Lta 54 2

Language Teaching (2021), 54, 157–189
doi:10.1017/S0261444820000518
S TAT E - O F - T H E - A R T A R T I C L E
Global Englishes and language teaching: A review of

pedagogical research
Heath Rose1*, Jim McKinley2 and Nicola Galloway3
1
Department of Education, University of Oxford, UK, 2Institute of Education, University College London, UK and 3School of
Education, University of Glasgow, UK
*Corresponding author. Email: heath.rose@education.ox.ac.uk
Abstract
The rise of English as a global language has led scholars to call for a paradigm shift in the field of English
language teaching (ELT) to match the new sociolinguistic landscape of the twenty-first century. In recent
years a considerable amount of classroom-based research and language teacher education (LTE) research
has emerged to investigate these proposals in practice. This paper outlines key proposals for change in
language teaching from the related fields of World Englishes (WE), English as a lingua franca (ELF),
English as an international language (EIL), and Global Englishes, and critically reviews the growing
body of pedagogical research conducted within these domains. Adopting the methodology of a systematic
review, 58 empirical articles published between 2010 and 2020 were shortlisted, of which 38 were given an
in-depth critical review and contextualized within a wider body of literature. Synthesis of classroom
research suggests a current lack of longitudinal designs, an underuse of direct measures to explore the
effects of classroom interventions, and under-representation of contexts outside of university language
classrooms. Synthesis of teacher education research suggests future studies need to adopt more robust
methodological designs which measure the effects of Global Englishes content on teacher beliefs and peda-
gogical practices both before and throughout the programme, and after teachers return to the classroom.
1. Introduction
Aligned with the growth of research into the international spread of English and its influence on inter-
national business and education, Global Englishes research, focusing on the use of EIL and a global
lingua franca, has continued to expand, to change shape, and to take clear directions towards peda-
gogical concerns. Influential discussion of the pedagogical impact of the spread of English began
with Kachru’s (1985) once highly influential circles of English stipulating norm-providing countries
(Inner Circle), norm-developing (Outer Circle), and norm-dependent countries (Expanding circle),
along with the idea of WE that identifies English use at the country level. With increased global mobil-
ity, the field has outgrown this model with English now used fluidly within and across geographic
contexts, and ‘native English’ now in minority usage on a global scale. This has given rise to a number
of inter-related conceptualizations of English as a global language, including ELF, English as an EIL,
and Global Englishes, which is used in this paper as an inclusive term.
Considering the functional use of Global Englishes in international contexts, ELF research has
played a pivotal role in challenging assumptions of English language use. ELF research has raised con-
troversial discussions around the importance of focusing on intelligibility and the abandonment of
native-speaker norms. While the concept of a lingua franca core may not have been strongly supported
with empirical evidence, it is an influential one that continues to challenge the way we view the English
language as ‘owned and ruled’ by native speakers. These challenges especially concern grammatical
accuracy and native-speaker-defined pragmatics in ELT (Haberland, 2011), as well as ‘English-only’
classrooms. As English is an international language, in many contexts it maintains dissimilar
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
158 Heath Rose et al.
characteristics to the teaching and learning of other foreign languages, changing the way we under-
stand English as a FOREIGN language.
Pedagogical implications are currently gaining attention across the research domains of WE, EIL,
ELF and Global Englishes, offering possibilities for breaking free from fixations on native-speaker
norms. The field has been driven by a large number of volumes dedicated to implications and recom-
mendations for language teaching (e.g. Kirkpatrick, 2007; Alsagoff, McKay, Hu, & Renandya, 2012;
Matsuda, 2012; McKay & Brown, 2016). The influence of this movement towards more global
approaches to language teaching can also be observed at the nexus of research and pedagogy in teacher
education (e.g. Matsuda, 2017), sparking an increase in research. In this paper, we explore how and
why research is taking shape in language classrooms and teacher education programmes to evaluate
the effects of proposed innovations in practice, and to offer ideas for future research on this rapidly
emergent topic.
1.1 Global Englishes: an inclusive research and teaching paradigm

With increased connectivity, the most common use of English is as a global lingua franca. We have
witnessed a shift in usage of English, from being the language of a small minority of native English
speakers to one with a global ownership. Today, English functions as a lingua franca among people
from diverse lingua-cultural backgrounds, the majority of whom are adding to their multilingual
repertoire. It is used for various purposes, in diverse settings and in hybrid ways, where speakers
draw on their other languages to communicate successfully. It is a contact language, a lingua franca,
and a language in flux. Whatever we call it, what cannot be denied is that it is a language that is used in
very different ways to how it is presented in ‘traditional’ teaching English to speakers of other
languages (TESOL) curricula.
As English spread beyond its original boundaries and is used on a truly global scale, related fields of
research within applied linguistics emerged to document the use of English globally, how it manifests
itself, and more recently, how it should be taught. While researchers position their work in different
fields, we group these shared endeavours under the broad term of Global Englishes. This is an inclu-
sive paradigm that aims to consolidate the work of WE, ELF, and EIL to explore the linguistic, socio-
linguistic, and sociocultural diversity and fluidity of English use and the implications of this diversity
of English on multifaceted aspects of society, including TESOL curricula and English language teach-
ing practices. Global Englishes draws on key work from WE scholars (c.f. Kachru, Kachru, & Nelson,
2006), ELF scholars (c.f. Jenkins, 2006a; Seidlhofer, 2011), EIL (c.f. Alsagoff et al., 2012; Matsuda,
2012), and translanguaging (c.f. García, 2009; Canagarajah, 2013), given their focus on the global
use of English.
Researchers in these fields highlight the pluricentricity of English use and showcase how it is adapted
and used alongside other languages. ‘Multilingualism, it seems, is the topic du jour – at least in critical
applied linguistics’ (May, 2014, p. 1), and Global Englishes research is part of this movement (Rose &
Galloway, 2019), where ‘multilingualism has been at the forefront of recent discussions’ that challenge
prevailing conceptualizations of second language acquisition (SLA) within the wider field (Galloway
& Numajiri, 2020, p. 121). Thus ‘Global Englishes’ consolidates work in these related fields; it also unites
similar movements in SLA, such as translanguaging and the multilingual turn.
1.2 Rationale for innovation in language teaching

The global spread of English and the changing sociolinguistic landscape of the twenty-first century
have changed the foundations of how English is taught and learned. The majority of English speakers
have been traditionally labelled ‘non-native’ speakers, but these multicompetent speakers (see Cook,
2016) use English alongside other languages for the purpose of communication in diverse and flexible
speech communities. Such changed usage, and the growing research documenting this change, have
led scholars to call for a paradigm shift in TESOL curricula to address the mismatch between what
Language Teaching 159
is taught in classrooms and how English functions outside of the classroom (Kumaravadivelu, 2012).
The changing sociolinguistic use of English ‘has implications for language learning goals, for language
teachers and for the curriculum’ (Kirkpatrick, 2012, p. 131). Matsuda and Friedrich (2012, p. 17) have
urged innovation, arguing that the ‘linguistic, cultural and functional diversity associated with English
today challenges some of the fundamental assumptions of ELT and requires that we revisit our peda-
gogical practices’. Clearly the needs of English language learners who are learning the language to use
as a global lingua franca have changed. Of course, discussions of the diversity of English and the dom-
inance of ‘native’ English in TESOL are not new: scholars in the field of applied linguistics have long
lobbied for more accurate representation of the variation in English in language learning contexts
(Gass & Varonis, 1984). Likewise, in his seminal article in 1976, Larry Smith noted that those working
in English language education should showcase how English functions as a global language. In 1985,
Smith and Nelson also critiqued the role of the native speaker in intelligibility assessments.
Global Englishes research provides new perspectives on these issues. With an increasing body of
research showcasing how language is constantly in a state of flux – that there are no clear boundaries
between languages, that English is used in dynamic and multifaceted ways, that learners will have to
use languaging and navigate multilingual encounters – it showcases the irrelevance of curricula based
on static native English norms for the majority of English learners today. Such research calls for a new
orientation to language in the TESOL curriculum, one that promotes a more flexible view of language,
that emancipates non-native speakers from native-speaker norms, that repositions the target interlocu-
tor and where learner agency is central and language creativity is nurtured. Ultimately, it calls for
curricula that recognize that multilingualism is the norm, validate learners’ linguistic repertoires
and do not measure proficiency and competency with reference to native norms. It also encourages
a critical approach, examining the impact of the dominant standard language ideology and NATIVE-
SPEAKERISM in learners’ contexts.
1.3 Proposals for change: Global Englishes Language Teaching

However, despite such increased attention, calls for change have made little headway into TESOL. The
evidence is there, yet curricula continue to be misaligned. Global Englishes researchers, particularly ELF
researchers, have also faced severe criticism for a theory-practice divide, where scholars have abstractly
argued for change, without exploring the effects of such change within classroom practices. To bridge the
gap between theory and practice, and to unite the shared agenda of the research fields hosted, the
theoretical calls for change to TESOL were summarized as the Global Englishes Language Teaching
(GELT) proposals (Galloway, 2011; Galloway & Rose, 2015; Rose & Galloway, 2019), which call for:
1. Increasing WE and ELF exposure in language curricula

2. Emphasizing respect for multilingualism in ELT
3. Raising awareness of Global Englishes in ELT
4. Raising awareness of ELF strategies in language curricula
5. Emphasizing respect for diverse culture and identity in ELT
6. Changing English teacher-hiring practices in the ELT industry
The grouping of these proposals aimed to consolidate interconnected themes and to help instigate the
paradigm shift. The first proposal focuses on the need to expose students to the diversity of English ‘so
that they are better prepared to deal with English interactions in international contexts’ (McKay, 2012,
p. 73). The second proposal stipulates developing respect for multilingualism in line with movements
in translanguaging research and the multilingual turn in SLA, which are challenging the monolingual
orientations that underpin ‘traditional’ TESOL curricula, and meet calls for PLURILINGUAL PEDAGOGIES in
TESOL (e.g. Lin, 2013). The third proposal relates to the need for a critical approach to ELT and to
raise awareness of how English is used as a global language. The fourth proposal stems from ELF
research and considers the need for students to develop strategies to adapt to different communities
of language users and diverse interlocutors. The fifth proposal concerns the need to respect cultural
differences and reconsider what an English-using culture is (c.f. Baker, 2009, 2012, 2015). The final
proposal calls for changes to teacher-hiring practices and training to reduce positioning of the native
speaker as expert (see McKay, 2012). Non-native-speaking teachers do, after all, make up the majority
of the profession (Braine, 1999) and as such, ‘on a global level, the ELT profession is perhaps the
world’s only occupation in which the majority faces discrimination’ (Ali, 2009, p. 37).
Curriculum innovation is, however, a complex process and a number of barriers to change were
also identified alongside the proposals. These include a lack of materials that promote global
approaches, strong adherence to standard language ideology in TESOL, traditional perspectives in
teacher education, and hiring practices that favour native-speaking teachers (Galloway & Rose, 2015).
2. Innovations in ELT
Over the past two decades there have been a few notable attempts to theorize innovations in ELT from
the various perspectives within the Global Englishes domain. We will first briefly outline the various
proposed models for change in ELT, before then exploring models of the innovation process.
2.1 Frameworks for pedagogical change

All of the major schools of scholarship within the Global Englishes domain have lobbied for trans-
formation in language teaching practices, which have culminated in articulated models for change.
This section will evaluate four prominent models that underpin most of the classroom-based research
reviewed in this paper: WE-informed ELT; the EIL Curriculum Blueprint; ELF-aware pedagogy (includ-
ing the POST-NORMATIVE APPROACH); and GELT.
Notions of WE-informed ELT have their origins in early applied work from the field. Since the
1980s, WE scholars have called for a paradigm shift in language pedagogy to better reflect the chan-
ging function of English globally. Kachru’s (1992a) well-cited ‘Six fallacies about the users and uses of
English’ offered a concise critique on the incorrect assumptions underpinning ELT, offering areas
where a WE perspective could innovate the field, particularly in terms of challenging the established
target interlocutors, cultures, goals, and norms in ELT. Brown’s (1993) paper summarizes calls from
scholars (e.g. Vavrus, 1991; Kachru, 1992b) and presents these as eight recommendations for teachers
and teacher educators. These recommendations call for greater incorporation of WE perspectives
within language teaching and teacher education.
Almost two decades later, Matsuda and Friedrich (2011) were critical of discussions still largely
remaining at an abstract level regarding the pedagogical implications of WE, criticizing scholars for
not yet providing adequate research-informed pedagogical ideas for use in the classroom. In response,
they created the EIL Curriculum Blueprint, which provided specific guidance for teachers in their
selection of instructional models in the curriculum. The blueprint also encouraged greater exposure
to Englishes in the curriculum and focused on a need to teach strategic competence to learners for
use with a diverse range of English users. It encouraged the selection of appropriate cultural materials,
as well as language learning activities that aimed to increase awareness of the global politics of English.
More recently, these ideas were articulated into a framework of Teaching English as an international
language – a model built on the theoretical foundations of WE-informed ELT (Matsuda, 2019).
By the early 2010s, the field of ELF had been very influential in lobbying for change in ELT.
Building on influential groundwork from key ELF scholars (Jenkins, 2006b, 2007; Seidlhofer, 2011),
Dewey (2012) introduced his post-normative approach to curriculum change. This approach sought
to heighten teachers’ awareness of ELF, which he argued was an essential first step instigating
ELF-orientated change in pedagogical practice. In a post-methods era of teaching (see
Kumaravadivelu, 2003), this awareness could then help teachers to inform innovative teaching
approaches that are appropriate to each teacher’s own unique context. The post-normative approach
encouraged teachers to:
• Foreground the sociocultural context in which their students would use English(es)
• Expose students to the diverse varieties of English and the ways it is used
• Have students critically discuss the impact of globalization on English
• Spend less time on standard language forms, and focus instead on intelligible forms
• Teach communicative strategies for students to use in ELF contexts
Most ELF scholarship has since focused predominantly on raising teachers’ awareness through
ELF-centred language teacher education (LTE), as illustrated by the work of Bayyurt and Sifakis
(2015a, 2015b). Sifakis (2019) introduced an ELF Awareness Continuum to conceptualize the gradual
processes of raising teachers’ ELF awareness. The concept of a continuum resonates well with similar
conceptualizations within the GELT framework. ELF-aware pedagogy within this framework focuses
on the teacher, setting this framework apart from the EIL Curriculum Blueprint and the GELT frame-
work, which both focus on curricular change. Sifakis (2019) states ELF-aware pedagogy can be oper-
ationalized in a similar way as an English for specific purposes approach, which is developed according
to contextual needs.
The GELT framework for curriculum innovation was developed by Galloway (2011) based on her
doctoral research in Japan. The framework was underpinned by earlier ELF scholarship comparing
English as a foreign language (EFL) and ELF, as well as shifts in pedagogical practice. The framework
was further developed and the most recent version (Rose & Galloway, 2019) includes additional
curriculum elements, drawing on Richards’ (2001) curriculum development model. In total, there are
13 dimensions within the framework that seek a movement away from traditional teaching practices
towards more global teaching practices, encouraging change in: target interlocutor; ownership; target
culture; linguistic norms; teachers; role-models; sources of materials; positioning of other languages
and cultures; needs; assessment criteria; goals of learning; ideology; and theoretical orientation. The
authors state that movement from one category to the next is best visualized on a continuum for
each category, and the GELT framework does not embody an ‘all-or-nothing’ position (Rose &
Galloway, 2019).
Whatever the term, whether it be Teaching English as an international language, WE-informed ELT,
ELF-aware pedagogy, or Global Englishes Language Teaching, these ‘different names indicate different
intellectual history and affiliation, but they are more similar to each other than different in their
assumptions, visions and suggested practice’ (Matsuda, 2019, p. 146). Many of the ideas and values
underpinning each movement for change share a central endeavour to challenge the status quo in
TESOL and to innovate the ELT industry.
2.2 Innovation processes

In the 1990s, Brown (1993) drew on Rogers’ (1983) diffusion of innovation model to conceptualize the
processes via which WE ideas could be implemented in ELT practices. Brown draws on Rogers’ exam-
ination of variables affecting the perceived attributes of an innovation – that is, the aspects that might
make an innovation more appealing: compatibility, relative advantage, complexity, trialability, and
observability. In more recent work, Rose and Galloway (2019) outlined a diffusion model in greater
detail, exploring the processes via which an innovation might catch on or fail in various educational
contexts. Their innovation model borrows from Rogers’ later work (2003), where he organizes adop-
ters of an innovation into five categories: innovators, early adopters, the early majority, the late major-
ity, and laggards. In the field of technological innovation in language learning, Porter and Graham
(2016) drew on various definitions of these adopters (e.g. Rogers, 2003) to highlight the important
role of the innovators and early adopters in leading and creating space for new pedagogical practices.
The broader domain of Global Englishes, likewise, requires agents of change to introduce and trial
innovations, and then to importantly research and report on the effects of these innovations.
While some scholars focus on teachers as agents of change, other scholars have focused on the
importance of teacher educators to plant the seeds of innovation (e.g. Seidlhofer, 2011; Dewey,
2012, 2014; Sifakis, 2014; Blair, 2015; Dewey, 2015a, 2015b; Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2015, 2018; Rose &
Galloway, 2019). Teacher education is a powerful context within which to transform the prior expec-
tations and beliefs held by teachers, which can have lasting effects throughout their careers (Borg,
2018). Some ELF scholars argue that change must emerge from direct engagement with the teachers
themselves (e.g. Dewey, 2012; Widdowson, 2012), and teacher education is an obvious context where
contact between researchers and teachers can easily occur.
2.3 A need to take stock of Global Englishes innovations in practice

While Global Englishes and its adjacent fields of study have long observed a theory–practice divide, in
recent years a considerable quantity of classroom-based and LTE-based research has emerged to
bridge this divide. Currently, there is a need to take stock of what research has taken place thus far
in language classrooms to better understand the effects of Global Englishes innovations practice.
Similarly, we need to know what innovations have been researched in teacher education thus far to
make recommendations for future practices. Finally, in light of recent disruptions to student mobility
and face-to-face teaching due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we see an urgent need to review the uses of
technology in curriculum innovation to ensure we meet current and future pedagogical needs. Thus,
this paper aims to systematically investigate what innovations have been put forward and what has
been researched regarding implementation of these innovations.
2.4 Research questions

Building on the current knowledge gaps in the field, our review aims to answer the following review
questions:
1. What Global Englishes (including ELF, EIL, and WE) innovations have been trialled and
reported in research on LTE?
2. What Global Englishes (including ELF, EIL, and WE) innovations have been trialled and
reported in research within language classrooms?
3. How has technology been used as a facilitator of curricular innovation?
In answering these questions, we intend to ask a number of sub-questions to guide our synthesis of the
studies. These are: What is the reported impact of these innovations? Within which theories is research
conducted? In what contexts and on what populations has research been conducted? What research
methodologies have been used? What suggestions for future research have emerged? What implica-
tions for future practice are suggested?
3. Methodology for systematic review
We have elected to conduct this review of research as a systematic review, rather than a traditional
narrative review to try to minimize bias. A systematic review is defined as a review which ‘adheres
closely to a set of scientific methods that explicitly aim to limit systematic error (bias), mainly by
attempting to identify, appraise and synthesize all relevant studies’ (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006,
p. 9). As Macaro (2020, p. 230) observes:
traditional reviews can be affected by bias and lack of systematicity: bias in terms of how many and
which previously published studies are selected for inclusion; lack of systematicity with regard to
whether these studies are read in any kind of depth, the extent to which they are then described
in the review, how they are juxtaposed against other studies, and whether and how they are critiqued.
To reduce individual bias, systematic reviews should always be carried out in teams (Macaro, 2020).
As two of the authors are scholars of Global Englishes whose work was likely to be included in the
review, a systematic approach allowed these authors to minimize their own biases by applying strict
frameworks when reviewing their own work, as well as the work of others. It also facilitated opportun-
ities to uncover new pieces of research via an extensive search protocol. As it is important for system-
atic review teams to apply different perspectives to the review process (Macaro, 2020), our team
intentionally included one researcher who works outside the field of Global Englishes but whose
research on global language education would provide an alternative critical perspective.
3.1 Sample
Our sample included all potential empirical studies on Global Englishes innovation in language teach-
ing. Our inclusion criteria for the studies were:
1. Must contain empirical research

2. Must have been published between 2010 and 2019
3. Must be about ELT or teacher education
4. Must be about one or more of our key constructs (Global Englishes, WE, EIL or ELF)
Articles were excluded if they were deemed to be:
1. Theoretical articles or reports on practice with no research methodology

2. Research on topics other than language teaching, but with stated pedagogical implications
3. Studies on attitudes towards our key constructs rather than the pedagogical innovations under-
pinned by them
We required articles to contain empirical research and excluded theoretical articles and reports to better
understand what research was being conducted within the space of theory and practice. As numerous
review articles have appeared over time (e.g. Jenkins, 2006b; Jenkins, Cogo, & Dewey, 2011), the aim
of this review was to explore actual innovation in practice, rather than re-hashing proposals for change.
After an initial search of papers, 2010 was chosen as the cut-off date for inclusion in the review; search
results in library databases showed this to be an obvious year when the volume of available research had
increased.
Some scholars may find systematic reviews more constrained than traditional reviews. Certainly, in
our application of strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, we will have inevitably missed some import-
ant work which has appeared in unindexed book chapters, peripheral academic journals, and
unindexed dissertations. Nevertheless, ‘a positive result of following these stringent criteria is the limi-
tation of bias, thereby increasing the trustworthiness, and arguably the value, of the results and recom-
mendations of the study’ (Rose, Briggs, Boggs, Sergio, & Ivanova-Slavianskaia, 2018, p. 153).
3.2 Procedures
The following databases were searched to find potential articles:
• British Education Index

