computer-mediated), targets of instruction (speaking, writing, listening, motivation, and professional development), and instructional settings (second language, foreign language, and heritage language). A novel synthesis of research in the rapidly growing field of ISLA that also covers effective research-based teaching strategies, Evidence-Based Second Language Pedagogy is the ideal resource for researchers, practitioners, and graduate students in SLA, applied linguistics, and TESOL.

1
Toward Evidence-Based Second Language Pedagogy

Research Proposals and Pedagogical Recommendations

Masatoshi Sato and Shawn Loewen

Backgrounds

The overarching research agenda of instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) is to understand second language (L2) learning and teaching issues in instructional settings and examine pedagogical interventions that help learners develop L2 skills more efficiently and effectively. To that end, ISLA can be considered as a subdiscipline of second language acquisition (SLA) in which a wider range of issues related to L2 learning is investigated (Loewen, 2015). In addition to its research scope, what also characterizes ISLA is researchers’ effort to impact pedagogical practices; ISLA researchers endeavor to provide teachers with evidence-based pedagogy by conducting empirical investigations. Investigations can be theoretical by examining L2 learning processes in relation to pedagogically relevant interventions in laboratory settings or practical by testing the impact of teaching techniques and materials on L2 learning in classroom settings. Either way, ISLA research aims to transfer findings into classrooms (see DeKeyser & Prieto-Botana, 2019). A call for the transferability of SLA research is not new (see, for instance, Ellis, 1994). However, we believe that SLA researchers are increasingly conscious of the pedagogical implications of their research. The current chapter provides additional momentum for this pedagogical view of research and invites both researchers and teachers to explore the interfaces between research and pedagogy.

In this chapter, we will first review theories used to account for L2 learning in the realm of ISLA. Theories are of paramount importance for advancing ISLA research. Theories offer justification for ISLA researchers to further examine ISLA issues. Theories are necessary also to account for L2 learning in the classroom. However, we admit that some theoretical debates among researchers often have little to offer teachers. For instance, the long-lasting divide between cognitive vs. social theories or quantitative vs. qualitative methodologies may be an exciting issue for some researchers, but it does not deliver useful information to practitioners. As Sato and Ballinger (2012) said, theoretical discussions among researchers are “ultimately problematic when it comes to transferring findings from L2 research into practice” (p. 173). Consequently, this chapter focuses only on theories that provide useful information for discussing the connection between research and pedagogy. We refer the reader to other publications for more general theoretical discussions (e.g., Loewen & Sato, 2017; Ortega, 2009; VanPatten & Williams, 2015).

Theories in ISLA

ISLA research draws on a variety of theories ranging from socially oriented to cognitively oriented ones. In reviewing ten contemporary SLA theories used to account for L2 learning, Ortega (2015) summarized that “some make claims as to whether instruction is necessary or sufficient, beneficial or detrimental, whereas only a few go further to make specific proposals as to what features are needed for the design of optimal L2 instruction” (p. 262). According to Ortega, the five theories directly related to L2 instruction are input processing theory, skill acquisition theory, the interactionist approach, sociocultural theory, and complexity theory. While complexity theory has not produced much evidence-based pedagogy, the other theories address important elements that can be manipulated in the L2 classroom to facilitate L2 learning.

Input processing theory pertains to the mechanism by which learners make form-meaning connections from the input and explains why certain input leads to L2 knowledge while other input does not (VanPatten, 1990). The theory proposes processing instruction which manipulates the saliency of input in various ways so that learners’ attention is diverted to formal aspects of input that are developmentally ready to be acquired (VanPatten, 2017). Skill acquisition theory explains that acquisition of a skill starts with declarative knowledge, that is, knowing rules and procedures (i.e., knowledge that). After repeated practice and propitious feedback, humans acquire skills (i.e., knowledge how) with which they execute a given task with increased accuracy and fluency (Anderson, 1983; DeKeyser, 2017). The theory is used to substantiate types of practice and feedback that are more effective than others in the classroom (Lyster & Sato, 2013). The interactionist approach focuses on interaction where learners can be exposed to input, receive feedback, and produce output (Long, 1981). As each of those components can potentially be optimized for L2 learning by manipulating learners’ attention to language form, a number of researchers draw on this theory in ISLA research (Loewen & Sato, 2018). Sociocultural theory too explains L2 learning stemming from interaction; however, it understands that knowledge is socially co-constructed between participants and social environments, and later owned by individual learners (Lantolf, 2000; van Compernolle, 2015). Pedagogically, it can be used to promote social relationships between learners that are more conducive to L2 learning (Storch, 2017) or to facilitate internalization of language concepts via concept-based instruction (Lantolf & Zhang, 2017).