• Education Abstracts
• Education Research Complete
• Education-Line
• ERIC
• Academic Research Complete
• SCOPUS
• MLA International Bibliography
In each of the databases, we conducted the following search: ‘global Englishes’ OR ‘English as a lingua
franca’ OR ‘English as an international language’ OR ‘world Englishes’ AND ‘teaching’ OR ‘pedagogy’
AND ‘English’. The search was conducted on 10–12 August 2019. An updated search was conducted
on 1 June 2020 to screen more recent articles. The initial searching produced over 1,000 potential papers.
While some of the search engines connected to the databases such as EBSCO and ProQuest allowed the
searching of multiple databases, which reduced the number of duplicates from the outset, many dupli-
cates still remained. To reduce these, papers were exported as .ris files and then uploaded to EndNote to
use its automatic tool to delete duplicates. The list was then manually searched for partial matches in
author and titles, and when duplicates were confirmed, these were deleted. While this search took
place, other unsuitable articles were removed from screening based on publication source – papers
which were published in non-research periodicals, such as The Economist. This left 406 articles which
were shortlisted for abstract screening (and 92 further articles were added to this total in the updated
search).
The shortlisted articles were then imported into Rayyan (Ouzzani, Hammady, Fedorowicz, &
Elmagarmid, 2016) – a web application for systematic reviews, which allows remote access and
blind reviewing by multiple team members. During the abstract screening, the researchers worked
together in the same room to ensure they could check their understanding of the criteria with the
other members. Papers were marked as ‘include’, ‘exclude’, or ‘maybe’. Those marked ‘maybe’ were
then reviewed by all of the researchers and included if two or more researchers agreed that they should
be retained for full-text review.
In total, this procedure identified and reviewed in-depth 38 papers: 10 on research of Global
Englishes innovations in teacher education; 17 on research of Global Englishes innovations in
language classrooms; and 11 on the use of technology to raise awareness of Global Englishes issues.
3.3 Data analysis

After the review process, 68 papers were retained for data extraction in the first phase of the review
process. Electronic labels were also attached to the papers in Rayyan to help group them, using inductive
coding processes. These included: attitudes, teachers, curriculum change, classroom intervention,
teacher education, intelligibility, materials, pronunciation, intercultural communication, assessment,
and identity. The papers were then grouped according to our review questions, which were: teacher
education; classroom research; and technology. Some studies on materials or attitudes, which did
not connect directly research on innovation were not included in the critical in-depth review stage.
The full papers were then divided between the researchers maintaining those within their theme, so
the same reviewer judgements were made on similar studies. The researchers then extracted key infor-
mation on topic, sample, context, theory, research methods, and findings and added these to a single-
spreadsheet data extraction grid. Weight of evidence scores (high, medium, and low) were given to
evaluate the study’s relevance to our review, the appropriateness of its methodology, the contribution
of its findings to our review questions, and the trustworthiness of its analysis and reporting. One of the
key functions of a systematic review is to assess the reliability of research evidence (Gough, Oliver, &
Thomas, 2017); thus, these evaluation scores help to reveal the most important studies to showcase in
our in-depth review so that stakeholders are able to glean the most relevant and important research
findings (Macaro, 2020). The extraction grid was then used to produce simplified tables for inclusion
in this paper to compare and contrast the studies on key dimensions such as participants, theoretical
frameworks, research context, research methodology, and types of analysis.
3.4 Limitations
Our systematic review has several limitations, which must be acknowledged. First, our review did not
include grey literature – that is unpublished research, or research that might not be in the form of
published papers but available elsewhere, such as in conference presentations, dissertations, blogs,
and teacher newsletters. By not including such work, our review has introduced ‘file drawer bias’ by
not catering to unpublished work. One of the reasons we did not include such research was an inability
to systematically search for them. While we are aware of unpublished masters and doctoral work by
our own students and the students of certain other scholars, we felt including this research would
introduce the very type of bias we aimed to avoid by adopting a systematic method. A second limita-
tion was papers were not blind reviewed by multiple members (only the ‘maybe’ papers were). This
may have impacted the reliability of the first screening process. A final limitation is that our search
parameters may have missed relevant papers that did not include our key terms in their abstracts.
Nonetheless, by restricting our search to transparent and replicable procedures we have facilitated
future extensions and updates to this review.
It is important to note that many studies of teacher education practice and overviews of innovations
since 2013 are book chapters, and since they are not indexed, were not captured in searches for the
systematic review. Although not included in this paper, we are emphatic that Global Englishes
researchers should be aware of the contributions these chapters make to knowledge in the area –
especially as important avenues of reporting on action research. For example, Fang and Widodo’s
(2019) edited book discusses how Global Englishes can be transformed into practice and includes
chapters that offer empirical evidence in Asian contexts. Sifakis and Tsantila’s (2019) edited book
also includes a mix of conceptual and empirical chapters exploring ELF in classroom curricula, lan-
guage materials and tests, and teacher education programmes. Rose and Galloway’s (2019) book on
Global Englishes contains three chapters of empirical research. Zein’s (2019) edited book on ELF in
teacher education in Indonesia, and Hino’s (2018) book on Japan are also good examples of research
literature targeted to specific regions.
4. What Global Englishes innovations have been trialled and reported in LTE research?
This section aims to answer our first research question, which aimed to explore Global Englishes inno-
vations in LTE research. Even though our initial screening of LTE papers highlighted many studies that
discussed innovative practices in LTE, some of which provided a very good overview of instructional
activities and modules to inform teacher education curriculum development, these were ultimately
excluded from our analysis due to a lack of empirical evidence reporting the effects of the innovations.
Our review also revealed a number of excellent studies which focused on in-service and pre-service
teachers’ attitudes to innovation, as opposed to reporting on the innovations themselves
(Buckingham, 2015; Lee, Lee, & Drajati, 2019). Although these were excluded from our in-depth
review, the study by Lee et al. (2019) is worth noting due to its use of an original questionnaire to
measure attitudes towards EIL, which could be of potential relevance to future research on changes
in attitudes via teacher education.
The systematic review ultimately identified ten empirical studies that specifically examined innov-
ation in LTE research, and which our weight of evidence scores highlighted as most relevant to our
research question (Table 1). In terms of methodological assessments, two of these studies were
described as pilot studies, working with a small dataset, and the data collection and analysis proce-
dures of one article was not well articulated. We conclude that the majority of these papers reflect
research-in-progress pieces, which is surprising given that there have been calls for innovations to
teacher education for decades.
Four of these studies were conducted in Anglophone contexts. Two (Cameron & Galloway, 2019;
Galloway & Numajiri, 2020) were conducted with pre- and in-service teachers (mostly pre-service) on
a UK-based master’s programme and the other two Anglophone studies (Ates, Eslami, & Wright,
2015; Eslami, Moody, & Pashmforoosh, 2019) were conducted in the US, responding to the changing
demographics in native English-speaking classrooms as a result of increased migration. The only other
contexts included in this group are Italy (Vettorel & Corrizzato, 2016), Indonesia (Zacharias, 2016),
Korea (Love, 2013), Thailand (Prabjandee, 2020), and Turkey (Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2015; Biricik
Deniz, Özkan, & Bayyurt, 2020). The lack of research in other regions of the globe is significant.
Table 1. Studies reporting on curriculum innovation in LTE research
Study Year Country Context Main paradigms
Love 2013 Korea In-service teachers Critical pedagogy

(but included WE)
Ates, Eslami and Wright 2015 USA Pre-service teachers WE
Sifakis and Bayyurt 2015 Greece, Turkey In-service teachers ELF, WE
Vettorel and Corrizzato 2016 Italy In-service teachers WE, ELF
Zacharias 2016 Indonesia Pre-service teachers ELF
Cameron and Galloway 2019 UK Mostly pre-service teachers Global Englishes
Eslami, Moody, and Pashmforoosh 2019 USA Pre-service teachers EIL, WE
Galloway and Numajiri 2020 UK Mostly pre-service teachers Global Englishes
Biricik Deniz, Özkan, and Bayyurt 2020 Turkey Pre-service teachers ELF
Prabjandee 2020 Thailand In-service Global Englishes
Zacharias (2016) points out that research with pre-service teachers is under-represented, yet only two
studies were conducted solely with in-service teachers (Love, 2013; Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2015). However,
in some studies, small numbers of participants had teaching experience (e.g. Cameron & Galloway,
2019) and in Vettorel and Corrizzato (2016), a quarter of the participants had more than five years
of experience. Notably, definitions of pre- and in-service teacher education were not always clear in
these studies and length and lack of experience differed greatly.
The studies draw mostly on WE, although we can see that in some studies, ELF and EIL were also
drawn upon. Love (2013) focuses on critical pedagogy, but the critical pedagogy workshop used in this
study included WE content. The studies in this section are reviewed in three groups: those reporting
on reflections of short-term innovations (Section 4.1), those reporting on longitudinal innovations and
their impact on perceptions (Section 4.2), and those offering frameworks for teacher education
(Section 4.3).
4.1 Studies reporting on reflections of short-term innovations

In this review, two studies reported on short-term innovations in teacher education research. The first
is Love’s (2013) study, which focused on critical pedagogy with a two-hour workshop organized for
two groups of ten Korean in-service primary and middle school teachers. In this short intervention,
WE was only one of several topics, but it highlights the connections between Global Englishes and
critical pedagogy. The study also makes important connections with teaching young learners. The
focus on reflection and adaptation of TESOL materials also paves the way for future materials
development. Clearly not an action research project beyond own-classroom research, this pilot project
provided only anecdotal evidence of participant views, leaving the claim that participants were adept at
evaluating materials unsupported. The study suggested that participants currently use critical
approaches in their classrooms and calls for an approach that aims ‘to work within existing curricula
and systems rather than overturn them’ (p. 127), a conclusion that resonates with GELT and
ELF-aware pedagogy.
Eslami et al. (2019) reported on six activities designed to promote understanding of WE and EIL
with undergraduate pre-service teachers in the US. The sample size is unclear, but the aim was to chal-
lenge pre-service teachers’ knowledge about WE and heighten their sensitivity towards the cultural
and linguistic diversity they will face in American public schools. As with Love (2013), there is an
overview of the WE unit and an overview of activities. Data were collected via written journal reflec-
tions, completed in class after each activity – although with no sample size, it is unclear how many
were collected. As such, claims that activities were beneficial for raising participants’ awareness, toler-
ance, and respect of WE and that they resulted in attitudinal change and enabled participants to
challenge their own ideologies about ‘standard’ English are questionable, particularly since pre-
intervention data were not collected. Perceptions were noted to be the result of many factors, namely
experiences with language learning and professional training background, but it is unclear how these
factors were explored.
4.2 Studies reporting on longitudinal interventions

Ates et al. (2015) investigated the effectiveness of incorporating WE perspectives into undergraduate
English as a second language education courses in a teacher education programme in the US. Like the
two studies in Section 4.1, the study involved those preparing to teach younger learners (Pre-K-6 and
grades 4–8), but this was over a full 15-week semester, conducted by researchers not teaching the
course, that collected data from multiple classes. The sample size was also much larger, with 215 pre-
service teachers. Data were collected via pre- and post-course questionnaires with closed and open-
ended questions. The analysis applied statistical methods to compare pre- and post-course data
(using multiple t-tests, but without a Bonferroni adjustment). Statistically significant changes in atti-
tudes were revealed, and both students and teachers were found to have benefited from exposure to
WE perspectives. Although no follow-up data from the teachers were collected, the researchers called
for more observational research on the actual implementation of WE perspectives into classrooms.
The researchers conclude that appropriate interventions can foster awareness and acceptance of the
diversity of English.
Zacharias’s (2016) qualitative study explored the formation of teacher identity with 10 pre-service
undergraduates on a teacher training programme in Indonesia taking a 15-week microteaching course
orienting them to ELF pedagogy. They were interviewed three times to explore their understanding of
ELF pedagogy, experiences teaching ELF in mini lessons, and their identity formation influenced by
the course (although no pre- and post-course data were collected). Teaching documents for the mini
lessons (lesson plans, PowerPoint presentation, and handouts) were also collected, although analysis of
these materials was unclear. Participants gained confidence and using ELF pedagogy changed the way
they saw their roles in teaching English and how they utilized local cultures in materials; most showed
agreement with the importance of constructing a teacher identity independent of native-speaker
norms. Although participants had real teaching practice after the course, no follow-up study was
reported. Zacharias concluded by pressing for inclusion of more Non-Native English Speaking
Teacher (NNEST) issues in teacher education and encouraged the use of mediation tools such as
mini lessons to enable pre-service teachers to reflect on their identity formation.
Vettorel and Corrizzato’s (2016) study in Italy included the design and implementation of a WE-
and ELF-aware teacher education module and investigated how it influenced pre-service teachers’ atti-
tudes towards teaching practices. The two-year mixed-methods study involved two cohorts of students
and data collected via questionnaires, reflections in e-learning discussion forums, interviews, and final
reports. Because the sample size, research design, and data collection procedures are unclear, and only
open-ended data analysis procedures are outlined, replication would be difficult; and although parti-
cipants were positive about the innovation, conclusions that such innovations can broaden perspec-
tives of ELT are questionable. However, some of the post-course interview comments provide initial
insights and as with Ates et al. (2015), the study explored what aspects of WE and ELF should be
included in teacher education. The authors also explored potential barriers to incorporating these
aspects into curricula in the participants’ context. Citing Love (2013), they note that this study also
emphasizes critically evaluating ELT materials for adapting rather than abandoning traditional
TESOL curricula.
The study reported in Prabjandee (2020) was conducted with 38 Thai lower secondary school
English teachers to investigate attitudes towards GELT and provides insights into the activities that
could be used for teacher training. Informed by transformative learning theory, the study incorporated
a 16-hour teacher development course, collecting data via a pre- and post-course questionnaire,
researcher field notes, and artefacts (materials produced by participants). The author acknowledges
the descriptive nature of the pre- and post-course questionnaire analysis, yet unlike other studies,
participants were also asked to reflect on their experiences and the usefulness of certain activities
two weeks after the course, providing insights for curriculum design. Teachers were positive towards
the activities, but attitudes towards GELT remained unchanged. The authors note that this reflects
Galloway and Rose’s (2015) point that a paradigm shift in thinking may not occur quickly. The
study also highlights the potential of transformative learning theory; the activities did not result in
a major change in attitude, yet they did create a willingness to learn new concepts, so the author
calls for activities that provoke a strong emotional reaction and ones which enable participants to scru-
tinize their prior knowledge. However, as with other studies, the author also recognizes the limitation
of self-report data, which may not reflect authentic behaviours of implementing GELT in the
classroom.
Biricik Deniz et al.’s (2020) qualitative study, referred to as a ‘multiple case study’, reports on the
implementation and impact of a theoretical ELF-aware teacher education course (‘Globalization in
ELT’) on an ELT education programme, which was originally developed for in-service teacher educa-
tion and was imbued with the syllabus of the ELF-aware teacher education (ELF-Ted) project (Sifakis
& Bayyurt, 2015). This study was part of a Ph.D. study (Biricik Deniz, 2017) with 26 pre-service
teachers in Turkey. Data were collected via open-ended questionnaires, semi-structured interviews,
and other course documents, including portal journals and reflection reports. The questionnaire
and short ten-minute interviews were conducted at the start of the semester and also administered
at the end, although there is no information on the length of semester or frequency of the course.
Data were also collected throughout the course via journals, and at the end of the course participants
wrote a reflection report. The pre- and post-course qualitative data comparison is reported to have
revealed a change in mindset. The course raised the teachers’ awareness of the phenomenon of ELF
and ELF-aware pedagogy, although the authors acknowledge that this needs to be further investigated
to ‘clarify how this change occurs’. The study also acknowledges that, given the small group of
teachers, generalizability of the research findings is limited. The authors call for a follow-up study
to explore the impact of the course on the participants’ actual teaching practice.
4.3 Studies reporting on frameworks for teacher education

Sifakis and Bayyurt (2015) describe a ‘transformative’ framework for TESOL practitioner education
informed by ELF and WE designed to promote practitioners’ critical engagement with their own
teaching practice. The study, conducted in Turkey, offers a thick description of the curriculum. The
ELF-TEd project had three broad phases including a THEORETICAL PHASE, an APPLICATION PHASE, and
an EVALUATION PHASE. Twelve teachers (eleven from Turkey and one from Greece) completed all phases
of the project, but the two focus groups included only those from Turkey and the study reports only on
the pilot phase. Lessons were audio or video recorded, uploaded to the project website, and self- and
peer evaluations were conducted, but these data were not explored. The framework was reported to
prompt participants to rethink their teaching practices, but without a pre- and post-course compari-
son, it is unclear how the course re-orientated beliefs about ‘non-native speakers’ and practices such as
their use of error-correction, and whether the course actually increased their self-confidence as tea-
chers. The detailed overview of the framework is nonetheless helpful to inform future LTE
interventions.
Another study that promotes the importance of reflecting on context and own-teaching practice is
Cameron and Galloway’s (2019) study with pre- and in-service TESOL practitioners taking a Global
Englishes (GELT) course on a one-year master’s programme in Scotland. As with all other studies in
this section, it was conducted in a single setting. The focus was on attitudes towards proposing changes
in the practitioners’ current or future teaching contexts. Interview data were collected from 5 students
and triangulated with a survey of 66 students on the wider TESOL masters. It is unclear, however, if any
questionnaire participants also took the GELT course, as while the nationality of interviewees is stated,
there is no information on the questionnaire respondents. However, the study responds to the need for
research exploring the practicalities of GELT and specifically addressed attitudes towards GELT proposals
and barriers to implementing innovation. Findings suggest that explicit Global Englishes instruction can
increase belief in change, but the claim is weakened by the fact that the data collected were retrospective.
The authors call for more research both prior to and after Global Englishes instruction.
Galloway and Numajiri (2020) investigated pre- and in-service TESOL practitioners taking a GELT
elective course in a one-year master’s in TESOL programme in the UK. They used interviews (n = 21)
and questionnaires (n = 47) at the start of the course to investigate attitudes towards the GELT frame-
work, and GELT proposals for, and barriers to, curriculum innovation, as well as factors influencing
such attitudes. The authors did not investigate the influence of the course on attitudes in this study
(although this is reported in Rose & Galloway, 2019), but it does provide insights into the feasibility
of GELT-related curriculum innovation and proposals being put forward. Findings revealed GELT was
seen to be an important and relevant topic for the TESOL practitioners; however, attitudes remained
norm-bound and there were concerns about several possible barriers to innovation and uncertainty
over how to overcome them, calling for more clear guidance for curricular innovation. The authors
call for more research to explore the feasibility of proposals for curriculum innovation, as well as to
examine what happens in the classroom after teacher education courses. The authors also acknowledge
that, as this was an elective course, participants may have had more favourable attitudes towards GELT
than others.
4.4 Evaluating the research

As noted in Section 1.3, teacher education has been identified as a key avenue to instigate Global
Englishes-related innovation in TESOL. Teachers’ attitudes are central to innovation uptake, and
while attitudinal studies are certainly important, studies such as Zacharias (2016) that focus on teacher
identity are also welcome. However, despite increased proposals from scholars to raise teachers’ aware-
ness, and the increased presence of postgraduate TESOL and applied linguistics programmes
(Galloway & Numajiri, 2020), it would appear that research on innovation in teacher education
research is still in a state of infancy. The amount of published research in this area in indexed journals
is scant, although it should be acknowledged that several studies have been reported in book chapters
and therefore not included in this review.
Overall, the studies in this category showcase some excellent pedagogical innovations and some
provide detailed overviews of the syllabus and activities used, but there are many limitations. The
innovations reported here do appear to have been successful, yet there is a lack of evidence to
demonstrate the heightened awareness claimed. The research designs are often lacking in direct measures
and the data analysis procedures of many studies are unclear, so we have to rely on anecdotal accounts of
innovation. Short-term interventions and pilot projects need to be supplemented with studies that
include pre- and post-course data collection to explore the influence of such innovations. More
longitudinal research is also needed after the innovation to explore how (and if) these changes are
implemented in practice when teachers enter, or return to, their respective classrooms.
4.5 Strengths and limitations of current research into innovations in teacher education
Table 2 outlines the methodological approaches utilized in the studies within this section. As can be
seen, mixed and qualitative methods dominate, although the vast amount of different types of data
collected was also a weakness of several studies, given the lack of systematic data collection and
analysis. In summary, many approaches are being taken to introduce innovations in teacher education
in relation to Global Englishes. Only Vettorel and Corrizzato (2016) and Ates et al. (2015) utilized
pre- and post-course data to examine the influence of the innovation and both used questionnaires
to do so. However, data were only robustly reported in Ates et al. (2015).
Table 2. Methodologies of classroom-based research
Study Approach Sample size Time Main data source
Love (2013) Qualitative 10 Cross-sectional Workshop observations

Ates et al. (2015) Mixed 215 Longitudinal Questionnaire
Eslami et al. (2019) Qualitative Not stated Cross-sectional Reflections, journal entries after
activity, awareness-raising
activities, written reflections
Vettorel and Corrizzato (2016) Mixed Not stated Not stated Course instruction,
questionnaire, pair and group
reflective activities
Sifakis and Bayyurt (2015) Mixed 12 Longitudinal Focus groups
Zacharias (2016) Qualitative 10 Longitudinal Interviews, lesson plans, slides,
teaching materials (handouts)
Cameron and Galloway (2019) Mixed 71 Cross-sectional Questionnaire and interviews
Biricik Deniz et al. (2020) Qualitative 26 Longitudinal Interviews, open-ended
questionnaires, reflection
reports
Galloway and Numajiri (2020) Mixed 47 Cross-sectional Interviews and questionnaires
Prabjandee (2020) Mixed 38 Longitudinal Questionnaires, field notes,
artefacts, teacher’s reflection
In all other studies, attitudinal change was claimed drawing on retrospective data collection instru-
ments. Many used a mixture of tools to explore innovation. These include questionnaires, interviews,
focus groups, lesson plans, teaching materials (handouts), journal entries, written reflections, and audio
and video recordings of microteaching lessons. The retrospective nature of data collection at the end of
many of the courses reported in this research makes it difficult to attribute change to particular aspects
of the intervention as no measures are used to account for attitudes BEFORE taking the course.
Many of the studies provided a detailed overview of the types of activities that can be used to inte-
grate a Global Englishes perspective. These studies also highlight the need to develop ways to work
with teachers’ own curricula and promote reflection. As Sifakis and Bayyurt (2015, p. 482) state,
ELF-aware instruction should not ‘prescribe a particular teaching methodology or even a specific cur-
riculum’, and while the study provides a detailed overview of the framework, more robust evidence of
teachers’ transformative journeys in teacher education is required.
The lack of reliability of many of these studies is concerning and the unclear designs and analysis
procedures of most of the studies makes replication difficult. Four of the studies were teacher-led,
and even though Love (2013) refers to this as action research, there is no evidence of this beyond collect-
ing data in the researcher’s own classroom. For most of the studies reviewed, it was difficult to categorize
them according to a particular research design – perhaps an indication of a lack of methodological struc-
ture. For Global Englishes innovation to be successfully incorporated into the curriculum, more trans-
parency regarding research design is needed, not only to improve the reliability of the studies but also to
enable replication. Thick descriptions of the innovations are certainly helpful, but data collection and
analysis procedures also need to be clear; otherwise, the impact of such innovations remain uncertain.
The lack of longitudinal data (with some notable exceptions in the more recent studies) and the
lack of follow-up studies with teachers in their own classrooms is also problematic. Ates et al.
(2015) call for more longitudinal research, and it is clear that to date, no research has been conducted
examining the long-time and real-life impact of innovations. Microteaching was used in Zacharias
(2016), providing a window into observable practices. We call for follow-up studies of this nature
with robust data collection procedures, analysis, and reporting of results to be able to demonstrate
the success of these innovations in observable practice, as well as studies exploring long-term change
in actual classrooms. The studies indicate that participants, albeit often conflicted, are generally sup-
portive of change (Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2015, p. 2018), yet there is no research on what happens when
they enter or return to the classroom. In Vettorel and Corrizzato (2016), Cameron and Galloway
(2019), and Galloway and Numajiri (2020), barriers to innovation were explored and it is hoped
that more research will explore the feasibility of curricular innovation in a range of teaching contexts.
Nevertheless, the studies are a promising starting point for future research. A degree of scepticism
about change is unsurprising and norm-bound attitudes are deeply entrenched. However, in all of these
studies, participants were positive about the innovations and they do provide insights into how to
implement innovations within teacher education. It is hoped with the increase in Global Englishes
courses in TESOL programmes that we will see more studies in different contexts. Teacher education
is a key factor in ensuring successful and sustained curriculum innovation and remains central to dis-
cussions on the need for change in ELT in relation to ELF (see Dewey & Patsko, 2018).
5. What Global Englishes innovations have been trialled and reported in research within
language classrooms?
This section explores published research related to Global Englishes innovations within actual class-
rooms and curricula to answer our second review question. Table 3 includes the 17 studies highlighted
in our systematic review as most relevant to this topic. Our review initially revealed a good number of
studies which reported on innovative practices, but did not do so within a clear research design.
Examples of this included Lwin and Marlina’s (2018) interesting article advocating the use of folktales
to engage English language students in developing their intercultural communicative competence.
Similarly, Rose and Montakantiwong (2018) conducted a joint autoethnography (or duoethnography)
Table 3. Studies reporting on curriculum innovation
Study Year Country Context Main paradigm
Marlina 2013 Australia University EIL

Galloway 2013 Japan University GE*
Galloway and Rose 2014 Japan University GE
Teixeira and Pozzi 2014 USA University WE
Chang 2014 Taiwan University WE
Ali 2015 Pakistan Postgraduate EIL
Sung 2015 Hong Kong University GE
Rahimi and Ruzrokh 2016 Iran High School ELF
Rose and Galloway 2017 Japan University GE
Fang and Ren 2018 China University GE
Galloway and Rose 2018 Japan University GE
Sung 2018 Hong Kong University ELF
Lee 2019 Korea University EIL
Milliner and Dimoski 2019 Japan University ELF
Rosenhan and Galloway 2019 Japan University GE
Sert and Özkan 2020 Turkey University ELF
Tardy, Reed, Slinkard, and LaMance 2020 USA University GE
*‘GE’ denotes ‘Global Englishes’ in this table only.
of their own lived experiences of teaching EIL in Japan and Thailand, offering two very different tales
of successful and failed curriculum innovation. However, articles such as these, while relevant to the
theme of this review, did not present empirical evidence of innovations in practice and thus were
excluded from our in-depth analysis. For different reasons, other papers that made it to the extraction
grid stage (e.g. Bokor, 2011; Lanvers, Hultgren, & Gayton, 2019) were excluded during review due to
their focus on first language (L1) English speakers, as too were those connected to pure textbook
analysis (e.g. Syrbe & Rose, 2018) or textbooks in classroom use (e.g. Yu, 2018). Our review also revealed
a number of excellent studies which focused on students’ and teachers’ attitudes to innovation, rather
than research on innovations themselves (He & Zhang, 2010; Fang, 2011; Sung, 2016; Ahn & Kang,
2017; Takahashi, 2017). Although these studies have been excluded from our in-depth review, they
are worth noting as being potentially important investigations of stakeholders’ readiness for change.
The earliest studies in our sample were Marlina’s (2013) investigation of teaching EIL in an under-
graduate context in Australia, and Galloway’s (2013) investigation of teaching Global Englishes in
Japan; however, there is an indication of recent growth in research with over half these studies pub-
lished since 2018. Innovations have been reported in twelve different countries, with Japan represented
in six studies. Undergraduate university learning contexts represent the vast majority of studies, with
only two studies at the high-school level, and one at the elementary-school level. Global Englishes is
the main paradigm of research in eight of the studies, EIL underpins five of the studies, ELF informs
four of the studies, and WE just one. This indicates that classroom-based research is led by Global
Englishes and EIL research, with the latter representing a more regionally diverse range of studies.
Scholarship from ELF and WE are heavily drawn upon in a majority of papers, but often as a second-
ary paradigm underpinning the study.
5.1 Studies reporting on classroom activities

Most published studies that reported on classroom innovations were conducted by teacher-researchers,
or researchers in collaboration with teachers. Rose and Galloway (2017) investigated the impact of a
Global Englishes awareness-raising activity with 108 university-level English language students in
Japan. The activity involved learning about, and independently researching, the Speak Good English
Movement in Singapore, after which students engaged in a debate over the legitimacy of Singaporean
English and the need for people to adhere to perceived standards. Data were collected via in-class written
reflections from each student and analysed thematically. Findings indicated that the activity helped to
raise explicit awareness of non-standard Englishes and to challenge standard language ideologies.
Based on these findings, the authors concluded that the activity ‘demonstrates how Global Englishes
can be incorporated into an everyday ELT classroom in a country like Japan, where “native” norms
prevail’ (p. 300) and helps teachers and learners to realize that language in use sets different standards
than the imagined benchmarks. The strength of the study as a report of pedagogical practice is also its
weakness as a piece of research, as there is a high risk of bias in the conclusions drawn.
In another study with the same group of 108 Japanese university students, Rosenhan and Galloway
(2019) analysed poems produced by the students to explore whether creative pedagogies can provide a
means to show creative self-reflection regarding the global spread of English. The poems were analysed
via corpus and literary analysis to explore metaphors that students used as a means of emancipation
from native English norms. The study concludes that the use of poetry for this purpose helped
students to develop their own identities by allowing them to subvert the rule-governed nature of
English through creative use of the language.
Galloway and Rose (2018) used a presentation task to raise awareness of Global Englishes with 19
Japanese university students. In the task, the students were required to research one regional variety of
English in terms of its development, features, and use, and then present this information in small
groups using PowerPoint slides or posters. Data were collected in the form of handwritten reflections
on the task. Data were coded thematically according to reasons for choosing the variety, and their reac-
tions to the information presented in their groups. The authors conclude that the activity facilitated
in-depth exposure to a wide variety of Englishes. Implications were that teachers could adapt the activ-
ity for their own classrooms to create a more globally orientated and learner-centred curriculum. The
trustworthiness of findings of this study were similarly problematic to the debate study (Rose &
Galloway, 2017), where data were collected via a single method in which students might have told
the teacher-researchers what they wanted to hear.
Sung (2015) conducted a study on a group of 25 students in Hong Kong, where the curriculum
included a number of Global Englishes awareness-raising activities. Thirteen of the students were
interviewed in two focus groups after the course concluded. Data were analysed thematically, and find-
ings suggested that the activities were received positively and were successful in raising awareness. The
author notes, however, that the course did not result in radical change, and that future innovation
might be best spread across language curricula and include both critical activities and out-of-class
learning opportunities. Like many of the studies within this group, the study is somewhat limited
in its one-shot end-of-course data collection, which affects the reliability of the findings. Pedagogically,
however, the study offers a lot to teachers, with its good description of the innovations, including
some example tasks in the published study.
Sert and Özkan (2020) report on a seven-week intervention with thirty university students in
Turkey. The intervention consisted of a series of one-hour long weekly ELF-informed activities, mainly
focused on accents, pronunciation, and intelligibility. Data were collected before and after the course
via a list of statements about ELF that students had to agree or disagree with. Interviews with five
students at the end of the course were also conducted. As the statement list produced binary data,
results were somewhat simplistic, but nonetheless showed that the activities led to greater confidence
in students’ own variety of English, and less attachment to British and American standards. Interview
data attributed these attitudinal changes to the ELF-informed activities. Future research might choose
to adapt the statement list to a Likert scale format to produce data with greater sensitivity.
Milliner and Dimoski (2019) reported on the effects of an innovation comprising 12 ELF-informed
listening strategy training activities at Japanese university. The participants were 147 Japanese students,
and data were collected via pre- and post-course listening assessments (TOEIC and Listening Vocabulary
Levels Test), a listening self-efficacy questionnaire, student diaries, and a post-course questionnaire.
Analysis of the pre-and post-course listening assessments revealed no significant change in listening
proficiency but seeing as both of these tests do not measure ELF use, this is perhaps unsurprising,
and speaks more to the efficacy of the listening training than the ELF-informed aspects of it. The self-
efficacy questionnaire descriptively indicated a slight rise in students’ listening confidence, although
inferential statistics were not conducted to check if this change was significant. Post-course question-
naires indicated students responded positively to the activities. Overall, due to the adopted measures
and analysis embodied in this study, it is difficult to conclude an overall effect of the ELF-informed
aspects of the listening training.
Overall, the studies in this category showcase excellent pedagogical innovations in English language
classrooms, but all have limitations in embodying one-shot or retrospective explorations of the impact
of these activities. In all of these studies, there are no measures to directly capture students’ beliefs
before and after the tasks, and thus there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate change. Moreover,
data collection methods tend to be confined to written reflections and retrospective interviews. Thus,
the validity of the students’ responses may be called into question and it is unknown whether changes
in beliefs are sustained over time, beyond completion of the task. As the activities are mostly transpar-
ently reported, displaying evidence of pedagogical soundness, future research might wish to trial the
same types of task with a different group of students and use a mixed-methods approach to capture
beliefs before and after the task, which would increase trustworthiness of the results. The use of
multiple data collection instruments would also help to increase the validity of any changes found.
In one of the only truly longitudinal studies in this category, Rahimi and Ruzrokh (2016) outline a
quasi-experimental study examining the effects of teaching a pronunciation course based on the lingua
franca core in comparison to a traditional one based on accuracy benchmarked to native norms. Two
groups of 28 students in a high school in Tehran were selected from a pool of 120 students and
randomly allocated into the experimental and control groups. The experimental group received two
45-minute pronunciation sessions per week for six months based on the lingua franca core, and
the control group had a syllabus underpinned by traditional British pronunciation norms. Students
were given a receptive and productive intelligibility test, and an attitude questionnaire at the start
and end of the course. The findings suggested that attitudes did not change as a result of the inter-
vention, but the experimental group outperformed the control group according to the intelligibility
measures. Reasons for differences in intelligibility are discussed, including the notion that the lingua
franca core lessens the difficulties of mastering pronunciation and thus eases the task. However, as no
qualitative data were collected from students, this could not be confirmed by the participants them-
selves. The study design was effective in that it offered longitudinal evidence of change, based on a
before measure, but reporting was at times unclear, especially surrounding the opaque use of factor
analysis on the attitudinal questionnaire. A future study might aim to replicate the methodology of
this study, which was very transparent in design, but add qualitative elements to data collection, as
well as additional steps into analysis to explore data at a greater depth.
5.2 Studies reporting on out-of-class learning activities

Galloway and Rose (2014) used an out-of-class compulsory listening task to expose students to non-
standard English varieties and ELF exchanges. The task involved 108 English language students at a
Japanese university, who selected 10 audio samples to listen to throughout the term. After listening,
the students recorded in a journal what they had listened to, why they had selected it, and their reac-
tion to it. In total, the dataset included 1,092 journal entries, which were thematically analysed for
content and frequency counts. Interviews were conducted with a subset of these students. The findings
revealed that students were drawn towards English speakers from all of Kachru’s three circles, although
Expanding Circle speakers were most popular. The reasons for students’ choices predominantly
centred on familiarity due to previous contact via teachers, friends, travel, or pop culture. The reflec-
tions revealed that the activity raised awareness of the diversity of English, but also reinforced some
stereotypes the students had about non-standard English varieties. Overall, this study showed that
out-of-class tasks can be used in class to create opportunities for discussion and reflection of
Global Englishes. Although the interviews suggested changes in attitudes over the course of the activ-
ity, this was not explored within the journal entries; all 1,092 entries were treated as one cross-sectional
dataset rather than tracking changes in choices, motivations, and reactions over time. This is one limi-
tation in the analysis, which future replication research should explore.
Sung (2018) trialled an out-of-class learning activity with 18 of his own students in a small liberal
arts university in Hong Kong. In the activity, students engaged in a real-life ELF exchange for 10–20
minutes and recorded this interaction in a weekly logbook. Data were drawn from these logbooks
and two written reflections of 1,500–2,000 words each on how the activity impacted students’ under-
standing of using English in a global context. Data indicated that the activity led students to increase
their appreciation of diverse forms of English, to question native-speaker norms, and to recognize the
importance of communication strategies and multilingual resources as a tool for communication. The
study concludes that such out-of-class tasks increase students’ critical awareness of ELF, and lead to
their own positive identity development as legitimate users of English. The study does not report on
the worksheet data nor changes in students’ awareness from the first critical reflection to the second,
meaning that like Galloway and Rose (2014), the data are presented cross-sectionally as a one-shot
study, and does not explore longitudinal change. Nevertheless, the study has clear pedagogical implica-
tions as a report on successful ELF-aware pedagogy put into practice as part of out-of-class learning.
Lee (2019) reports on a classroom activity with 17 Korean students in an English language class at a
university in Busan. The activity involved students planning and interviewing international visitors to
the Busan International Film Festival and making recordings of the interviews to present in class. Data
were collected from students via a reflective essay (n = 17) and semi-structured interviews with a subset
of students (n = 13). The researcher concludes that the teacher was a significant agent of change in
shaping students’ attitudes regarding EIL, as the activity led to a number of critical events which chal-
lenged students’ previously held biases and beliefs about non-native English. However, from the data
presented, it is unclear how much this single activity brought about long-term, sustained change.
This study, like the three others in this category, involved data collected via reflection papers in a
one-shot data collection design, and thus attitudinal change is only retrospectively reported by the
students to the teacher-researcher, eroding the reliability of the findings. Future research into out-of-class
learning should try to replicate these types of activity, which showcase innovations in action but aim to
collect data within a longitudinal research design. Teachers of English may also need to think critically
about the amount of time spent on using EIL when deciding on good activities. The activity in Sung
(2018) would require minimal preparation by the teacher to implement, but requires access to a multi-
lingual context. The Galloway and Rose (2014) activity requires support from the teacher in finding
suitable resources but may be well suited to lower level students in largely monolingual EFL contexts.
In Lee’s (2019) study, students spent most of their time editing and preparing videos as opposed to
using EIL, so teachers may need to weigh the value of the activity against the time required.
5.3 Studies reporting on teaching WE and EIL

This group of studies includes research that explores the effects of teaching WE and EIL to students.
These studies are slightly different from the above studies as the aim of the curriculum is to teach socio-
linguistic rather than language content, thus blurring the lines between content and language learning.
Fang and Ren’s (2018) study in China explored the influence of teaching a WE course to English
language students on their attitudes towards their own English. It also aimed to explore attitudes
towards Global Englishes more generally after taking the course. Approximately 50 students took the
course over 2 terms, from which 12 student interviews were conducted in the first term, and reflective
journals from 13 students were collected in the second term. Data were analysed thematically, and indi-
cated the course helped students to develop an awareness of diversity in English, leading to greater
confidence in their own variety of English. The data also suggested students developed a critical perspective
of standards in English and tolerance for non-standard (but intelligible) English use. The authors note
limitations to their study including the lack of a pre-test/post-test design to capture attitudinal change
as the interviews and journals only reported retrospectively on such change. Also, as the whole course
focused on Global Englishes, it is unclear from the findings how such content might be best integrated
into a language curriculum, or which activities in particular led to the greatest change in attitudes. The
authors suggest future studies should include more sources of data to capture the factors that influence
changes in student attitudes in response to Global Englishes content.
Chang’s (2014) study of the impact of introducing WE topics in an English language class of 22
students in a Taiwanese university suggests that WE content is both valuable and important for inclu-
sion in ELT. The study analysed the students’ writing on WE topics to identify what the students found
meaningful about English and learning English, what power the students noticed the English language
has, the value of English varieties, and countering hegemony. While the findings are very selective (we
do not know what they might have mostly written about), they are effective in showing an example of
how WE topics are being introduced in ELT.
Teixeira and Pozzi (2014) explored the effects of teaching a WE course on a group of seven inter-
national students from a range of L1 backgrounds. Data were collected in the form of accent-
recognition quizzes at the start and end of the course, a background questionnaire, student written
reflections, recordings of group discussions, an exit questionnaire, and course evaluations. Findings
suggest the WE course encouraged contemplation of local and global English use, and improved
students’ ability to recognize varieties of English. Unfortunately, despite the healthy pool of data to draw
upon, the procedures of data analysis and data presentation were not transparent. It was unclear what
the accent-recognition test included, and the use of a ‘two group’ t-test on a paired sample of seven
students was problematic, especially as no descriptive statistics from these tests were reported. Overall,
the study appeared to report on an innovative curriculum, but readers are left to accept the findings
at face value without a rich description via which to either replicate the course content or the data
collection procedures.
Marlina (2013) reports on a case study of three university students who took an EIL elective course
in their undergraduate studies at an Australian university. Data were collected by Marlina, who was
also the teacher, at the end of the course so as not to influence students’ perceptions. The study
found that the course benefited the students in terms of increasing their awareness and theoretical
knowledge of variation in English, but the students had difficulties reconciling the political messages
underlying EIL with their immediate and contrasting sociopolitical contexts. For example, while the
curriculum taught them that their own English was acceptable, the context in which they studied
often presented ethnocentric, racist, and native-speakerism behaviours and attitudes. The study points
to the importance of EIL curricula to discuss resistance to EIL ideas. A strength of Marline’s study is
the thick description that it offers of its EIL curriculum including the course outcomes. Marlina also
details several limitations to his research design, suggesting future research employ richer data collec-
tion throughout the course to avoid the issues surrounding his cross-sectional, and retrospective,
examination of the course via one source of data only.
Ali (2015) reports on the effects of teaching a series of 5 workshops on EIL to a group of 15 post-
graduate linguistics students in Pakistan. Data were collected during the workshops via fieldwork obser-
vational notes and document collection, as well as post-study interviews with the participants. Data were
stated to have been analysed via grounded theory, but this process was not entirely transparent in the
write-up of the study. The study highlighted the fact that while the intervention did challenge students’
ideas on standards in the language, the students held a deficit perception of their own use of English,
surmising that this is reinforced through the Pakistan Army and by teachers who are not enthusiastic
about EIL. A strength of the study is that it is one of the few examples of an EIL intervention in an Outer
Circle context, where postcolonial ideals may act as a substantial barrier to change. Limitations of this
study are that it was conducted only with linguistic majors, who may not represent the majority of
learners in this context. Moreover, like Marlina’s (2013) study, the retrospective nature of data collection
via interviews at the end of the course makes it difficult to attribute change to particular aspects of the
intervention as no before measures are used to capture attitudes before taking the course.
Galloway (2013) investigated the language attitudes of 52 Japanese English learners towards English
and ELT, as well as how these attitudes were influenced by Global Englishes instruction. The
quasi-experimental design divided students into an experimental group (taking a Global Englishes
content-based course) and a comparison group (taking a tourism content-based course) and attitudes
were elicited via pre- and post-course questionnaires at the start and end of semester in addition to
interviews. While the study revealed positive orientations towards native English and Native English
Speaking Teachers (NESTs), participants were aware of the difficulty and impossibility of the native
English model, and many referred to the importance of intelligibility. Post-course data revealed that
the Global Englishes group had a decline in preference for NESTs, an increased awareness of non-
native English, greater confidence as speakers of a recognizable variety of English and overall improved
Global Englishes awareness.
Tardy, Reed, Slinkard, and LaMance (2020) took a content-based instructional approach to incorp-
orate Global Englishes content within a university-level writing course. This study is significant as it is
one of the few studies to investigate the ‘challenges and benefits of a GELT-informed approach to EAL
[English as an additional language] academic writing’ (p. 2), and included a detailed overview of the
course content, which comprised two units of study, one on language variation and the other on the
global spread of English. Data were collected in the form of pre- and post-course surveys with both
students and teachers, university course evaluations, and a focus group with three students. They
also observed monthly teacher meetings. As the main thrust of the paper was to communicate the
innovative approach to a practitioner readership, presentation of empirical data was minimal.
Nonetheless, the post-course surveys and focus group data reported enthusiasm from students and
teachers regarding course content, with 67 of the 72 students (93%) indicating interest in the topics
covered.
Table 4. Methodologies of classroom-based research
Sample
Study Approach size Time Research design Main data sources
Marlina (2013) Qualitative 3 CS Case study Interview,

Galloway (2013) Mixed 52 Long Quasi-experimental questionnaires, focus groups
Galloway and Rose (2014) Qualitative 108 CS Action Listening journal, interviews
Teixeira and Pozzi (2014) Mixed 7 Long Quasi-experimental Accent-recognition quiz,
questionnaire;, written reflections
Ali (2015) Qualitative 15 CS Case study Observations, post-study
interview
Chang (2014) Qualitative 22 CS Case study Reflection paper
Sung (2015) Qualitative 13 CS Action Focus group
Rahimi and Ruzrokh Quantitative 56 Long Quasi-experimental Intelligibility test, attitude
(2016) questionnaire
Rose and Galloway (2017) Qualitative 108 CS Action Reflection paper
Fang and Ren (2018) Qualitative 25 CS Case study Interview, reflective journal
Galloway and Rose (2018) Qualitative 19 CS Action Reflection paper
Sung (2018) Qualitative 18 CS Action Log, written reflection
Lee (2019) Qualitative 17 CS Action Reflection paper, semi-
structured interview
Rosenhan and Galloway Qualitative 108 CS Action Poems
(2019)
Milliner and Dimoski Mixed 147 Long Action Questionnaires, language tests,
(2019) diaries
Sert and Özkan (2020) Qualitative 30 Long Action Semi-structured interviews, task
Tardy et al. (2020) Mixed 72–260 Long Action Questionnaires, language tests,
diaries
Note. CS = Cross-Sectional; Long = Longitudinal.
5.4 Strengths and limitations of current research into classroom innovations

Table 4 outlines the methodological approaches used in the studies in this section. As can be seen, the
studies are predominantly qualitative in their approach, with only one quantitative and one mixed
method design present in our sample of classroom studies. The studies are also predominantly action
research projects led by teacher-researchers, or case studies conducted on teachers’ own classrooms.
However, in reality none of these studies labelled as action research in the table adhere to an action
research methodological design in that they do not track modifications to innovations over time,
but rather offer snapshots of the effects of innovations based on data collected after the completion
of innovative tasks (and not before). As a result, only three studies embody a longitudinal design in
their use of a quasi-experimental methodology. Only five of the studies provide evidence of the innov-
ation in multiple classrooms.
Many of the studies purport that their innovations change students’ attitudes and knowledge, but
very few have concrete instrumentation to measure this (with the exceptions of Galloway, 2013;
Rahimi & Ruzrokh, 2016). A lack of direct measures of change may be hindering our current under-
standing of the exact impact of interventions. The prominence of self-reported and retrospective data
collection instruments such as interviews and written reflections (often as the only source of data) is
also problematic in that they do not provide strong evidence of causality. Many of the studies labelled
as action research and case studies in Table 4 in fact lacked a concrete research design, thus eroding the
reliability of the findings, as much is left to the researchers’ interpretations of the data. It is often
difficult to connect the findings to the data because thick descriptions of the methods and procedures
are lacking in much of the research. Often when pre-test measures are used in the studies, they are the
wrong type of measures (i.e. they do not directly address Global Englishes) or are not subjected to
rigorous tests of analysis to show significance or causality.
In summary, all of the studies presented in this section provide powerful pedagogical evidence from
the language classroom of the positive benefits of innovations based on Global Englishes, WE, ELF,
and EIL proposals for change. Future studies need to match this pedagogical contribution with
research rigour, using robust data collection procedures to create a body of undisputable findings of
proposals in action.
6. How has technology been used as a facilitator of curricular innovation?