In addition to the aforementioned theories, we add a number of psychology theories as an important facet of ISLA. As can be seen from the fact that Ortega (2015) did not include psychology theories in her comprehensive review of SLA theories, psychology research in the field of SLA has taken a somewhat different path, perhaps due to its psychometric nature (i.e., an examination of relationships among psychological traits and learning outcomes) detached from the use of language (i.e., input, output, and interaction). However, more recent research addresses L2 instruction, by, for instance, examining how learners’ psychology determines their behaviors during communicative tasks. Equally relevant to ISLA is teacher psychology that may ultimately determine the nature of L2 instruction that learners are exposed to (Mercer & Kostoulas, 2018).

Types of Instruction

Content-Based Language Teaching (CBLT)

CBLT is an instructional framework designed to teach an L2 via curricular content such as math and science. CBLT has been implemented internationally under the names of content-based instruction or content and language integrated learning (CLIL). The degree of focus on language and content varies widely depending on programs. In this regard, Lyster (2017) categorized different programs on a continuum ranging from language-driven to content-driven. At the language-driven end are foreign language classrooms where theme-based content is used to teach an L2. In contrast, immersion programs where the majority of subject-matter instruction is delivered in the target language are placed at the content-driven end. CLIL and English medium instruction, which have been increasingly adopted globally, are placed in the middle of the continuum and usually offer content teaching in the target language less than half of the entire curriculum.

Instructional effects of CBLT have been reported worldwide. If the key to successful language learning is the meaningful use of the target language, both for comprehension and production, CBLT provides an ideal context. For instance, Oliver, Sato, Ballinger, and Pan (this volume) conducted a two-year observation of math and science CLIL classes at an elementary school in Australia. Despite the fact that the target language (Mandarin) was a minority language for the students and their proficiency was limited, the results showed that the teachers used various scaffolding techniques to aid students’ comprehension of the content and focus-on-form techniques (e.g., corrective feedback) to shift students’ attention to language form.

Because content teaching provides students with cognitively engaging and demanding materials, tasks, and activities, their attention is naturally driven to the meaning of language. Consequently, the key to successful L2 learning is the amount of attention drawn to formal aspects of language. It may not be effective to draw learners’ attention to language too much in foreign language contexts where their focus is already on language; at the same time, learners in immersion classes may benefit from an explicit focus on language as they tend not to notice linguistic features due to their primary focus on meaning. In this sense, Lyster (2007) proposed the counterbalanced approach claiming that instructional success lies in the balance between language and content depending on individual teaching/learning contexts.

Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT)

TBLT interfaces with CBLT in the sense that both instructional approaches stress the importance of meaningful language use (García Mayo, 2015). As Ellis (2017) defines, TBLT is an approach to engage learners “in natural language use and promote acquisition by having them perform a series of communicative tasks” (p. 111). However, TBLT research largely draws on the interactionist approach and focuses on how input, corrective feedback, and output during communicative interaction can be manipulated by tasks. In order for a task to be effective for L2 development, Ellis and Shintani (2014) argued that it needs to meet four criteria: (1) learners’ primary focus should be on meaning during task performance; (2) there needs to be some sort of gap in the task; (3) learners should rely on their own linguistic resources instead of explicit linguistic information provided by the teacher; and (4) the task needs to have a clear outcome that is nonlinguistic. Considerable research has focused on task design features (e.g., task complexity) and task implementation (e.g., planning time) that influence learners’ task performance. Kim and Monteiro (this volume), for instance, manipulated the complexity of a listening task. While the study did not find an impact of task manipulation on learners’ comprehension, it underscores the departure of TBLT research from lab-based to classroom-based where instructionally authentic tasks are investigated as part of the existing curriculum.