In terms of categorizing the themes of studies, the review process revealed a body of research at the
intersection of technology and Global Englishes. Given the increased use of online teaching and
technology-mediated pedagogy since the COVID-19 outbreak, this section investigates the research
related to technology as a tool to support Global Englishes in language teaching, which might inform
future curricular innovation. Table 5 includes the 11 studies highlighted in our systematic review as
most relevant to this topic. As many of these studies focus predominantly on investigating the use
of technology, rather than specific outcomes of Global Englishes innovations, they are briefly reviewed
according their pedagogical, rather than research, contributions. In reviewing the uses of technology at
the periphery of Global Englishes research, these studies might highlight ways in which technology
could be integrated into future research and practice. Geographically, the studies took place in a variety
of wealthier locations in Europe and Asia, and the US and Australia, where the use of technology as an
enhancement or intervention in educational contexts may have been more accessible.
6.1 Studies facilitating ELF opportunities using technology

Ke and Suzuki’s (2011) early study provides a typical example of a classroom-based online activity
designed as a pedagogical intervention to put students in authentic ELF interactions. The study
involved the creation of a nine-week long activity requiring Taiwanese and Japanese university stu-
dents to communicate online. It generates some useful discussion around students’ attitudes towards
non-native-speaker involvement in English language education, particularly focusing on ELF and
native-speaker norms. Another Taiwan-based study (Ke & Cahyani, 2014) challenged 58 Taiwanese
students’ predilections towards native English and NESTs by having them interact in an online ELF
context, this time paired up with 48 interlocutors with lower English language proficiency in
Indonesia over one term. The study was effective in showing how such activities can raise awareness
of, and lead to more positive attitudes towards, ELF usage.
Four studies investigated outcomes of projects connecting ELF users via online platforms. Verzella
and Tommaso (2014) used an online platform to connect undergraduates in the US receiving peer
feedback on their writing from 11 non-native postgraduate students in Italy. The researchers provide
brief anecdotal descriptions of the US students’ reflections, but do not delve deeper into issues sur-
rounding the positioning of non-native English speakers as experts in the language compared to
their American juniors. In another study, Kohn and Hoffstaedter (2017) use English and German
as lingua francas in telecollaborative conversations with an unstated number of secondary school students
in four European countries. The pedagogical intervention allowed for authentic written and spoken
communicative exchanges between students. The main implication was that use of telecollaboration
for authentic communication increases learner autonomy and agency.
Two more ELF studies involved connecting learners in Europe – these both with learners in Spain
and Poland. Juan-Garau and Jacob (2015) used an online platform with 42 secondary students in
Spain and 43 secondary students in Poland, where they worked in a shared third space to complete
Table 5. Studies reporting on technology in language teaching
Sample
Study Year Country size Context Main data sources
Ke and Suzuki 2011 Japan, Taiwan 111 Classroom/online Questionnaire, online

written reflections
Ke and Cahyani 2014 Taiwan (and 58 Classroom/online Questionnaires, students’
Indonesia) writing, focus group
Verzella and 2014 US, Italy 22 Classroom/online Peer feedback
Tommaso
Juan-Garau and 2015 Spain, Poland 42 + 43 Classroom/online Questionnaire, online
Jacob forum
Bueno-Alastuey and 2016 Spain, Poland 18 Classroom/online Questionnaires
Kleban
McCorkle, Halasek, 2016 US, but global approx. Online (MOOC) Forum posts
Clinnin, and Selfe student cohort 50
Bozoglan and Gok 2017 Turkey 58 Online (app) Pre-/Post Verbal Guise Test,
peer feedback
Kohn and 2017 France, Germany, Not Classroom/online Pair work tasks, interviews
Hoffstaedter Netherlands, Spain stated
Lee, Nakamura, and 2018 Japan 41 Classroom/online Questionnaires, classroom
Sadler observations, student
evaluations
Xu 2018 Australia approx. Classroom/online Online responses, forum
60 discussions
Lee and Lee 2019a South Korea 317 Outside classroom/ Questionnaire
online
a project. While the focus of the study was on the development of transcultural understanding, the
activity itself clearly facilitated the creation of a space for authentic ELF communication.
Bueno-Alastuey and Kleban (2016) used technology to establish an ELF context to connect 18 pre-
service teachers in Spain and Poland to build intercultural competence and language skills (for the
Spanish participants) and techno-pedagogical skills (for the Polish participants). As this was a pilot
study designed to assess the feasibility of the proposed design, it points towards future research and
adaptations of this pedagogical framework for longer-term initiatives.
In each of these studies, the researchers did not aim to explore the direct implications of the use of
technology for Global Englishes innovation, but rather the global use of English was the platform via
which to mediate the benefits of technology for other educational outcomes. Nevertheless, each of
these studies highlight the potential for using technology to create unique activities that bring together
non-native learners of different L1s in different geographic locations for authentic ELF encounters.
Such platforms may open possibilities for more targeted Global Englishes research.
6.2. Studies challenging EIL student perceptions using technology

Technology has also been explored as a platform to raise awareness of Global Englishes. McCorkle,
Halasek, Clinnin, and Selfe (2016) reflect on their own MOOC on English composition and WE.
Although the limited qualitative data (students’ forum posts), unclear sample (‘approximately 50’ stu-
dents), and lack of pre- and post-tests do not allow them to explore the explicit effects of the MOOC,
there is pedagogical value in this report due to the innovative WE content in the MOOC module,
which was created in response to concerns they had about students’ attitudes to language varieties
in the original MOOC.
Bozoglan and Gok (2017) used WhatsApp for dialect awareness training with an experimental
group in their mixed-methods study of 58 pre-service English language teachers in Turkey. The train-
ing involved 14 weekly sessions, including conducting a contrastive analysis of nine different dialects
with ‘standard Englishes’. WhatsApp was used for the teachers to record their own attempts to read
texts using the dialects they learned, and to evaluate each other’s efforts. Through pre- and post-verbal
guise tests, the teachers’ attitudes towards different English varieties were found to become more posi-
tive, suggesting that such awareness training could be effective for improving tolerance of non-
standard dialects in ELT in Turkey.
Lee, Nakamura, and Sadler (2018) investigated EIL pedagogy and students’ attitudes towards EIL in
a Japanese university using an intervention involving a videoconference-embedded classroom (VEC).
While the questionnaire data were not analysed beyond simple percentages (and no pre-test to meas-
ure change), the pedagogical benefits of VECs as an awareness-raising platform are well articulated,
including five concluding ‘challenges’ for using VEC, which could inform future research.
Xu (2018) analysed online forum discussions of ‘approximately 60’ students taking an existing
undergraduate unit on EIL at an Australian university via qualitative content analysis. While the
conclusions and implications stretched beyond the qualitative data presented, the article does provide
insights into an existing unit on EIL, and the uses of online discussions to raise awareness outside of
the classroom.
Lee and Lee (2019a) collected questionnaire responses from 317 EFL university students in South
Korea to gauge the direct effect of informal digital learning of English (IDLE) practice on EIL percep-
tions. They conclude that the frequency of practice with digital language learning enhances EIL atti-
tudes. The content of IDLE practices engaged by the students is unclear and appears to be of a general
nature. A follow-up study might specifically use IDLE tasks that target Global Englishes content, as
well as to collect qualitative data. Further explorations around projects involving these researchers
pointed to a useful quantitative tool to measure attitudes, which could be used in future pre-test/
post-test research designs: the EIL Perception Scale (EILPS) (see Lee & Lee, 2019b; Lee et al., 2019).
Regarding the use of technology in Global Englishes research, a prominent feature is the use of
online communication in classroom activities. While connecting ELF learners in different geographic
locations is a valuable use of internet technology, it appears that the research is limited to this use.
Global Englishes studies on the use of video games, virtual reality simulators, and MOOCs are very
few, and given that only one study on MOOCs (McCorkle et al., 2016) made it into our systematic
review, it seems that much more could be done on the use of technology in different forms.
We have much more access and ability for technology to reveal valuable insights, yet these are not
appearing in the Global Englishes literature.
In summary, while the implications of the research in this section may be somewhat limited, we
found that technology was fundamental for creating ELF opportunities in language classrooms by
connecting learners from different L1 contexts. Technology was also fundamental as a platform for
innovation in ELT and teacher training to introduce learners to, and challenge their perceptions of,
Global Englishes ideologies. Particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, as technology is
increasingly relied on in response to reduced face-to-face teaching, we expect this area of research
to grow exponentially.
7. Setting a future research agenda

Having reviewed a selection of the most relevant studies conducted in the past nine years, we aim to
build on this synthesis to outline a future research agenda. Drawing on the findings of our review, and
discussed within a larger body of literature, we make suggestions for research topics, methodological
approaches, and contexts for future research. In keeping with the suggestions of previous research
(e.g. Brown, 1993; Rose & Galloway, 2019; Galloway & Numajiri, 2020), we frame this discussion
within Rogers’ (2003) five factors of innovation diffusion (introduced in Section 2.2) to examine
how research currently addresses the needs of successful adoption:
1. Relative advantage: is research demonstrating a perceived benefit of a Global Englishes approach

over existing methods?
2. Compatibility: is research exploring the compatibility of new innovations with existing beliefs,
practices, and contexts?
3. Complexity: is research highlighting ways to make innovations simpler to implement for
adopters?
4. ‘Trialability’: is research exploring the ease which ideas can be put into practice?
5. Observability: are the findings of research easily observable for researcher and practitioner
communities?
Although research will be discussed against all five factors, extra focus is placed on relative advan-
tage, because one of the central roles of research is to provide evidence for the advantages of a new
innovation over existing practices.
7.1 What areas need to be explored?

A first area of needed investigation is research into the effects of curriculum interventions. Many of the
studies outlined in Section 5 reported on single activities in the classroom, which is an important start-
ing point in evaluating small-scale innovation. Future research needs to investigate the effects of
greater and sustained curricular innovation. While some research into whole programmes has been
reported in recent monographs (e.g. Galloway, 2017; Marlina, 2018), the field of TESOL requires
more empirical studies in a greater range of contexts to show how a Global Englishes approach to
language teaching is beneficial to learners, teachers, and the curriculum. This research is needed to
make convincing arguments as to the RELATIVE ADVANTAGE of the proposed innovations.
A second area of suggested investigation is explicit research into teacher education, which explores
changes in teacher beliefs and practices of Global Englishes content in pre-service and in-service
TESOL programmes. In keeping with the main ideology of ELF-aware pedagogy, we need to see
more studies that position in-service and pre-service practitioners as ‘experts’ in their contexts, and
not as passive receivers of an education. Teachers are important agents of change in the curriculum
innovation process, and future research should embrace this notion by investigating how new ideas
are integrated into practice when teachers return to, or enter, their own classrooms. Such research
will help to better investigate the TRIALABILITY of proposed curricula changes – that is, how effortful
new ideas from TESOL programmes can be implemented.
A third area of needed investigation is into attitudes of teachers and learners towards suggested
curriculum change. While the field of applied linguistics abounds in studies of language attitudes,
more studies like Galloway and Numajiri (2020) are needed that explore practitioners’ attitudes within
the wider context of curriculum innovation. Research into these attitudes can help inform pedagogical
innovations in both classroom and teacher education settings. Such research can feed into a better
understanding of the COMPATIBILITY of proposed innovations for various educational contexts.
A fourth area of future research could investigate the use of technology as a platform for sustained
innovation both in and out of the classroom. While the technology studies reviewed in this paper
tended to be methodologically weak, the platforms via which they introduced Global Englishes content
(e.g. the MOOC in McCorkle et al., 2016) and ELF opportunities (e.g. Ke & Suzuki, 2011) were peda-
gogically innovative. Scholars have pointed to a lack of materials as a major barrier to introduce Global
Englishes in classrooms, and this affects the COMPLEXITY associated with teachers adopting new prac-
tices. The use of technology to both expose learners to speakers of global varieties of English, and
to connect them with other L2 users, may be a powerful tool to reduce this complexity. Following
from this, we need specific and robust research investigating the effects of these tools on learner
attitudes and educational outcomes, as opposed to the use of the technology itself.
Finally, when new ideas are put into classroom practice, we need to ensure that these ideas are
shared in research venues and professional domains to increase the OBSERVABILITY of Global Englishes
in language teaching (discussed further in Section 7.3). Without such sharing, innovations will remain
unseen by teachers and researchers who are seeking new ways to globalize their curriculum.
7.2 What contexts and populations need to be explored?

The research reviewed in this paper shows most research emerging from certaincountries, such as
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the USA. Table 6 provides an overview of the location of the studies
in the first review phase of the study. We suggest that while we still need more research across all
regions, that areas such as South East Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America are under-represented
Table 6. Location of studies
Region Country Number of studies
EAST ASIA Japan 10

South Korea 7
Taiwan 6
China 3
TOTAL 26
SOUTHEAST ASIA Hong Kong 3
Thailand 2
Indonesia 1a
TOTAL 6
EUROPE Spain 3
Italy 2
Poland 2
United Kingdom 3
France 1a
Germany 1a
Greece 1a
Netherlands 1a
TOTAL 14
SOUTH ASIA Pakistan 1
Nepal 1a
TOTAL 2
MIDDLE EAST Turkey 4
Iran 2
Saudi Arabia 1
Oman 1
TOTAL 8
OTHER USA 10
Australia 2
TOTAL 12
a
Denotes that this country appeared as part of the sample of only one study.
in research, especially considering these regions contain large numbers of English language learners,
who predominantly acquire the language through formal education. For the same reasons, more
research is needed in China.
In terms of populations, forty studies were conducted in universities at the undergraduate level,
seven at the graduate level, and six at the school level, with the remaining studies capturing partici-
pants across a spectrum of contexts. The over-representation of tertiary-level research may be a prod-
uct of many researchers being based at universities, where they have direct access to learners and
teacher education programmes. This trend means there is a danger of drawing conclusions based
on convenience samples, which are chosen predominantly due to ease of access, rather than represen-
tativeness of typical language learners and teachers. Our review suggests we need more classroom-
based studies across the spectrum of educational domains, including many more at the school level,
where most compulsory education takes place. We also note an absence of studies in commercial
ELT domains. The commercial sector has been noted as one where the ‘native speaker’ is used as a
selling point (Seargeant, 2009), and thus might be more resistant to change. These overlooked
segments may be less susceptible to accepting the RELATIVE ADVANTAGE of Global Englishes curricula
innovations, especially compared to motivated English majors at the undergraduate level. Studies
need to collect attitudinal data from such domains to better understand contextual differences that
may create barriers to implementation, and thus erode both COMPATIBILITY and TRIALABILITY of new
ideas received in teacher education.
7.3 What methodological approaches are needed?

Our synthesis of studies has highlighted an over-abundance of one-shot, cross-sectional data collection
methods in classroom research, usually at the end of a course or task. Quasi-experimental designs are
clearly needed to conduct research with groups of students engaging in new curriculum changes.
Research designs also need to include more pre- and post-intervention data collection methods to
measure actual change. Designs that incorporate a comparison group of a matched class, which did
not receive the intervention, would also be valuable in attributing observed changes to curriculum
innovations, and not to other factors. Mixed-methods approaches to data collection are also essential
to highlight specific elements of intervention that worked best.
Action research is another longitudinal research design that could measure the effects of ongoing
interventions in real classrooms. Our systematic review has revealed that many studies in the field of
TESOL are labelled as action research simply because they have been conducted in a researcher’s own
classroom, without the inclusion of the requisite cycles of planned innovations and multiple data
collection points that can be powerful to pinpoint effect, and demonstrate causality to the innovation.
Robustly-designed action research designs were absent, perhaps due to a lack of methodological
expertise or time for the teachers reporting on them. McKinley (2019, p. 876) calls for ‘more
TESOL research to be conducted in the teaching-research nexus; specifically, for the research to be
more grounded in classroom contexts’. He stipulates that greater collaboration is needed between
teachers and researchers, and action research is an ideal design to facilitate such collaboration, with
researchers providing methodological expertise, and teachers providing pedagogical expertise to ensure
good implementation and reporting on innovations.
Research into teacher education appears to be at a pilot stage and would also benefit from more
systematic approaches to data collection, particularly with the inclusion of pre- and post-course
data. We need more studies to adopt a longitudinal research design to explore how innovations mani-
fest into actual teaching practices after teacher education programmes conclude. One avenue to explore
this would be follow-up studies to those which have already reported the activities of teacher education
programmes to see whether the innovations have impacted future practices of the participants. Suzuki
(2011), in her attempts to raise awareness of linguistic diversity among English language teachers in
Japan, revealed that they developed a better understanding of diversity, but expressed reluctance to
introduce this in their teaching. She concluded that ‘single-shot instruction’ is not enough to make
a difference due to their deeply ingrained beliefs. Thus, there is also a need to explore what type of
interventions in teacher training work best to ensure COMPATIBILITY with existing practices.
Additionally, we need better instruments via which to explore the effect of global approaches to
language teaching and teacher education to make more convincing claims about their RELATIVE
ADVANTAGE over existing practices. Our review pointed to two such quantitative tools: the EILPS
(Lee et al., 2019), and the questionnaire in Galloway and Numajiri (2020), which reported information
on their reliability. Use of quantitative instruments also needs to be accompanied with appropriate
statistical analysis. Only one study applied advanced statistical methods to show causality via structural
equation modelling (Lee & Lee, 2019a). Many of the studies followed either unclear or questionable
statistical procedures: for example, they did not check assumptions had been met before applying para-
metric tests to the data; descriptive statistics did not report basic information like standard deviation;
internal reliability of grouped items was not reported; effect sizes were not reported; and multiple
t-tests were run without correction.
Future research should be equally cautious with its qualitative methods – many of the studies
relied on somewhat unreliable methods to elicit evidence of the impact of an innovation such as
reflection papers from students at the end of the course and retrospective interviews with the teacher-
researcher. The greatest lack of clarity was in the explanation of data analysis procedures in many of
the studies, often loosely referring to some kind of ‘qualitative content analysis’, without support
from research methods literature, nor details of the coding procedure or codes. All of this amounts
to research that would be impossible to replicate and draws into question the reliability of the find-
ings. Since many of these studies involve investigating participants’ attitudinal changes via particular
tasks and awareness-raising activities, the lack of analytical rigour highlights a clear gap in the
research.
Finally, there is a need for better reporting of research across all domains to increase OBSERVABILITY
of good pedagogical and research practices. Some of the studies were unclear in terms of the meth-
odological design underpinning the study, descriptions of interventions, and at times even the number
of participants in the study. Sometimes data collection instruments were mentioned in the studies, but
little data from them were presented in the findings. Future research should be sure to include thick
descriptions of innovations, as well as a clearly articulated research procedure. Ideally, instruments
should be appended to published papers or uploaded to a repository like IRIS (Marsden, Mackey,
& Plonsky, 2016) so that studies can be replicated in multiple classrooms and contexts, thus increasing
TRIALABILITY. We also urge researchers to report their research in accessible domains: we observe that
much research is being buried in book chapters, which are not as widely available, or in unpublished
dissertations. Journal articles are, generally, more easily obtainable electronically than books and book
chapters, and self-archiving of author versions increases public accessibility. If they are indexed
journals, they are easier to find in searches, and thus offer enhanced OBSERVABILITY to a research and
practitioner community.
7.4 Looking forward

Our intention in this review is not to be overly critical of extant research in the field, but rather point
to valuable avenues for future research. Much of the research reviewed has established a concrete
platform for sharing innovative practices. At present, the field of Global Englishes – inclusive of
ELF, EIL and WE – has a solid theoretical foundation stemming from earlier theoretical work (e.g.
Smith, 1976), and calls for pedagogical innovation (e.g. Brown, 1993; Jenkins, 2006a), which has
helped communicate the RELATIVE ADVANTAGE of innovations from a conceptual standpoint. This has
recently been accompanied by initial explorations of what these calls might look like in classroom
and teacher education practices, which has helped to increase awareness of this advantage from a
professional perspective. What is needed next is greater attention to exploring these innovations in
practice from a research perspective via robustly planned studies to ensure that scholars are able to
articulate the advantage of these curricula proposals from a conceptual, professional AND empirical
standpoint. Currently, the rising level of research interest in Global Englishes has not been accompan-
ied by an equal level of research rigour. In the future we hope to see more studies emerge to fill this
gap.
Questions arising
1. What are the (measurable) effects of Global Englishes innovations on the students themselves, and educational
outcomes?
2. What kind of curricular tasks, materials, and content induce long-lasting effects on students in terms of their beliefs
and identity?
3. What are the tangible effects of increased exposure to WE and ELF on students’ abilities to use English a global
language?
4. How can Global Englishes innovation be best achieved within TESOL curricula?
5. What are the major barriers to introducing Global Englishes innovations within English language classrooms?
6. What are the (measurable) effects of Global Englishes teacher education on teacher beliefs?
7. How does Global Englishes content within teacher education programmes influence the future pedagogical practices
of in-service and pre-service teachers?
8. What kind of teacher education practices induce long-lasting effects on teacher cognition and pedagogical
practices?
9. How can Global Englishes attitudes be reliably and validly assessed to measure attitudinal change?
10. How can technology be used to facilitate future innovation?
References
Ahn, S.-Y., & Kang, H.-S. (2017). South Korean university students’ perceptions of different English varieties and their
contribution to the learning of English as a foreign language. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development,
38(8), 712–725.
Ali, S. (2009). Teaching English as an international language (EIL) in the Gulf Corporation Council (GCC) countries: The
brown man’s burden. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), English as an international language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues (pp.
34–57). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ali, Z. (2015). The prospect and potential challenges of teaching Englishes in Pakistan. Asian Englishes, 17(2), 152–169.
Alsagoff, L., McKay, S. L., Hu, G., & Renandya, W. A. (Eds.). (2012). Principles and practices of teaching English as an inter-
national language. Bristol, UK: Routledge.
Ates, B., Eslami, Z. R., & Wright, K. L. (2015). Incorporating World Englishes into undergraduate ESL education courses.
World Englishes, 34(3), 485–501.
Baker, W. (2009). The cultures of English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 43(4), 567–592.
Baker, W. (2012). From cultural awareness to intercultural awareness: Culture in ELT. ELT Journal, 66(1), 62–70.
Baker, W. (2015). Culture and complexity through English as a lingua franca: Rethinking competences and pedagogy in ELT.
Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4(1), 9–30.
Bayyurt, Y., & Sifakis, N. C. (2015a). Developing an ELF-aware pedagogy: Insights from a self-education programme. In
P. Vettorel (Ed.), New frontiers in teaching and learning English (pp. 55–76). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
Bayyurt, Y., & Sifakis, N. C. (2015b). ELF-aware in-service teacher education: A transformative perspective. In H. Bowles &
A. Cogo (Eds.), International perspectives on English as a lingua franca: Pedagogical insights (pp. 117–135). London, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Biricik Deniz, E. (2017). A case study on ELF-aware pre-service language teacher education model: Theory into practice
(Unpublished doctoral thesis). Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey.
Biricik Deniz, E., Özkan, Y., & Bayyurt, Y. (2020). ELF-awareness in pre-service English language teacher education: A case
study from Turkey. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(2), 270–284.
Blair, A. (2015). Evolving a post-native, multilingual model for ELF-aware teacher education. In Y. Bayyurt & S. Akcan (Eds.),
Current perspectives on pedagogy for English as a lingua franca (pp. 89–102). Berlin, Munich, Germany/Boston, MA: De
Gruyter Mouton.
Bokor, M. J. K. (2011). Connecting with the ‘Other’ in technical communication: World Englishes and ethos transformation
of U.S. native English-speaking students. Technical Communication Quarterly, 20(2), 208–237.
Borg, S. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. In P. Garrett & J. M. Cots (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of lan-
guage awareness (pp. 75–91). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Bozoglan, H., & Gok, D. (2017). Effect of mobile-assisted dialect awareness training on the dialect attitudes of prospective
English language teachers. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(9), 772–787.
Braine, G. (Ed.). (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, K. (1993). World Englishes in TESOL programs: An infusion model of curricular innovation. World Englishes, 12(1),
59–73.
Buckingham, L. (2015). Shades of cosmopolitanism: EFL teachers’ perspectives on English accents and pronunciation teach-
ing in the Gulf. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 36(6), 638–653.
Bueno-Alastuey, M. C., & Kleban, M. (2016). Matching linguistic and pedagogical objectives in a telecollaboration project: A
case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(1), 148–166.
Cameron, A., & Galloway, N. (2019). Local thoughts on global ideas: Pre- and in-service TESOL practitioners’ attitudes to the
pedagogical implications of the globalization of English. RELC Journal, 50(1), 149–163.
Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Chang, Y.-J. (2014). Learning English today: What can world Englishes teach college students in Taiwan? English Today,
30(1), 21–27.
Cook, V. (2016). Premises of multicompetence. In V. Cook & L. Wei (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multicom-
petence (pp. 1–25). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dewey, M. (2012). Towards a post-normative approach: Learning the pedagogy of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca,
1(1), 141–170.
Dewey, M. (2014). Pedagogic criticality and English as a lingua franca. Atlantis Journal of the Spanish Association of
Anglo-American Studies, 36(2), 11–30.
Dewey, M. (2015a). ELF, teacher knowledge and professional development. In H. Bowles & A. Cogo (Eds.), International
perspectives on English as a lingua franca: Pedagogical insights (pp. 176–193). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dewey, M. (2015b). Time to wake up some dogs! Shifting the culture of language in ELT. In Y. Bayyurt & S. Akcan (Eds.),
Current perspectives on pedagogy for English as a lingua franca (pp. 121–134). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
Dewey, M., & Patsko, L. (2018). ELF and teacher education. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker, & M. Dewey (Eds.), The Routledge hand-
book of English as a lingua franca (pp. 441–455). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Eslami, Z., Moody, S., & Pashmforoosh, R. (2019). Educating pre-service teachers about World Englishes: Instructional activ-
ities and teachers’ perceptions. TESL-EJ, 22(4), 1–17.
Fang, F. (2011). International cultures in the framework of World Englishes: What should EFL teachers do? Journal of Asia
TEFL, 8(1), 111–137.
Fang, F., & Ren, W. (2018). Developing students’ awareness of Global Englishes. ELT Journal, 72(4), 384–394.
Fang, F., & Widodo, H. P. (Eds.). (2019). Critical perspectives on Global Englishes in Asia. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Galloway, N. (2011). An investigation of Japanese university students’ attitudes towards English (Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation). University of Southampton.
Galloway, N. (2013). Global Englishes and English language teaching (ELT): Bridging the gap between theory and practice in
a Japanese context. System, 41(3), 786–803.
Galloway, N. (2017). Global Englishes and change in English language teaching: Attitudes and impact. Abingdon, UK:
Routledge.
Galloway, N., & Numajiri, T. (2020). Global Englishes language teaching: Bottom-up curriculum implementation. TESOL
Quarterly, 54(1), 118–145.
Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2014). Using listening journals to raise awareness of Global Englishes in ELT. ELT Journal, 68(4),
386–396.
Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2015). Introducing Global Englishes. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2018). Incorporating Global Englishes into the ELT Classroom. ELT Journal, 72(1), 3–14.
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. M. (1984). The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of nonnative speech. Language Learning,
34(1), 65–87.
Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). Introducing systematic reviews. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An
introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed., pp. 1–18). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Haberland, H. (2011). Ownership and maintenance of a language in transnational use: Should we leave our lingua franca
alone? Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), 937–949.
He, D., & Zhang, Q. (2010). Native speaker norms and China English: From the perspective of learners and teachers in
China. TESOL Quarterly, 44(4), 769–789.
Hino, N. (2018). EIL educations for the expanding circle: A Japanese model. New York, NY: Routledge.
Jenkins, J. (2006a). Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 137–162.
Jenkins, J. (2006b). Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1),
157–181.
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J., Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language
Teaching, 44(3), 281–315.
Juan-Garau, M., & Jacob, K. (2015). Developing English learners’ transcultural skills through content- and task-based lessons.
System, 54, 55–68.
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk
& H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11–30).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kachru, B. B. (1992a). Teaching World Englishes: The other tongue. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Kachru, B. B. (1992b). World Englishes: Approaches, issues and resources. Language Teaching, 25(1), 1–14.
Kachru, B. B., Kachru, Y., & Nelson, C. L. (Eds.). (2006). The handbook of World Englishes. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ke, I.-C., & Cahyani, H. (2014). Learning to become users of English as a lingua franca (ELF): How ELF online communi-
cation affects Taiwanese learners’ beliefs of English. System, 46, 28–38.
Ke, I.-C., & Suzuki, T. (2011). Teaching global English with NNS-NNS online communication. Journal of Asia TEFL, 8(2),
169–188.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English language teaching.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2012). English as an Asian lingua franca: The’“lingua franca approach’ and implications for language edu-
cation policy. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), 121–139.
Kohn, K., & Hoffstaedter, P. (2017). Learner agency and non-native speaker identity in pedagogical lingua franca conversa-
tions: Insights from intercultural telecollaboration in foreign language education. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
30(5), 351–367.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2012). Individual identity, cultural globalization and teaching English as an international language: The
case for an epistemic break. In L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu, & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Teaching English as an inter-
national language: Principles and practices (pp. 9–27). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lanvers, U., Hultgren, K., & Gayton, A. M. (2019). ‘People can be smarter with two languages’: Changing anglophone
students’ attitudes to language learning through teaching linguistics. Language Learning Journal, 47(1), 88–104.
Lee, J. S. (2019). Teacher as change agent: Attitude change toward varieties of English through teaching English as an inter-
national language. Asian Englishes, 21(1), 87–102.
Lee, J. S., & Lee, K. (2019a). Informal digital learning of English and English as an international language: The path less
traveled. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1447–1461.
Lee, J. S., & Lee, K. (2019b). Perceptions of English as an international language by Korean English-major and
non-English-major students. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(1), 76–89.
Lee, J. S., Lee, K., & Drajati, N. A. (2019). Preservice English teachers’ perceptions of English as an international language in
Indonesia and Korea. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(3), 230–243.
Lee, J. S., Nakamura, Y., & Sadler, R. (2018). Effects of videoconference-embedded classrooms (VEC) on learners’ perceptions
toward English as an international language (EIL). ReCALL, 30(3), 319–336.
Lin, A. (2013). Toward paradigmatic change in TESOL methodologies: Building plurilingual pedagogies from the ground up.
TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 521–545.
Love, M. C. (2013). Carving critical spaces in high-stakes systems through materials analysis workshops. Journal of Asia
TEFL, 10(3), 103–131.
Lwin, S. M., & Marlina, R. (2018). Using folktales as a way to operationalise the paradigm of teaching English as an inter-
national language. Asian Englishes, 20(3), 206–219.
Macaro, E. (2020). Systematic reviews in applied linguistics. In J. McKinley & H. Rose (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 230–239). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Marlina, R. (2013). Learning about English as an international language in Australia from three students’ perspectives. Asian
EFL Journal, 15(3), 201–228.
Marlina, R. (2018). Teaching English as an international language: Implementing, reviewing, and re-envisioning World
Englishes in language education. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Marsden, E., Mackey, A., & Plonsky, L. (2016). The IRIS Repository: Advancing research practice and methodology. In
A. Mackey & E. Marsden (Eds.), Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS Repository of Instruments for Research
into Second Languages (pp. 1–21). New York, NY: Routledge.
Matsuda, A. (Ed.). (2012). Principles and practices of teaching English as an international language. Bristol, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Matsuda, A. (Ed.). (2017). Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Matsuda, A. (2019). World Englishes in English language teaching: Kachru’s six fallacies and the TEIL paradigm. World
Englishes, 38(1–2), 144–154.
Matsuda, A., & Friedrich, P. (2011). English as an international language: A curriculum blueprint. World Englishes, 30(3),
332–344.
Matsuda, A., & Friedrich, P. (2012). Selecting an instructional variety for an EIL curriculum. In A. Matsuda (Ed.), Principles
and practices of teaching English as an international language (pp. 17–27). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
May, S. (2014). Introducing the ‘Multilingual Turn’. In S. May (Ed.), The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and
Bilingual Education (pp. 1–6). New York, NY: Routledge.
McCorkle, B., Halasek, K., Clinnin, K., & Selfe, C. L. (2016). Negotiating World Englishes in a writing-based MOOC.
Composition Studies, 44(1), 53–71.
McKay, S. L. (2012). Teaching materials for English as an international language. In A. Matsuda (Ed.), Principles and practices
of teaching English as an international language (pp. 70–83). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
McKay, S. L., & Brown, J. D. (2016). Teaching and assessing EIL in local contexts around the world. New York, NY: Routledge.
McKinley, J. (2019). Evolving the TESOL teaching-research nexus. TESOL Quarterly, 53(3), 875–884.
Milliner, B., & Dimoski, B. (2019). Explicit listening strategy training for ELF learners. Journal of Asia TEFL, 16(3), 833–859.
Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan: A web and mobile app for systematic reviews.
Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 210
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, MA: John Wiley &
Sons.
Porter, W. W., & Graham, C. R. (2016). Institutional drivers and barriers to faculty adoption of blended learning in higher
education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 748–762.
Prabjandee, D. (2020). Teacher professional development to implement Global Englishes language teaching. Asian Englishes,
22(1), 52–67.
Rahimi, M., & Ruzrokh, S. (2016). The impact of teaching lingua franca core on English as a foreign language learners’ intel-
ligibility and attitudes towards English pronunciation. Asian Englishes, 18(2), 141–156.
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Rose, H., Briggs, J. G., Boggs, J. A., Sergio, L., & Ivanova-Slavianskaia, N. (2018). A systematic review of language learner
strategy research in the face of self-regulation. System, 72, 151–163.
Rose, H., & Galloway, N. (2017). Debating standard language ideology in the classroom: Using the ‘Speak Good English
Movement’ to raise awareness of Global Englishes. RELC Journal, 48(3), 294–301.
Rose, H., & Galloway, N. (2019). Global Englishes for language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rose, H., & Montakantiwong, A. (2018). A tale of two teachers: A duoethnography of the realistic and idealistic successes and
failures of teaching English as an international language. RELC Journal, 49(1), 88–101.
Rosenhan, C., & Galloway, N. (2019). Creativity, self-reflection and subversion: Poetry writing for Global Englishes awareness
raising. System, 84, 1–13.
Seargeant, P. (2009). The idea of English in Japan: Ideology and the evolution of a global language. Bristol, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sert, S., & Özkan, Y. (2020). Implementing ELF-informed activities in an elementary level English preparatory classroom.
Multicultural Learning and Teaching, 15(1), 1–15.
Sifakis, N., & Tsantila, N. (Eds.). (2019). English as a lingua franca for EFL contexts. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Sifakis, N. C. (2014). ELF awareness as an opportunity for change: A transformative perspective for ESOL teacher education.
Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3(2), 317–335.
Sifakis, N. C. (2019). ELF awareness in English language teaching: Principles and processes. Applied Linguistics, 40(2), 288–306.
Sifakis, N. C., & Bayyurt, Y. (2015). Insights from ELF and WE in teacher training in Greece and Turkey. World Englishes,
34(3), 471–484.
Sifakis, N. C., & Bayyurt, Y. (2018). ELF-aware teacher education and development. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker, & M. Dewey
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua franca (pp. 456–467). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Smith, L. E. (1976). English as an international auxiliary language. RELC Journal, 7(2), 38–42.
Smith, L. E., & Nelson, C. L. (1985). International intelligibility of English: Directions and resources. World Englishes, 4(3),
333–342.
Sung, C. C. M. (2015). Implementing a Global Englishes component in a university English course in Hong Kong. English
Today, 31(4), 42–49.
Sung, C. C. M. (2016). Exposure to multiple accents of English in the English language teaching classroom: From second
language learners’ perspectives. Innovation in Language Learning & Teaching, 10(3), 190–205.
Sung, C. C. M. (2018). Out-of-class communication and awareness of English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 72(1), 15–25.
Suzuki, A. (2011). Introducing diversity of English into ELT: Student teachers’ responses. ELT Journal, 65(2), 145–153.
Syrbe, M., & Rose, H. (2018). An evaluation of the global orientation of English textbooks in Germany. Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching, 12(2), 152–163.
Takahashi, R. (2017). Attitudes of Japanese learners and teachers of English towards non-standard English in coursebooks.
Changing English, 24(1), 42–52.
Tardy, C. M., Reed, K., Slinkard, J. R., & LaMance, R. (2020). Exploring Global Englishes content and language variation in
an academic writing course. TESOL Journal, e520, 1–11. doi:10.1002/tesj.520
Teixeira, A., & Pozzi, R. (2014). Introducing English as an international language in the Inner-Circle classroom: Exploring
World Englishes. CATESOL Journal, 26(1), 50–59.
Vavrus, F. K. (1991). When paradigms clash: The role of institutionalized varieties in language teacher education. World
Englishes, 10(2), 181–195.
Verzella, M., & Tommaso, L. (2014). Learning to write for an international audience through cross-cultural collaboration and
text-negotiation. Changing English, 21(4), 310–321.
Vettorel, P., & Corrizzato, S. (2016). Fostering awareness of the pedagogical implications of World Englishes and ELF in
teacher education in Italy. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(3), 487–511.
Widdowson, H. G. (2012). ELF and the inconvenience of established concepts. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), 5–26.
Xu, Z. (2018). Exploring English as an International Language: Curriculum, materials and pedagogical strategies. RELC
Journal, 49(1), 102–118.
Yu, M. H. (2018). Exploring the orientation and use of textbook lingua-cultural resources to teach and learn English for lin-
gua franca communication. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 27(4), 257–266.
Zacharias, N. T. (2016). Exploring identity construction of student teachers practicing ELF pedagogy in a microteaching
course. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 26(2), 321–339.
Zein, S. (Ed.). (2019). Teacher education for English as a lingua franca. New York, NY: Routledge.
Heath Rose is an associate professor of applied linguistics at the University of Oxford. At Oxford, he is course director of the
M.Sc. in Applied Linguistics for Language Teaching. His current research interests are in Global Englishes, particularly focus-
ing on the impact of the spread of English on second language teaching and learning.
Jim McKinley is an associate professor of applied linguistics at University College London, and Director of Studies for the
M.A. TESOL Pre-Service. His research explores implications of globalization for L2 writing, language education, and teaching
in higher education. He currently serves as an editor-in-chief for the journal System.
Nicola Galloway is a senior lecturer in TESOL at The University of Glasgow, where she teaches on the M.Sc. TESOL
programme. Nicola’s main research interests relate to the pedagogical implications of the global spread of English and
more recently on English medium instruction in higher education.
Cite this article: Rose, H., McKinley, J., & Galloway, N. (2021). Global Englishes and language teaching: A review of peda-
gogical research. Language Teaching, 54(2), 157–189. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000518
doi:10.1017/S0261444820000038
FIRST PERSON SINGULAR

PO S I T I O N PA P E R
A short history of SLA: Where have we come from and

where are we going?
Rod Ellis
Curtin University, Perth, Australia
E-mail: r.ellis@auckland.ac.nz
Introduction
If we want to understand where we are now, we need to consider where we have come from. This state-
ment constitutes the strongest rationale for the study of history. It is relevant to any field of enquiry
and it is certainly true of the field of second language acquisition (SLA).1 As Larsen-Freeman (2018)
wrote in her own historical account of SLA ‘it is important to understand ideas at the time they ori-
ginated’ (p. 56). I would add that it is also important to understand how the ideas that motivated a
field of enquiry at one time evolved into and were sometimes replaced by ideas later on.
Let me begin with some personal history.
My own interest in SLA began while I was a teacher in Africa in the late 1960s. I worked in a newly
built, rural (bush) secondary school in Zambia with no training in how to teach English to second
language (L2) learners but with three months’ experience of teaching in a Berlitz school in Spain.
My initial concern was solely with what and how I should teach English. However, it soon became
clear to me that students frequently failed to learn what I taught them and that there was an obvious
gap between ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’. On leaving Zambia I enrolled in an M.A. in Linguistics and
Language Teaching at the University of Leeds in order to deepen my professional understanding of
language teaching and learning and, of course, to further my career prospects. I was introduced to
Chomsky’s transformational generative grammar, which had only recently appeared on the scene,
and to the idea that we all possess an innate faculty for language that determines how we learn our
mother tongue. There was, however, very little in the M.A. programme about L2 learning and not
much about teaching. I do remember, however, a lecture based on Newmark’s (1966) article: ‘How
not to interfere in language learning’. This floated the interesting idea that it was neither necessary
nor helpful for teachers to present and practise specific linguistic items as learners acquire an L2 in
the same way as children acquire their first language (L1) – by drawing on the innate faculty for
language.
So like many other SLA researchers, my initial interest in L2 acquisition was rooted in my practical
concern to make language teaching effective and this is where I still am now. But looking back I can
see that my journey with SLA has involved phases. The initial phase was clearly an applied one. I stud-
ied how L2 learners learn with a view to extracting sound principles and practices for language teach-
ing. Subsequently, however, my interest was more one of intellectual curiosity and I oriented to SLA
for its own sake. I completed empirical studies of L2 acquisition and I wrote increasingly lengthy sur-
vey books. During this phase, I was still concerned with language teaching but SLA was no longer just
an ‘applied’ discipline of practical significance for me but also a ‘pure’ one of intrinsic interest. In this
respect, I think I am representative of how SLA has evolved in general. In my more recent years, how-
ever, my interest in pure SLA has waned and I now once again have a more applied perspective.
This paper is based on the presentation given by Professor Ellis at the Annual Conference of the Australian and New
Zealand Associations of Applied Linguistics (ALAA/ALANZ), Perth, Australia, 25–27 November 2019.
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
Table 1. Making a start
Area of interest Period Key studies Key findings Theoretical influences
Order and 1960s Dulay and Burt (1973) Just as children acquiring their first L1 acquisition research
sequence of and and Cancino, language went through clearly (e.g. Klima &
acquisition 1970s Rosansky, and marked stages of development, so Bellugi, 1966;
Schumann (1978) too do child and adult L2 learners Brown, 1973).
acquire the grammar of an L2 in a
more-or-less universal and fixed
way. This finding challenged
behaviourist accounts of L2
learning and the audiolingual
method of teaching.
However, whereas initially I took as my starting point information about how learners learn and then
looked to how to apply this to language teaching, I now took language pedagogy as that starting point
and looked to see how SLA could support and sometimes challenge widely held assumptions about
language pedagogy. Thus, I can somewhat crudely plot my involvement with SLA as a progression
from an initial theory-to-practice approach to a theory-and-research perspective and finally to a
practice-then-theory approach.
My personal history reflects what has happened to SLA over the years. SLA began as an applied
discipline. Increasingly, however, separate perspectives have emerged – ‘applied SLA’ continues to
address issues of social and, in particular, pedagogical importance while ‘pure SLA’ aims to contribute
to our understanding of the nature of the human language faculty. This bifurcation is evident in the
journals that publish SLA research today – for example, Language Teaching Research and Instructed
Language Acquisition cater to applied SLA while Studies in Second Language Acquisition and
Language Learning now increasingly cater to a pure SLA with its close connections to linguistics,
psychology and sociology.
I will now present my brief history of SLA. I will address three questions: (1) what aspects of L2
acquisition has SLA has focused on? (2) how have researchers investigated L2 acquisition? and (3)
why have researchers investigated L2 acquisition? There have been developments in all of these
areas. I will then address where I think SLA is now at and where it should go by asking whether it
constitutes an identifiable academic discipline and, if so, what kind of discipline it is.
What aspects of L2 acquisition has SLA addressed?