Though limited in number, some studies have shown the superiority of TBLT over other instructional approaches. For instance, Shintani (2015) investigated incidental learning of English morphosyntactic features (plural—s and copula be), by comparing a group engaging in tasks and another group receiving present-practice-produce (PPP) instruction. The results showed that the task group outperformed the PPP group on the development of plural—s because the learners were required to use the feature in order to complete the task. Erlam and Ellis (2018) also examined the impact of focused input-based tasks with a quasi-experimental design. The learners who received the task treatment showed improvement in receptive knowledge of French plurality significantly more than those in the control group.

Form-Focused Instruction (FFI)

FFI is an approach that draws learners’ attention to language form during communicative activities either implicitly or explicitly when their primary focus is to communicate meaning. Since its early stages, FFI has been examined in classroom settings (Spada, 1997). The premise of FFI is that communicative language teaching is insufficient to help learners develop knowledge of formal aspects of language (vocabulary, morphosyntax, and phonology), and instructional support is necessary to raise learners’ awareness of features that otherwise could go unnoticed during incidental learning. The instruction can be proactive by, for example, highlighting certain aspects of input, giving metalinguistic explanations of language features prior to communicative interaction, or implementing features in an activity that promotes the repeated practice of specific features. Proactive FFI can be delivered either isolated from or integrated into communicative activities (Spada, Jessop, Tomita, Suzuki, & Valeo, 2014); isolated FFI aims to draw learners’ attention to target features before and/or after communicative activities, while integrated FFI is embedded in spontaneous communication. In contrast to proactive FFI, reactive FFI occurs in response to learner difficulties with linguistic items and often takes the form of corrective feedback when learners make L2 errors during meaningful interaction.

Importantly, FFI differs from traditional grammar teaching in the ways in which the instruction is processed by learners, although both aim for developing formal aspects of an L2. Transfer-appropriate processing explains that knowledge acquired in one context is best transferred to a similar context (Lightbown, 2008). For example, if L2 learners develop knowledge of English passives via a decontextualized grammar lesson, they would be better able to use that knowledge in a similar context such as a fill-in-the-gap test but not in another context such as spontaneous speech. Accordingly, FFI is delivered during meaningful use of language.

Concept-Based Instruction

Concept-based instruction is an instructional approach that draws on sociocultural theory whereby “the students not only internalize the conceptual knowledge [e.g., an L2] but also come to understand how they can deploy the knowledge to their own goals” (Lantolf & Zhang, 2017, p. 149). As such, the target language is viewed as a mediational tool, among others (e.g., social relations, teaching materials), to organize and control mental processes. With an aim of promoting internalization of L2 knowledge, concept-based instruction starts with an orientation stage where students are led to become aware of the goal of learning. Then, students are provided with conceptual knowledge via visual or material representations such as pictures or video clips. Students then use the knowledge in practical activities that entail communicative goals. Subsequently, they overtly or covertly verbalize the knowledge to make meaning of the knowledge (i.e., languaging). The final stage of internalization is marked by inner speech, where learners use the L2 knowledge fluently in different contexts.

As research based on sociocultural theory has primarily focused on learning processes where participants co-construct knowledge during interaction (Storch, 2017), empirical investigation of the effectiveness of concept-based instruction is scarce in the field of SLA. Lantolf and Esteve (this volume), however, examined a program where concept-based instruction was implemented as an overarching instructional framework. Focusing on the teachers who were trained to use concept-based instruction during the course of two years, the study found that the teachers came to realize how L2 knowledge can be co-constructed and how to facilitate this process by being a mediator for students’ L2 learning.

Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

CALL is not a type of instruction; rather, it is a context for delivering L2 instruction. For instance, TBLT can be delivered online (Baralt & Gómez, 2017). Or, FFI techniques can be used during online communication (Loewen & Isbell, 2017). Also, computers themselves can be an instructional tool, for instance in the case of automated feedback software. In addition, CALL i...