Previous histories of SLA identify phases and I will follow suit, dividing 50+ years of enquiry into five
phases. Table 1 presents the first phase, which I have called ‘Making a start’.2 It roughly covered the
1960s and 1970s. The main feature of this phase were the studies of naturalistic L2 learners. Many of
these studies were cross-sectional but there were also a number of influential longitudinal studies (e.g.
Wode, 1976; Schumann, 1978). A new journal (Working Papers in Bilingualism) published the results
of the research. One of the main findings was that learners followed a more-or-less universal and
invariable route in acquiring both grammatical morphemes such as plural-s and 3rd person-s and syn-
tactical constructions such as negatives and interrogatives. L2 acquisition seemed to involve a natural
process of creative construction, and transfer from the L1 was minimal. Some researchers (e.g. Dulay &
Burt, 1975; Krashen, 1977) drew on these findings to argue that there was no need to teach grammar,
thus challenging prevailing views about language teaching. However, not all SLA researchers were so
ready to advance pedagogic applications. Hatch (1978b), for example, argued the need for caution and
suggested that what had been learned about L2 acquisition was not, in fact, so incompatible with the
standard pedagogic practices of the day.
I have labelled the second phase the ‘expansion period’. During this period SLA broadened the
scope of its enquiry considerably. As Table 2 shows, four major areas of enquiry developed –
192
Rod Ellis
Table 2. The expansion period
Language 1980s Kellerman (1983) and Language transfer was reconceptualized as a cognitive Reaction to both behaviourist accounts (e.g.
transfer Ringbom (1987) rather than behaviourist phenomenon; the emphasis was Lado, 1957) and the minimalist position
now on the conditions that governed negative and (Krashen, 1983).
positive transfer and avoidance.
Linguistic 1980s Gass (1984), White (1989) Researchers tested hypotheses drawn from linguistics – in Linguistic theory: Typological universals –
universals and Eckman, Bell, and particular whether L2 learners had access to UG. (Comrie, 1984); Generative grammar –
Universal Nelson (1988) Markedness and universal principles governed both (Chomsky, 1965).
Grammar order of acquisition and language transfer.
(UG)
Second 1980s Thomas (1983) and The focus was on the comprehension and production of Speech act theory (Searle, 1969); politeness
language Blum-Kulka, House, speech acts such as requests and apologies and the theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987).
pragmatics and Kasper (1989) identification of pragmatic and pragmalinguistic
differences between native and non- native speakers.
Input and 1980s Krashen (1985), Long Researchers addressed how the linguistic environment Research on foreigner talk – (Ferguson,
interaction (1983) and Swain influenced L2 acquisition. Three influential hypotheses: 1975); L1 acquisition research on caretaker
(1985) (1) the Input Hypothesis, (2) the Interaction Hypothesis talk – (Wells, 1985); discourse analysis –
and (3) the Comprehensible Output Hypothesis. (Coulthard, 1977).
language transfer, linguistic universals, second language pragmatics, and input/interaction. In this
period SLA reached out to a range of established disciplines – linguistics, sociolinguistics and dis-
course analysis – drawing on these to investigate different aspects of learner-language and learning.
If the first period was very much a research-then-theory approach, loosely informed by work in L1
acquisition, this phase was more theory-then-research. Interest in the pedagogical applications of
research continued but researchers did not always include an implications/applications section in
their published papers. SLA was emerging as a ‘pure’ discipline. Research on input and interaction,
however, had obvious relevance to language pedagogy and it was during this period that the first
proposal for task-based language teaching – an approach that draws directly on the findings of
SLA research – appeared (Long, 1985). All the areas of interest in Table 2 have continued to figure
strongly in SLA today.
The next phase (Table 3) represents a ‘coming of age’ (Sharwood-Smith, 1994). It is really an exten-
sion of the previous one but I prefer to view it as distinct because it reflected the impact that constructs
taken from cognitive psychology had on thinking about L2 acquisition. Information-processing the-
ories are premised on an input-output view of learning and what Lantolf (1996) called the ‘computa-
tional model’. Key constructs investigated were ‘attention’ and ‘skill learning’. During this period, too,
interest in implicit and explicit learning led to a refinement of Krashen’s (1981) earlier ‘acquisition’
and ‘learning’ distinction. Researchers borrowed from different strands of research in cognitive psych-
ology, leading to alternative views about the role of consciousness in language learning, with some
researchers (e.g. Schmidt, 1990) arguing that some level of consciousness was always needed and
others (e.g. Tomlin & Villa, 1994) that learning could be entirely implicit. Another area of controversy
concerned whether language learning (especially by adults) involved skill-learning (i.e. where the start-
ing point was declarative knowledge) or was an essentially implicit process. These controversies were
of clear significance for language pedagogy and a key issue became the nature of the interface between
explicit/declarative and implicit/procedural knowledge. The non-interface (Krashen, 1981),
strong-interface (DeKeyser, 1998), and weak interface (R. Ellis, 1994) positions led to very different
proposals regarding the role and nature of explicit grammar instruction.
It would be wrong to claim that SLA had paid no attention to social factors up to this point.
Schumann’s (1978) Acculturation Model, for example, was an attempt to explain how social as well
as psychological distance from the target-language community affected learners’ access to and acqui-
sition of the target language. This model, however, did not receive strong empirical support and
reflected a very deterministic view of the relationship between social context and learning. Towards
the end of the 1990s, SLA researchers (e.g. Firth & Wagner, 1997) turned to poststructuralist accounts
that emphasized learners’ own agency in constructing social opportunities for learning and the
importance that social identity played in this. This began what became called the ‘social turn’ in
SLA (Block, 2003) and the claims that L2 acquisition cannot be explained in purely cognitive
terms, that learners are complex social beings, and that L2 acquisition is best understood by studying
how individual learners both respond to and shape their social context. Poststructuralist theories (e.g.
Bourdieu, 1986) and social theories such as Community of Practice Theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991)
provided the constructs and tools for re-thinking SLA as a primarily social phenomenon. However,
this broadening of the field was not welcomed by all researchers, with Long in particular arguing
that SLA should remain a cognitive enterprise (Long, 1998; Long & Doughty, 2003).
I have included sociocultural SLA in this period although it constitutes a very different kind of
social turn (Table 4) and pre-dated Firth and Wagner (1997). As applied to SLA, sociocultural theory
emphasizes the role that mediation plays in the initial development and subsequent internalization of
new knowledge. Unlike other social theories, it recognizes the ‘mind’ as a central component in learning.
Like cognitive-interactionist theories, it emphasizes the importance of interaction in L2 acquisition but it
differs from these theories in how it conceptualizes the role of interaction. Whereas
cognitive-interactionist theories see interaction as a source of input and output that is processed through
internal cognitive mechanisms, sociocultural SLA views development as originating in the interactions
that learners participate in with others or, in the case of private speech, with themselves.
194 Rod Ellis
Table 3. Cognitive phase
Theoretical
Areas of interest Period Key studies Key findings influences
Consciousness and Late 1990s Schmidt (1990), Conscious attention to Cognitive

L2 acquisition; onwards Tomlin and exemplars of psychology –
implicit and Villa (1994), linguistic features in information
explicit Ellis (1994) input and output processing
knowledge; and DeKeyser (‘noticing’) required models;
emergentism; (1998) for acquisition; implicit/explicit
skill learning implicit and explicit knowledge
theory knowledge are (Reber, 1976,
fundamentally 1993); Adaptive
different with Control of
implicit knowledge Thought –
primary; interface Rational Theory
positions. (ACT-R)
(Anderson,
1980).
Table 4. The social turn
Area of
interest Period Key studies Key findings Theoretical influences
The Social Late 1990s Firth and Learners have agency and Socialization theories e.g.
Turn onwards Wagner actively construct their own Community of Practice
(1997), learning contexts; social Theory (Lave & Wenger,
Block identity is crucial; learner– 1991); Poststructuralist
(2003) and learner interactions are theories (Bourdieu, 1986).
Norton common; learners have local
(2000) agendas.
Sociocultural 1990s Lantolf (2000) Learning commences externally Sociocultural theory –
SLA onwards and Swain WITHIN interaction. (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986).
(2006) Key constructs – mediation; Sociocognitive theory
private speech; zone of (Atkinson, 2014).
proximal development;
internalisation; collaborative
dialogue; ‘languaging’;
dynamic assessment.
Sociocultural theory is a theory that incorporates both the ‘participation’ and the ‘acquisition’ metaphors
(Sfard, 1998). It has led to some rich pedagogic applications, notably the importance of ‘languaging’
(Swain, 2006) for learning.
We have reached the 2000s. Much of the developments that took place in the 1980s and 1990s carried
on into the 2000s but two new developments are noteworthy (Table 5). The first is Complex Dynamic
Systems Theory. This represents a coming together of Complexity Theory (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron,
2008) and Dynamic Systems Theory (de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007), which share a set of fundamen-
tal precepts, for example, that language systems are non-linear, highly variable, individualistic, non-
predictable and always open to change. This theory emphasizes the need to take account of the inter-
connectedness of social, cognitive and psychological factors and thus offers an all-embracing framework
for investigating both the use and acquisition of an L2 and individual learner differences.
Larsen-Freeman (2018) sees it as theory fit for the globalized world of today, which ‘requires a more
holistic, ecological, and relational systems account as a complement’ (p. 59). It is, however, a theory
that is not easy to investigate empirically given the need to include in the design of a study the countless
variables that can influence L2 acquisition. The research that has appeared to date does not satisfy this
Table 5. Recent developments
Complex 2000s Larsen-Freeman Combines social and Originated in

Dynamic onwards (1997), cognitive perspectives on mathematics and
Systems Larsen-Freeman L2 acquisition; views science – e.g.
Theory and Cameron learning as individualistic Catastrophe Theory
(2008) and de Bot and non-linear; and Chaos Theory;
et al. (2007) interconnectedness of also influenced by
multiple variables; emergentist theories
predictions about how of learning.
learning will occur not
possible.
The multilingual 2010s Cook (1992), May Rejects viewing bilingualism Transdisciplinary
turn (2013) and Ortega in terms of the
(2009, 2019) development of
monolingual competence;
makes multilingualism the
central area of enquiry and
emphasizes the multiple
competencies of bi/
multilingual learners;
translanguaging.
requirement nor, to my mind, is it possible to do so. I see Complex Dynamic Systems Theory not as a
testable theory but as a useful metaphor of the wholeness of L2 acquisition.3
The second development is the ‘multilingual turn’ – a more inclusive construct than ‘social turn’.
Firth and Wagner (1997) criticized cognitive SLA’s assumption that L2 learners target the competence
of a monolingual native speaker. Later, Ortega (2009) pointed out that ‘when we oppose L2 acquisition
to L1 acquisition a subtle but dangerous monolingual bias seeps into our imagination’ (p. 5). This
perspective led to proposals for redirecting SLA to the investigation of multicompetences (Cook,
1992) and the translanguaging that occurs amongst mixed groups of language users who draw on mul-
tiple linguistic resources (May, 2013). The multilingual turn shares with Complex Dynamic Systems
Theory a view of the L2 learner as complex and heterogeneous – a view that is far removed from
that of the reified non-native speaker of much earlier SLA research.
From this brief history of the development of SLA, we can extract a few generalizations:
1. Many of the issues that figured in the early days of SLA have continued to figure in subsequent
periods. However, researchers revisited these issues in new ways, drawing on an increasing range
of theoretical perspectives.
2. SLA has become increasingly transdisciplinary and fragmented.
3. Correspondingly, theories have multiplied. While some theories have lost followers over the
years (e.g. Krashen’s Monitor Model), many have survived (e.g. Long’s Interaction
Hypothesis). Differences exist as to whether to let all the flowers bloom (Lantolf, 1996) or to
cull those theories that can be shown to be demonstrably poor theories (Long, 1993). Little cul-
ling has in fact taken place although some theories – such as Schumann’s Acculturation Model
(Schumann, 1978) – do gradually fall out of fashion.
4. Tensions exist among SLA researchers not just with regard to the details of specific theories but
to the overall orientation of SLA. In particular, we find some SLA researchers clinging to a
purely cognitive view of L2 acquisition (see, for example, Long & Doughty, 2003), others to a
social view (e.g. Firth & Wagner, 1997, 2007), and still others adopting a broader socio-cognitive
position (e.g. Atkinson, 2014).
5. Not all SLA researchers have been interested in pedagogical applications; not all theories
(Universal Grammar being one) have much to say to teachers.
196 Rod Ellis
How have researchers investigated L2 acquisition?

Concurrent with the growth of SLA, as it drew on an ever-increasing number of other disciplines, is
the expanding range of research tools used to investigate L2 acquisition – see Mackey and Gass (2016)
for an up-to-date account of second language research methods. Here I will comment on some of the
key changes in research approaches that have occurred as SLA has evolved.
Etic and emic perspectives have figured throughout SLA but the popularity of one or the other has
varied over time. An etic perspective requires researchers to act as an observer of learners’ behaviour.
Central to SLA throughout its history is the study of learner-language and the methods used to analyse
this have been primarily etic. An emic perspective necessitates investigating learners’ subjective under-
standings of their own behaviour. It helps to identify the factors that influence individual learners’ use
and acquisition of an L2. Both perspectives were evident from the beginning of SLA. Hatch’s (1978a)
collection of studies of L2 learners is a good example of the etic approach but at the same time there
were also reports of individual learners based on the journals they kept (e.g. Schumann & Schumann,
1977). The coming-of-age and cognitive periods that spanned the 1980s and 1990s were predomin-
antly etic in orientation but it is not hard to also find influential emic-type studies (e.g. Schmidt &
Frota, 1986; Norton Peirce, 1995). The social turn prioritized emic-type research – for example, the
use of narrative inquiry to investigate learning in different social contexts (Barkhuizen, 2014).
However, conversational analysis – also a popular tool in socially oriented research – is fundamentally
etic in approach. Complex Dynamic Systems Theory requires researchers to address the range of lin-
guistic, social and psychological variables involved in L2 performance and thus demands both
approaches. The multilingual turn most clearly prioritizes emic-type research; for example, whereas
research on code shifting was inherently etic, accounts of translanguaging involve emic-type method-
ologies. Increasingly, researchers have turned to mixed-method approaches, combining etic and emic
lines of enquiry. For example, cognitive-interactionist studies continue to rely on observation but also
make use of strategies to investigate learners’ subjective responses to the L2 activities they engage in
(e.g. Révész, Michel, & Gilabert, 2016).
Cutting across the etic-emic distinction is whether the research focuses on groups of learners or on
individuals. In general, etic research investigates groups of learners while emic research aims for rich
data about individual learners. The morpheme studies of the 1970s involved groups and, with a few
exceptions, were cross-sectional but the studies investigating transitional constructions at this time
investigated individual learners and were longitudinal. In the expansion and cognitive phases of
SLA, researchers investigated groups of learners in cross-sectional studies. Social turn researchers
prioritized individuals but rarely longitudinally (see, for example, Norton, 2000). Larsen-Freeman
(2018) emphasized the importance of investigating individual learners. She disputed the assumption
that group averages can say anything about the population under investigation. She also expressed
wariness about pooling findings from studies of individual learners in the search for post-hoc general-
izations. For her, SLA research is all about particularization, not generalization, a point I will also
return to later. In the introduction to their Handbook of second language acquisition, Doughty and
Long (2003) lamented the lack of longitudinal studies. The situation has changed little since then
but see Ortega and Byrnes (2008) collection of longitudinal studies of advanced L2 learners.
Samples of learner language constitute the primary data for investigating acquisition so a key issue is
how to collect and analyse these samples. Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) distinguished three basic types of
samples – naturally occurring language use (i.e. language produced in a real-life situation), clinically
elicited data (i.e. general samples of language elicited by means of tasks), and experimentally elicited
data (i.e. samples of the use of specific, pre-determined linguistic features elicited by means of tests).
In SLA, there is a general preference for samples of naturally occurring language use but these are
often difficult to obtain and may not contain instances of the particular features under investigation.
As a result, researchers have frequently resorted to collecting clinically elicited samples (e.g. using
tasks) or experimentally elicited samples (e.g. by means of grammatically judgement tests). The key
issue is the theoretical validity of the elicited samples, in particular the experimentally elicited ones.
The issue here is what the samples tell us about acquisition. While researchers have always recognized
this issue, they have largely ignored it, often happy to talk about acquisition with no consideration of the
type of data they had collected. The interest in implicit and explicit knowledge that arose in the 1990s
during the cognitive period of SLA led to attempts to investigate the knowledge underlying different
types of data. In Ellis (2005), I reported a study that used factor-analysis to show that some types of
elicited data (e.g. an oral elicited imitation test) resulted in a different type of language use from
other types (e.g. an untimed grammaticality judgement test) and suggested that this difference reflected
the difference between implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. This article has generated a whole series of
studies, some supporting and others challenging the findings of the 2005 study on the grounds that
the oral elicited imitation test is not a true test of implicit knowledge. This body of research testifies
to a general development in SLA – the increasing concern with the validity of the methods employed.
Over the years, SLA has grown increasingly more varied and sophisticated in its research method-
ology. In part, this was in response to the broadening of the field of SLA but it is also a reflection of
researchers’ increased technical expertise and their willingness to subject the procedures used to collect
and analyse data to critical scrutiny. The development of technical expertise is evident in
meta-analyses of L2 studies (e.g. Norris & Ortega, 2000) and in the increasing concern for the proper
use of statistics (e.g. Plonsky, 2015). As Loewen and Gass (2009) pointed out, SLA may not be an
innovator but it is ‘an increasingly knowledgeable borrower and adapter of statistical procedures’
(p. 181). Similar developments are evident in the qualitative methodologies employed in SLA (e.g.
Davis, 2012). SLA in 2019 is a much more rigorous enterprise than in the 1970s.
Why investigate L2 acquisition?

Survey books of SLA begin by telling their readers the reasons for investigating SLA. In Ellis (1985;
2015), I identified the primary purpose of the book as helping teachers construct ‘a theory of language
learning that is explicit and therefore open to revision’ (p. 3). This reflects the underlying rationale for
much of the early SLA research – helping to make language teaching more effective. Larsen-Freeman
and Long writing in 1991 also saw SLA as a source of insight about how to teach an L2 by increasing
teachers’ awareness about the learning process but they also saw it having other purposes – helping
populations with specific language learning needs and informing other disciplines (e.g. by helping
to investigate linguists’ claims about linguistic universals). The first reason they gave, however, was
‘intellectual curiosity’ reflecting the fact that by 1991 SLA had already become a self-contained field
of study. Mitchell and Myles (1998), in the first edition of their book, saw SLA as informing social
practice (most obviously language teaching) but gave as their primary reason the contribution that
SLA can make to ‘fundamental understandings’ such as the workings of the human mind. They
also noted that there were diverging opinions about SLA’s links to social practice, with some research-
ers arguing for pure-theory building, others for engagement with social practice, and still others for
guiding language teaching. Doughty and Long (2003) acknowledged the social importance of learning
a second language but did not view this as the main reason for studying it. Reflecting their claim that
SLA is essentially a cognitive enterprise, they saw it as important for ‘what it can reveal about the
nature of the human mind and intelligence’ (p. 5) and then went on to list a whole number of con-
tributions that SLA can make to linguistics and psychology. Ortega (2009) saw the fundamental ques-
tion that SLA addresses is ‘how do humans learn languages after they learn their first?’ (p. 1). She
recognized its interdisciplinary nature and its usefulness for addressing real-world problems such as
when best to start learning a second language, overcoming negative attitudes to immigrants, and mak-
ing instruction effective. In the second edition of my own survey book published in 2015, I continued
to see the main value of SLA as contributing to language teaching, arguing that ‘an understanding of
how learners learn a second language’ is ‘an essential requirement for language teachers’ (p. 3).
These survey books identify four main reasons for doing SLA. The first – chronologically at least –
is the insights it can provide about how to teach languages. The second is its contribution to social
practice – for example, informing policy making about immigrant populations. Third, it can assist
198 Rod Ellis
the development of its parent disciplines by serving as a testing ground for linguistic, cognitive and
social theories. The fourth reason is academic curiosity. These four reasons reflect a divide between
the view that SLA is a sub-branch of applied linguistics and that it is an independent discipline
with ties to other academic disciplines – especially linguistics and cognitive psychology – but also sep-
arate from them. I will now address these different conceptualizations of SLA.
SLA – a scientific discipline or an applied field of enquiry?

So far I have attempted to characterize SLA in terms of the particular aspects of L2 acquisition it has
addressed, the methodologies it has employed, and the reasons given for doing it. I am aware that this
characterization is incomplete. For example, I have omitted to mention a number of developments –
the emergence of research investigating computer-assisted L2 learning and neurolinguistics SLA. I
have also excluded any mention of a major strand of SLA – the role of form-focused instruction.
However, I will consider this strand below as it is relevant to how I think we should view SLA.
First, though, we need to ask whether SLA is a discipline. This is not an easy question to answer.
SLA has fragmented over the years, especially following the social turn, and is now heterogeneous in
both its knowledge bases, its epistemologies and its methods. This is of concern to some SLA researchers.
DeKeyser (2010), for example, found the bifurcation in SLA that arose with the social turn ‘worrisome
for those such as himself who have a vested interest in SLA’ because ‘if this trend continues,
second language acquisition (SLA) will be absorbed completely into psycholinguistics or cognitive
psychology, on the one hand, and anthropology or sociology, on the other hand’ (p. 247).
However, SLA it is arguably not different from such other widely recognized academic disciplines
in the social sciences (e.g. psychology, sociology and education), which have elastic boundaries and
multiple theories that are prone to disputation. Kuhn (1962) suggested that as a discipline matures,
a paradigm emerges that sets limits on the domain of enquiry but this does not always happen and
clearly not in SLA.
In a thought-provoking discussion of academic disciplines, Krishnan (2009) proposed a discipline
has six defining characteristics (see the headings in the following sub-sections). I will consider each in
relation to how SLA has developed and attempt to reach a conclusion as to whether SLA constitutes a
scientific discipline or an applied field of enquiry.
The object of enquiry in SLA is L2 acquisition

This first characteristic is that any discipline must have a definite object of enquiry. In the case of SLA,
the object of enquiry would seem to be self-evident: L2 acquisition. Looking through the historical
phases, this is very clearly the case up to the social turn. At this point, however, the object of enquiry
shifted to include the social uses of an L2 and the factors that influence these. At this point ‘learning’
took a back seat. Norton’s (2000) seminal work on social identity, for example, talks only of ‘learning
opportunities’ and assumes that where there is opportunity, learning would happen but without dem-
onstrating that it did. To show that language learning has taken place it is necessary to show that there
is some change in how the L2 is used and minimally this involves comparing samples of learner-
language at two different times (Ellis, 2010). Investigating learning-as-participation – as in research
informed by Lave and Wenger’s (1991) Community of Practice Theory – is a worthy object of enquiry
but as Sfard (1998) pointed out, investigating ‘participation’ by itself is not enough; it is also necessary
to investigate ‘acquisition’.
Thus, if SLA is to constitute a coherent body of knowledge the focus must be clearly on how people
LEARN an L2, not just on how they USE it in social settings. One way of ensuring a focus on learning is to
delimit the scope of SLA by acknowledging cognitive psychology as the ‘institutional choice’ for SLA
and the psycholinguistic processes of acquisition as the primary object of inquiry. This is what Long
and Doughty (2003) propose. They argue that taking ‘external behaviour … not mental states as the
proper domain of enquiry’ leads to fragmentation - an ‘abyss’ (p. 866), where SLA is a no longer a
viable discipline.
To my mind, this position is too extreme. Not all socially oriented L2 researchers limit themselves to
investigating L2 use. There are examples of postmodern studies that make the link between ‘participa-
tion’ and ‘acquisition’. Markee (2008), for example, employed a learning-tracking methodology to inves-
tigate how learning takes place over time. This involves identifying when a specific linguistic object
occurs in the interactions involving the same learner, using the techniques of conversational analysis
to describe what happens, and thereby plotting the changes that occur in these objects over time.
Sociocultural theory also has a clear focus on language learning and, like cognitive-interactionist theories,
provides a theoretical basis for linking external behaviour to internal representation. However, sociocul-
tural SLA differs from cognitive-interactionist theories in seeing development occurring initially WITHIN
interaction – that is, it claims that learning is initially a social phenomenon. Subsequently, as other regu-
lation gives way to self-regulation, internalization occurs. While it is true that some sociocultural
researchers focus only on the social uses of an L2, others aim to show that learning takes place and
make use of the same kind of experimental designs as cognitively oriented researchers.4
Specialist knowledge
As my brief history of SLA shows, SLA, like any discipline, manifests shifting and expanding knowl-
edge formations. SLA has always been ready to draw on specialist knowledge from other disciplines –
L1 acquisition, cognitive psychology, sociology, anthropology, education – readily borrowing
constructs from them. The claim that there is a body of knowledge unique to SLA, then, relies less
on the originality of the constructs themselves, than on how borrowed constructs are adapted
and incorporated into SLA. A good, current example is Complex Dynamic Systems Theory. This
draws on Chaos Theory taken from physics but has re-modelled the theory to take account of estab-
lished characteristics of learner-language (e.g. variability and emergent properties).
The published surveys of SLA are a testimony to the richness of the specialized knowledge that has
accumulated over the years. There is now a set of observations about the nature of L2 learning (e.g. a
good deal of L2 acquisition happens incidentally; learners’ output follows predictable paths; there are
limits on the effects of instruction on learning5) that is widely accepted by SLA researchers and serves
as the knowledge base for the field.
Theories that effectively organize the knowledge base of SLA

A mature discipline should be able to point to a theory that provides a full and convincing explanation of
the object of enquiry. In this respect, SLA falls short. There is no shortage of theories but there is no
widely accepted theory that provides a unifying account of L2 acquisition. The general picture is of a
plethora of theories that address specific aspects of L2 learning. Some of these are ‘strong’ theories
that have a tribal following. Processability Theory (Pienemann, 1998), for example, offers an explanation
for acquisition sequences; the Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996) offers an account of how interaction
triggers the mental processes involved in acquisition; usage-based theories (e.g. N. Ellis, 2015) provide a
convincing account of how development arises from input/interaction. However, even these strong the-
ories are subject to criticism – not all researchers agree there are universal acquisition sequences, and
sociocultural theory offers a very different account of the role of interaction in learning to that of Long.
The existence of multiple theories is not necessarily a problem. In his historical perspective on aca-
demic disciplines, Krishnan (2009) distinguished the formation stage of a discipline, where leaders in
the field define what the new discipline is about and provide a clear agenda for research, from a later
stage where researchers consolidate the field and the discipline takes on coherence and orthodoxy. He
argues that in the early, formative stage, multiple perspectives are both inevitable and desirable but that
eventually the discipline needs a stable identity to survive. The question arises, then, what stage has
SLA reached? I would argue that it is still in the formative period – 50 years is not long in the history
200 Rod Ellis
of a discipline – and that we should be tolerant of diversity while setting guidelines (such as those
proposed by Jordan, 2003) for evaluating theories.
Other researchers, such as DeKeyser (2010), are fearful that SLA is disintegrating and are keen to
move SLA into its mature stage by culling theories and striving for a unified approach. There are recent
signs of this happening in Complex Dynamic Systems Theory. However, as I have already indicated, I
have my doubts about this theory, not least because it offers no predictions about L2 acquisition and
resists generalization. If SLA is a ‘pure’ discipline, not claiming to be of value to society, a theory that
eschews generalization may have a place, but if SLA is an applied discipline, then surely there is a need
for generalizations that can inform applications. What does Complex Dynamic Systems Theory have
to say to teachers, for example? Telling teachers that language learning is complex, idiosyncratic and
unpredictable might be helpful in developing their awareness of the nature of L2 learning but it does
not offer any practical suggestions about how to the design and implement language instruction. That
requires a theory – or a number of theories – that makes specific generalizations about what and how
to teach. There are other theories (e.g. Processing Theory (VanPatten, 1996)) that are less comprehen-
sive but offer helpful predictions about L2 learning and are better suited to application.
I do not think that SLA has reached the mature stage in the development of a discipline but, like Hulstijn
(2013), I do not see the plethora of theories as problematic and I am not concerned about the lack of a single,
unifying perspective. SLA is a new discipline, parasitic on other disciplines, so multiple theories are
inevitable. I do not know when or if SLA will mature into a stage where it provides the coherent body
of knowledge of an established discipline and I wonder, in fact, whether this actually happens
even in well-established disciplines in the social sciences. I think it very possible that the process of frag-
mentation will continue and distinct sub-areas – e.g. cognitive SLA, linguistic SLA, sociocultural SLA,
instructed SLA – will consolidate. The appearance of journals devoted to each of these areas is evidence
that consolidation is already happening. If SLA is an applied rather than a pure discipline, diversity is
no bad thing.
Specific terminologies referring to the research object

In this respect, at least, SLA has a strong claim to be a discipline. In writing my own survey books, I
became very aware of the ever-growing number of technical terms and the problem this creates for
newcomers to SLA. This is why I included glossaries in my books. However, just as there is no single
disciplinary perspective in SLA so there is no clear agreement about a set of core terms. Loewen and
Reinders’ (2011) Key concepts of language acquisition is the most comprehensive record of SLA terms
to date but these authors also acknowledge that they may have omitted some terms that other
researchers would see as central and included some that others see as peripheral.
Specific research methods

I have already taken note of the developments in the research methods employed by SLA. Just as SLA
researchers have derived its specialist knowledge from external sources, so too they have borrowed
research methods and then shaped them to suit their own needs. SLA, then, has not so much devel-
oped its own research methods as utilized and adapted existing tools. Sometimes, however, the level of
adaptation is so great as to warrant the claim that the methods are novel. Good examples are taxon-
omies of strategies used in the negotiation of meaning (Long, 1983; Varonis & Gass, 1985), measures
of complexity, accuracy and fluency used to investigate L2 production, (Housen, Kuiken, & Vedder,
2012), and tests of implicit and explicit L2 knowledge (Ellis, 2005).
Institutional manifestation
If institutional manifestation is a key characteristic of a discipline, then clearly SLA has a way to go. While
it is true that there are now specialist SLA journals (e.g. Studies in Second Language Acquisition) and
Table 6. Characteristics of an academic discipline (based on Krishnan, 2009)
Characteristic Applied to SLA
1. There is a particular object of research. The object of enquiry in SLA is the acquisition of a
second language.
2. There is an accumulated specialist knowledge Since its inception in the 1960s, SLA has drawn on
referring to the object of research not generally knowledge from different established disciplines and
shared with another discipline. adapted this as a specialized knowledge about L2
acquisition.
3. There are theories and concepts that can organize There are multiple theories and numerous concepts
the accumulated knowledge effectively. used to organize and explain the accumulated
knowledge but there is little sign of the emergence of
a unifying theory or of agreement about the
boundaries of the field.
4. There are specific terminologies referring to the There is a wealth of specialist terminologies but no
research object. agreed set of common core terms.
5. Specific research methods have been developed. SLA has largely borrowed its research methodologies
from other disciplines but has applied them in
creative ways.
6. There is some institutional manifestation in the form There are few SLA departments in universities. SLA
of subjects taught at universities in academic researchers locate in different departments
departments practising the discipline. depending on their area of expertise.
specialist SLA conferences (e.g. Second Language Research Forum) that thrive, it is also true that there are
few departments of SLA in universities. We can find SLA researchers in departments of linguistics, psych-
ology, sociology, foreign languages, education and even English. These researchers are just as likely to
attend conferences in these disciplines or general conferences in applied linguistics such as the Applied
Linguistics Association of Linguistics/Applied Linguistics Association of New Zealand (ALAA/ALANZ)
conference as specialist SLA conferences. SLA researchers are often very isolated and unable to form a
community of practice in their work place as they are likely to be dispersed in different academic depart-
ments – Education, English, Foreign Languages, Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology. University man-
agers generally do not perceive SLA as of sufficient social or economic relevance or of sufficient
marketability to justify the expense of setting up a new department. However, they recognize its interdis-
ciplinary value in contributing to teaching and research in more established disciplines. If SLA is a dis-
cipline, its institutional manifestation points to it being an applied rather than a pure one.
Conclusion
The history of SLA is not a long one but it has clearly come a long way, continually expanding its
boundaries, leading to questioning as to whether it can claim to be a discipline, which arguably has
been the goal of some researchers. Table 6 lists Krishnan’s six characteristics of a discipline along
with my summative comments about how they apply to SLA. Krishnan (2009) acknowledged that
not all disciplines manifest all six characteristics but that the more boxes a discipline ticks ‘the
more likely it becomes that a certain field of academic enquiry is recognised as a discipline capable
of reproducing itself and building upon a growing body of scholarship’ (p. 10). Overall, SLA does
not convincingly tick any of the boxes. Disagreement exists about the object of enquiry and about
the boundaries of SLA. Its specialist knowledge, specialist terminologies and methods largely derive
from other disciplines although they are used creatively. There is no unifying theory or even agreement
about the boundaries of SLA. Tellingly, there is only limited evidence of any institutional manifest-
ation of SLA. We might conclude that SLA is still at the early stage of becoming a discipline and,
in support of this, point to some degree of autonomy it has achieved.
202 Rod Ellis
However, a more convincing conclusion is that the relevance of SLA lies in the contribution it can
make to well-established disciplines and to addressing practical problems. In this respect, it is not an
autonomous discipline but a sub-field of applied linguistics. If we take this perspective, we do not need
to worry about fragmentation and the lack of a general, unifying theory. This is the position that
Hulstijn (2013) takes. He distinguished two types of disciplines, each drawing on different kinds of
theories. On the one hand there are those disciplines that address ‘fundamental issues’ such as the
existence of linguistic universals or how language has evolved in the human species and on the
other there are disciplines that address issues of ‘an applied mainly educational nature’ (p. 515).
The former require theories where ideas are testable in ways that allow for replication (i.e. they can
serve as a basis for scientific enquiry). Long’s Interaction Hypothesis is a good example. The latter,
however, can justifiably draw on pre-scientific theories (i.e. theories that incorporate ideas that are
not testable) as long as these ideas are of practical value. Krashen’s Monitor Model is a good example.
If we accept that SLA is not a discipline but rather is parasitic on and contributory to other disciplines
in different ways, then, we do not need to cull useful theories simply on the grounds they are not sci-
entific.6 SLA will inevitably be theoretically multifarious.
SLA was an applied field of study from the beginning and I think that fundamentally it still is although
sadly applications seem to have become less prevalent in the drive to establish SLA as an autonomous,
scientific discipline. SLA researchers, for example, are less ready to apply the findings of their research
to language teaching – the most obvious area of application. I undertook an analysis of the articles pub-
lished in Studies in Second Language Acquisition7 in 2018 to see whether they included any pedagogical
applications and implications. Out of 35 research articles, only five did so and two of these only briefly.
This is a long cry from the contents of early issues of this journal, which, before Cambridge University
Press took it over, was published under the sponsorship of the Center for English Language Training
(CELT) and the Committee for Research and Development in Language Instruction (CREDLI), with a
clear emphasis on publishing pedagogically focused articles (Valdman, 1999). Language pedagogy is,
of course, not the only target of possible applications – others are linguistics, psychology, sociology
and anthropology – but it is arguably the main one. Each area of application will draw on a different
strand of SLA and strands relevant to all of these disciplines exist in SLA today. If we accept that SLA
is fundamentally an applied area of enquiry, diversity is no longer a problem and there will be no
need for turf battles over boundaries of SLA. I would add, though, we do need to agree that the object
of enquiry is L2 learning, not just L2 use, which is the business of sociology and anthropology.
As an interdisciplinary field of enquiry, SLA will continue to accumulate a diverse body of knowl-
edge attuned to the particular applications it seeks to make. Let us hope that SLA researchers do not
feel obliged to demonstrate their credentials as members of an autonomous SLA discipline by omitting
to make applications.
Notes
1
Like Ortega (2009), I use ‘SLA’ to refer to field of enquiry and ‘L2 acquisition’ to refer to the object of investigation. This
distinction is not common, however. Often ‘SLA’ is used to refer to both the field and object of enquiry.
2
It is widely accepted that the starting point of SLA was the 1960s. Corder published his seminal article ‘The significance of
learner errors’ in 1967. Nemser published his ‘Approximate systems of foreign language learners’ in 1971. Selinker published
‘Interlanguage’ in 1972. These three articles presented the case for viewing L2 acquisition as a transitional process where
learners tested hypotheses in much the same way as in L1 acquisition. These articles motivated what had been previously
lacking – the empirical study of learner language.
3
Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2008) argue that Complexity Theory is ‘more than a metaphor if it takes us to a new way of
thinking or theoretical framework, that is then rigorously developed in the field’ (p. 15). However, they do not address the
fundamental requirement of any theory; namely is it testable.
4
Sociocultural SLA does differ from cognitive SLA in one of the ways in which it conceptualizes learning. For Lantolf, learn-
ing is evident when a learner has achieved self-regulation and thus can independently produce a target language form that he/
she could not produce earlier but it is also evident if there is a reduction from one time to another in the level of other-
regulation needed for the learner to produce the target form.
5
These observations about L1 acquisition come from VanPatten and Williams (2007). They listed ten observations that they
suggested provide a basis for evaluating different SLA theories. It is noticeable that all the observations derive from a cognitive
model of L2 acquisition.
6
However, as Hulstijn pointed out, it would be helpful if scholars were more transparent in identifying ideas not yet ready
for empirical testing.
7
I chose Studies in Second language Acquisition, as SLA researchers view this as the primary journal in SLA. I acknowledge,
however, that other journals (e.g. Language Teaching Research) draw on SLA.
References
Anderson, J. (1980). Cognitive psychology and its implications. San Francisco, NC: Freeman.
Atkinson, D. (2014). Language learning in mindbodyworld: A sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition.
Language Teaching, 47(4), 467–483.
Barkhuizen, G. (2014). Narrative research in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 47(4), 450–466.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. F. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of edu-
cation (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cancino, H., Rosansky, E., & Schumann, J. (1978). The acquisition of English negatives and interrogatives by native Spanish
speakers. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition (pp. 207–230). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Comrie, B. (1984). Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Cook, V. J. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42(4), 557–591.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161–169.
Coulthard, M. (1977). An introduction to discourse analysis. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Davis, K. (2012). Ethnographic approaches to second language acquisition research. The Encyclopaedia of Applied Linguistics.
doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0399
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7–21.
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In
C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R. (2010). Where is our field going? Comments from the outgoing editor of Language Leaning. Modern Language
Journal, 944(4), 646–647.
Doughty, C., & Long, M. (2003). The scope of inquiry and goals of SLA. In C. Doughty, & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of
second language acquisition (pp. 3–16). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23(2), 245–258.
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1975). Creative construction in second language learning and teaching. In M. Burt, & H. Dulay (Eds.),
On TESOL ‘75: New directions in second language learning, teaching and bilingual education (pp. 21–32). Washington, DC:
TESOL.
Eckman, F., Bell, L., & Nelson, D. (1988). On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a
second language. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 1–20.
Ellis, N. (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. San Diego: Academic Press.
Ellis, N. (2015). Usage-based approaches in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten, & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in
second language acquisition (pp. 75–93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of lan-
guages (pp. 79–114). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141–172.
Ellis, R. (2010). Theoretical pluralism in SLA: Is there a way forward? In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.),
Conceptualising ‘learning’ in applied linguistics (pp. 23–51). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ferguson, C. (1975). Towards a characterization of English foreigner talk. Anthropological Linguistics, 17(1), 1–14.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA. Modern Language
Journal, 81(3), 285–300.
204 Rod Ellis
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptua-
lized SLA. Modern Language Journal, 91(S1), 800–819.
Gass, S. (1984). A review of interlanguage syntax: Language transfer and language universals. Language Learning, 34(2),
115–132.
Hatch, E. (1978a). Second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Hatch, E. (1978b). Apply with caution. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2(1), 123–143.
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. In
A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Investigating complexity, accuracy
and fluency in SLA (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Hulstijn, J. (2013). Is the second language acquisition discipline disintegrating? Language Teaching, 46(4), 511–517.
Jordan, G. (2003). Theory construction in second language acquisition. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Kellerman, E. (1983). Now you see it, now you don’t. In S. Gass, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning
(pp. 112–134). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Klima, E., & Bellugi, V. (1966). Syntactic regularities in the speech of children. In J. Lyons, & R. Wales (Eds.), Psycholinguistic
papers (pp. 183–208). Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
Krashen, S. (1977). Some issues relating to the Monitor Model. In H. Brown, C. Yorio, & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ‘77
(pp. 152–161). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1983). Newmark’s ignorance hypothesis and current second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass, &
L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 135–153). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London, UK: Longman.
Krishnan, A. (2009). What are academic disciplines? Some observations on the disciplinarity versus interdisciplinarity. NCRM
Working Paper Series: ESRC National Centre for Research Methods.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Lantolf, J. (1996). Second language theory building: letting all the flowers bloom! Language Learning, 46(4), 713–749.
Lantolf, J. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141–165.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2018). Looking ahead: Future directions in, and future research into, second language development.
Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 55–72.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London, UK: Longman.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Loewen, S., & Gass, S. (2009). The use of statistics in L2 acquisition research. Language Teaching, 42(2), 181–196.
Loewen, S., & Reinders, S. (2011). Key concepts in second language acquisition. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied
Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141.
Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam, &
M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77–99). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M. (1993). Assessment strategies for SLA theories. Applied Linguistics, 14, 225–249.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, & T. Bhatia (Eds.),
Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M. (1998). SLA breaking the siege. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL, 17(1), 79–129.
Long, M., & Doughty, C. (2003). SLA and cognitive science. In C. Doughty, & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second lan-
guage acquisition (pp. 866–870). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (Eds.) (2016). Second language research: Methodology and design (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Markee, N. (2008). Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 404–427.
May, S. (2013). The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingualism. New York, NY: Routledge.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning theories. London, UK: Hodder Arnold.
Nemser, W. (1971). Approximative systems of foreign language learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 9(2),
115–123.
Newmark, L. (1966). How not to interfere in language learning. International Journal of American Linguistics, 32(1), 77–87.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language
Learning, 50(3), 417–528.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Norton Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9–31.
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London, UK: Hodder Education.
Ortega, L. (2019). SLA and the study of equitable multilingualism. Modern Language Journal, 103, Supplement, 23–38.
Ortega, L., & Byrnes, H. (2008). The longitudinal study of advanced L2 capacities. New York, NY: Routledge.
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Plonsky, L. (2015). Advancing quantitative methods in second language research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Reber, A. (1976). Implicit learning of synthetic learners: The role of instructional set. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
Human Learning and Memory, 2, 88–94.
Reber, A. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Révész, A., Michel, M., & Gilabert, R. (2016). Measuring cognitive task demands using dual task methodology, subjective
self-ratings, and expert judgments: A validation study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(4), 703–737.
Ringbom, H. (1987). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner.
In R. Day (Ed.). Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Schumann, F., & Schumann, J. (1977). Diary of a language learner: An introspective study of second language learning. In
H. Brown, C. Yorio, & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ‘77 (pp. 241–249). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Schumann, J. (1978). The acculturation model for second language acquisition. In R. Gingras (Ed.), Second language acqui-
sition and foreign language teaching (pp. 27–50). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 209–231.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researchers, 27(2), 4–13.
Sharwood-Smith, M. (1994). Second language learning: Theoretical foundations. London, UK: Longman.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its devel-
opment. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced
language learning: The contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London, UK: Continuum.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.
Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 16, 183–203.
Valdman, A. (1999). A note from the editor: 20th anniversary of SSLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(4),
463–470.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2007). Introduction. In B. VanPatten, & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acqui-
sition (pp. 1–16). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics,
6(1), 71–90.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (Newly revised and edited by A. Kozulin). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wells, G. (1985). Language development in the pre-school years. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Wode, H. (1976). Developmental sequences in naturalistic L2 acquisition. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 1(1), 1–13.
Rod Ellis is currently a Research Professor in the School of Education, Curtin University in Perth, Australia. He is also a
professor at Anaheim University, a visiting professor at Shanghai International Studies University, an Emeritus Professor
of the University of Auckland, and a fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand. His published work includes articles
and books on SLA, language teaching, and teacher education. His latest books are Becoming and being an applied linguist
(John Benjamins, 2016) and Reflections on task-based language teaching (Multilingual Matters, 2018). He has held university
positions in six different countries and has conducted numerous consultancies and seminars throughout the world. His cur-
rent interests are task-based language teaching and the assessment of L2 learners’ pragmatic knowledge.
Cite this article: Ellis, R. (2021). A short history of SLA: Where have we come from and where are we going? Language
Teaching, 54(2), 190–205. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000038
doi:10.1017/S0261444820000592
RESEARCH TIMELINE
Multimodal input in second-language speech processing

Debra M. Hardison*
Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA
*Corresponding author. Email: hardiso2@msu.edu
Introduction
This timeline provides an update on research since 2009 involving auditory-visual (AV) input in
spoken language processing (see Hardison, 2010 for an earlier timeline on this topic). A brief back-
ground is presented here as a foundation for the more recent studies of speech as a multimodal
phenomenon (e.g., Rosenblum, 2005).
In the 1950s, some researchers suggested that the prevailing view of speech as an auditory-only
(A-only) event had overlooked an important source of input. Sumby and Pollack (1954) argued
that speech intelligibility could be enhanced by observation of the speaker; specifically, lip movements
could be helpful for disambiguating consonant sounds (Miller & Nicely, 1955). Subsequent studies
demonstrated that visual cues from a speaker’s face offered an advantage in the accurate identifica-
tion of speech sounds for a variety of listener populations, languages, and stimulus conditions.
These included the hearing impaired (e.g., Walden, Prosek, Montgomery, Scherr, & Jones, 1977;
Bergeson, Pisoni, & Davis, 2003), non-impaired listeners trying to comprehend conceptually difficult
messages or accented speech (Reisberg, McLean, & Goldfield, 1987), non-impaired listeners in ambi-
ent noise (e.g., Benoît, Mohamadi, & Kandel, 1994 for French; MacLeod & Summerfield, 1990 for
English), listeners of speech presented in the clear (e.g., McGrath & Summerfield, 1985), infants in
their first language (L1) development (e.g., Meltzoff & Moore, 1993), and individuals responding to
the McGurk Effect (e.g., McGurk & MacDonald, 1976; Hardison, 1996) – a perceptual effect in
which discrepant AV cues may result in an illusory percept (e.g., a combination of auditory /ba/
and visual /ga/ may produce the percept /da/). For second-language (L2) learners of English
(L1 Japanese and Korean), training with visual cues from a native speaker’s face improved their iden-
tification accuracy of /r/ and /l/ which transferred to production improvement (Hardison, 2003) and
earlier identification of words beginning with those sounds (Hardison, 2005). Articulatory gestures
often precede the associated acoustic signal, essentially giving the listener/observer a head start in
reducing the set of potential candidates in the speech recognition process (e.g., Munhall &
Tohkura, 1998). In addition to the information value of lip movements in face-to-face interactions,
head and eyebrow movements, which are correlated with changes in vocal pitch, also improve speech
perception (e.g., Munhall, Jones, Callan, Kuratate, & Vatikiotis-Bateson, 2004). Among other non-
verbal cues, hand-arm gestures contribute to language comprehension (Sueyoshi & Hardison, 2005;
Gullberg, 2006); in particular, beat gestures can focus perceivers’ attention on certain elements in
multimodal discourse (Dimitrova, Chu, Wang, Özyürek, & Hagoort, 2016).
Early demonstrations of the advantage of computer-based visual displays of acoustic information in
L2 training involved L1 Dutch speakers learning Chinese lexical tones (Leather, 1990) and English
sentence-level intonation (de Bot, 1983). Further advances in computer-based sources of visual feed-
back on one’s own speech or that of a model speaker led to widespread use of the acronym CAPT
(Computer-Assisted Pronunciation Training; see Hincks, 2015 for a review). This feedback includes
displays of waveforms, which can visually represent the duration of sounds (e.g., Motohashi-Saigo
& Hardison, 2009); spectrograms, which show the internal structure of a sound’s acoustic energy
(e.g., Hardison, 2019); and pitch tracking for visualizing the rise and fall of vocal pitch (e.g.,

Hardison, 2004). Other displays of articulatory information, such as ultrasound imaging with its his-
tory in clinical applications, have been adapted to provide feedback in language learning (e.g., Gick,
Bernhardt, Bacsfalvi, & Wilson, 2008). Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) systems that rely on
machine learning can be used for feedback through dictation programs or segmental error detection
in a learner’s utterance (e.g., O’Brien et al., 2018). Computer-animated faces or talking heads (e.g.,
Massaro & Light, 2003) have the potential to serve as virtual pronunciation teachers with the goal
of showing the articulatory movements necessary to produce a target sound.
The importance and contribution of multimodal input is supported by the findings of neuroima-
ging studies which have revealed a relationship between visual input and activity in the auditory cortex
during speech perception (e.g., Sams et al., 1991; Hickok, Buchsbau, Humphries, & Muftuler, 2003).
The developmental role of multimodal input is captured well in the following statement from Shams
and Seitz (2008), ‘It is likely that the human brain has evolved to develop, learn and operate optimally
in multisensory environments.’ (p. 411).
The updated timeline on spoken language processing is constructed around the following themes
based on the studies that have informed the directions that multimodal speech research has been
taking.
1. Input from the human face

2. Electronic displays
A. Displays of acoustic information (e.g., pitch, waveforms)
B. Displays of articulatory position and movement (e.g., ultrasound)
C. Computer-animations or talking heads
D. ASR
3. Hand-arm gestures
4. Neurophysiological studies of AV processing
References
Benoît, C., Mohamadi, T., & Kandel, S. (1994). Effects of phonetic context on audio-visual intelligibility of French. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research, 37(5), 1195–1203.
Bergeson, T. R., Pisoni, D. B., & Davis, R. A. O. (2003). A longitudinal study of audiovisual speech perception by children
with hearing loss who have cochlear implants. Volta Review, 103(4), 347–370.
de Bot, K. (1983). Visual feedback of intonation I: Effectiveness and induced practice behaviour. Language and Speech, 26(4),
331–350.
Dimitrova, D., Chu, M., Wang, L., Özyürek, A., & Hagoort, P. (2016). Beat that word: How listeners integrate beat gesture and
focus in multimodal speech discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 28(9), 1255–1269.
Gick, B., Bernhardt, B. M., Bacsfalvi, P., & Wilson, I. (2008). Ultrasound imaging applications in second language acquisition.
In J. Hansen & M. Zampini (Eds.), Phonology and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 309–322). Amsterdam, Netherlands:
John Benjamins.
Gullberg, M. (2006). Some reasons for studying gesture and second language acquisition (Hommage à Adam Kendon). IRAL,
44(2), 103–124.
Hardison, D. M. (1996). Bimodal speech perception by native and non-native speakers of English: Factors influencing the
McGurk effect. Language Learning, 49(1), 213–283.
Hardison, D. M. (2003). Acquisition of second-language speech: Effects of visual cues, context, and talker variability. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 24(4), 495–522.
Hardison, D. M. (2004). Generalization of computer-assisted prosody training: Quantitative and qualitative findings.
Language Learning & Technology, 8(1), 34–52.
Hardison, D. M. (2005). Second-language spoken word identification: Effects of perception training, visual cues, and phonetic
environment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26(4), 579–596.
Hardison, D. M. (2010). Visual and auditory input in second-language speech processing. Language Teaching, 43(1), 84–95.
Hardison, D. M. (2019). Technology-based communication success for second-language learners. In M. A. Peters &
R. Heraud (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Educational Innovation. Singapore: Springer: doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2262-
4_85-2
Hickok, G. B., Buchsbau, B., Humphries, C., & Muftuler, T. (2003). Auditory-motor interaction revealed by fMRI: Speech,
music, and working memory in area Spt. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(5), 673–682.
208 Debra M. Hardison
Hincks, R. (2015). Technology and learning pronunciation. In M. Reed & J. M. Levis (Eds.), The handbook of English pro-
nunciation (pp. 505–519). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Leather, J. (1990). Perceptual and productive learning of Chinese lexical tone by Dutch and English speakers. In J. Leather &
A. James (Eds.), New Sounds 90 (pp. 72–97). Amsterdam, Netherlands: University of Amsterdam.
MacLeod, A., & Summerfield, Q. (1990). A procedure for measuring auditory and audio-visual speech-reception thresholds
for sentences in noise: Rationale, evaluation, and recommendations for use. British Journal of Audiology, 24(1), 29–43.
Massaro, D. W., & Light, J. (2003). Read my tongue movements: Bimodal learning to perceive and produce non-native speech
/r/ and /l/. In EUROSPEECH-2003, pp. 2249–2252.
McGrath, M., & Summerfield, Q. (1985). Intermodal timing relations and audio-visual speech recognition by normal-hearing
adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 77(2), 678–685.
McGurk, H., & MacDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264, 746–748.
Meltzoff, A., & Moore, M. K. (1993). Why faces are special to infants – on connecting the attraction of faces and infants’
ability for imitation and cross-modal processing. In B. de Boysson-Bardies, S. de Schonen, P. Jusczyk, P. McNeilage, &
J. Morton (Eds.), Developmental neurocognition: Speech and face processing in the first year of life (pp. 211–225).
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Miller, G. A., & Nicely, P. E. (1955). An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 27, 338–352.
Motohashi-Saigo, M., & Hardison, D. M. (2009). Acquisition of L2 Japanese geminates: Training with waveform displays.
Munhall, K. G., Jones, J. A., Callan, D. E., Kuratate, T., & Vatikiotis-Bateson, E. (2004). Visual prosody and speech intelli-
gibility: Head movement improves auditory speech perception. Psychological Science, 15(2), 133–137.
Munhall, K. G., & Tohkura, Y. (1998). Audiovisual gating and the time course of speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 104, 530–539.
O’Brien, M. G., Derwing, T. M., Cucchiarini, C., Hardison, D. M., Mixdorff, H., Thomson, R. L., … Levis, G. M. (2018).
Directions for the future of technology in pronunciation research and teaching. Journal of Second Language
Pronunciation, 4(2), 182–206.
Reisberg, D., McLean, J., & Goldfield, A. (1987). Easy to hear but hard to understand: A lip-reading advantage with intact
auditory stimuli. In B. Dodd & R. Campbell (Eds.), Hearing by eye: The psychology of lip-reading (pp. 97–113). London,
UK: Erlbaum.
Rosenblum, L. (2005). The primacy of multimodal speech perception. In D. Pisoni & R. Remez (Eds.), Handbook of Speech
Perception (pp. 51–78). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Sams, M., Aulanko, R., Hämäläinen, M., Hari, R., Lounasmaa, O. V., Lu, S.-T., & Simola, J. (1991). Seeing speech: Visual
information from lip movements modifies activity in the human auditory cortex. Neuroscience Letters, 127(1), 141–145.
Shams, L. A., & Seitz, A. R. (2008). Benefits of multisensory learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 411–417.
Sueyoshi, A., & Hardison, D. M. (2005). The role of gestures and facial cues in second-language listening comprehension.
Language Learning, 55(4), 661–699.
Sumby, W. H., & Pollack, I. (1954). Visual contribution to speech intelligibility in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 26, 212–215.
Walden, B. E., Prosek, R. A., Montgomery, A. A., Scherr, C. K., & Jones, C. J. (1977). Effects of training on the visual rec-
ognition of consonants. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 20(1), 130–145.
Debra M. Hardison is affiliated with the Department of Linguistics and Languages at Michigan State University. She
conducts research on multimodal integration in spoken language processing, co-speech gesture, factors affecting oral skills
development for L2 learners, and the applications of technology in L2 perception and production training involving segmen-
tal and suprasegmental features. She has given plenaries at New Sounds: International Symposium on the Acquisition of
Second Language Speech and Pronunciation in Second Language Learning & Teaching and publishes in numerous journals
and edited collections. She teaches graduate courses in L2 phonetics, and research methods in language learning and teaching.
Cite this article: Hardison, D. M. (2021). Multimodal input in second-language speech processing. Language Teaching, 54(2),
206–220. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000592
Year References Annotations Theme
2009 Cucchiarini, C., Neri, A. & Strik, H. (2009). Oral To explore the pedagogical effectiveness of automatic speech recognition technology, B3
proficiency training in Dutch L2: The Dutch-CAPT was tested as a means of providing corrective feedback on 11 L2 Dutch
contribution of ASR-based corrective feedback. segmental pronunciation errors made by beginner-level learners. Although learners
Speech Communication, 51(10), 853–863. found the training (2 sessions, each 30–60 minutes) useful and became aware of
pronunciation problems, the system’s accuracy in error detection was 75–86%, and it did
not provide feedback on a large number of problem areas. Even though learners’
pronunciation did not improve significantly, the number of mispronunciations was much
smaller for the experimental (vs. control) group.
2009 Kawase, T., Sakamoto, S., Hori, Y., Maki, A., Kawase et al. trained L1 Japanese listeners with either A-only or AV presentation A
Suzuki, Y., & Kobayashi, T. (2009). Bimodal of Japanese words in which highly degraded noise-vocoded speech was used as a
audio-visual training enhances auditory simulation of cochlear implant speech. Results showed that visual cues improved
adaptation process. NeuroReport, 20, perception of both trained and untrained (novel) degraded speech sounds, suggesting
1231–1234. that visual cues enhanced the auditory adaptation process, which bodes well for
populations such as the hearing impaired and language learners who experience
adaptation needs.
2009 Wang, Y., Behne, D. M., & Jiang, H. (2009). Following L2 perception studies demonstrating the benefits of AV speech for non-native A
Influence of native language phonetic system listeners (e.g., Hardison, 1996*), Wang et al. used A-only, V-only (video-only), and
on audio-visual speech perception. Journal of congruent and incongruent AV presentation of English CV (consonant-vowel) syllables to
Phonetics, 37, 344–356. L1 Korean, Mandarin, and English speakers. Stimuli contained fricatives at different
points of articulation: labiodentals (nonexistent in Korean), interdentals (nonexistent in
Korean and Mandarin), and alveolars (present in all L1s). Results indicated lower
V-only accuracy of labiodentals for Korean speakers, and lower A-only accuracy of
interdentals for Korean and Mandarin speakers. Findings provided further support for
the influence of L1 background on the degree to which individuals can use L2
auditory and visual information.
2010 de Barros, P. C. M. (2010). ‘It’s easier to This study further explored the facilitating effect of a lecturer’s facial cues and A, C
understand’: The effect of a speaker’s accent, gestures on L2 English comprehension (Sueyoshi & Hardison, 2005*). An introductory
visual cues, and background knowledge on level entomology lecture was given by an English native speaker and a non-native
listening comprehension (Master’s thesis). speaker (L1 Portuguese teaching assistant) in AV and A-only conditions to L1 English
Kansas State University. college-level students. Comprehension scores revealed that visual cues (gestures
and facial expressions) provided marginal facilitation although participants tended to
exhibit more difficulty comprehending the non-native speaker in the A-only condition
despite having knowledge of her L1. It was noted that visual cues were not required
for comprehension of the topic. Topic familiarity played a role, especially in
understanding the non-native lecturer. Neither a description of the lecturers’ gestures
Language Teaching
nor the comprehensibility of the L2 English was provided.

(Continued )
*denotes the full reference appears in the references list above.
209
Note. Authors’ names are shown in small capitals when the study referred to appears in this timeline.
(Continued)
210
2010 Fort, M., Spinelli, E., Savariaux, C., & Kandel, Studies had shown that identification of speech sounds presented in CV syllables A
S. (2010). The word superiority effect in could be enhanced by visual cues (e.g., for English, McGurk & MacDonald, 1976*;
audiovisual speech perception. Speech Hardison, 1996*, 2003*; for French, Benoît et al., 1994*). Fort et al. used a phoneme
Communication, 52, 525–532. monitoring task with real French words and pseudowords in A-only and AV (speaker’s
face) conditions with two levels of background noise. Native French speakers
detected the target consonants faster in the AV versus A-only condition. With
masking noise, consonants were better detected when they were embedded in real
(vs. pseudo-) words in the AV condition, suggesting that phoneme detection
Debra M. Hardison
can be influenced by lexical knowledge and visual information contributes to

lexical activation processes.
2010 Hazan, V., Kim, J., & Chen, Y. (2010). Audiovisual Hazan et al. presented CV syllables /ba/, /da/, and /ga/ produced by Australian English A
perception in adverse conditions: Language, and Mandarin speakers to Australian English, British English, and Mandarin listeners in
speaker and listener effects. Speech several conditions: A-only, V-only, congruent and incongruent AV, either in the clear, in
Communication, 52, 996–1009. noise, with blurring or combined AV degradations. Results indicated that while
non-native speaker and L1 background influenced the weighting of auditory and visual
cues as suggested by WANG ET AL. (2009), cue weighting varied across participants and was
influenced by individual speaker characteristics.
2010 Hirata, Y., & Kelly, S. D. (2010). Effects of lips Hirata and Kelly explored whether a Japanese speaker’s hand and/or mouth A, C
and hands on auditory learning of movements would aid perception of Japanese vowel length contrasts by L1 English
second-language speech sounds. Journal of speakers with no prior exposure to Japanese. Using a pretest (A-only)-training (four
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53(2), sessions)-posttest (A-only) design, four training conditions were created: audio, audio +
298–310. mouth, audio + hand (face obscured but hand visible), audio + mouth + hand (all
movements visible). Participants were told that short vertical and long horizontal
hand movements corresponded to short and long vowels respectively. All training
groups improved, but only the audio + mouth condition was significantly better
than audio-only in contrast to Sueyoshi and Hardison (2005*), who found perceptual
benefit for L2 English learners presented with articulatory and hand gestures (see
also HARDISON, 2019).
2010 Jesse, A., & Massaro, D. W. (2010). Seeing a This study demonstrated that understanding the lyrics of a song benefits from seeing A
singer helps comprehension of the song’s the singer, similar to findings from numerous studies that have shown that seeing a
lyrics. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(3), speaker’s face facilitates comprehension of speech for native and non-native listeners
323–328. (e.g., Hardison, 2003*; HARDISON, 2018a; HIRATA & KELLY, 2010). Findings indicated a
word recognition improvement of about 35% for AV presentation, which is striking given
that singing often alters articulatory gestures, and thus could be more obstructive
to comprehension than facilitative. However, sung lyrics offer several potential
benefits: place-of-articulation information for consonants, lengthened vowel duration,
and the correlation between head and eyebrow movements with pitch changes
(e.g., HARDISON, 2018b; Munhall et al., 2004, see Introduction). Findings support the
notion that both speech and music perception are multisensory processes
(e.g., Rosenblum, 2005*
2010 Navarra, J., Alsius, A., Velasco, I., Soto-Faraco, Studies have shown that articulatory gestures precede the associated acoustic signal A
S., & Spence, C. (2010). Perception of (Munhall & Tohkura, 1998*), and that such a temporal precedence can serve a priming
audiovisual speech synchrony for native and role for a listener/observer in the speech recognition process. This role depends on
non-native language. Brain Research, 1323, the salience of the visual cue and the perceiver’s language experience (e.g., Hardison,
84–93. 1996*, 2005*; HARDISON, 2018a). Navarra et al. presented AV clips recorded in English
and Spanish by a bilingual speaker to native speakers of both of those languages
who had little prior experience with the non-native language. The cues were
presented at varying onset asynchronies, and participants were asked to determine if
the AV cues were synchronous or not. Results indicated that to achieve perceived
synchrony, a larger lead for the visual cue was required in the L1 than in the unfamiliar
language, regardless of the language or participant group. In contrast, Spanish
speakers who were more proficient in English showed no difference between the
native and non-native language.
2011 Ruellot, V. (2011). Computer-assisted In this study comparing AV and A-only input, side-by-side spectrograms of French [y] B1
pronunciation learning of French /u/ and /y/ at and [u] were used as visual feedback for a group of L1 English learners of French in
the intermediate level. In J. Levis & K. LeVelle a phonetics course to help them differentiate these two vowels in their pronunciation.
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Pronunciation in The primary formants of each vowel were color-coded and learners’ production task
Second Language Learning and Teaching was to approximate the distances between the formants in the native speakers’
Conference (pp. 199–213). Ames, IA: Iowa State examples. Both the AV and A-only groups showed significant production improvement;
University. however, no additional benefit was found for those who had seen the spectrograms
(see OFFERMAN & OLSON, 2016; OLSON, 2014).
2011 Thomson, R. I. (2011). Computer assisted Mandarin speakers were trained to associate a distinctive nautical flag image with B
pronunciation training: Targeting second each of ten target English vowels. In response to a native-speaker’s recording of each
language vowel perception improves vowel in a syllable, learners selected the appropriate image on a computer screen to
pronunciation. Calico Journal, 28(3), 744–765. indicate the vowel they had heard. Visual and auditory feedback was given. Training
resulted in significant improvement in the intelligibility of their vowel productions,
consistent with other studies demonstrating a perception-production link (e.g.,
Hardison, 2003*; OKUNO AND HARDISON, 2016).
2012 Engwall, O. (2012). Analysis of and feedback on Talking heads such as Baldi (e.g., Massaro & Light, 2003*) have been used in speech B2, 3
phonetic features in pronunciation training production training in clinical applications (e.g., with the hearing impaired) and L2
with a virtual teacher. Computer Assisted learning. Expanding on this technology, Engwall used ultrasound imaging to monitor
Language Learning, 25(1), 37–64. learners’ articulation change following the AV feedback instructions given in a
short session by Artur, a semi-transparent 3D tutor that shows articulatory movements.
This feedback includes the relationship between the tongue and palate in sound
production. French speakers practiced the pronunciation of the Swedish alveolar trill [r]
Language Teaching
and a velar fricative. Animations from Artur demonstrated the articulation change
that was given in the instructions. Results showed some evidence that participants
could change their articulations according to the instructions on how to reposition
the tongue.
211
(Continued )
(Continued)
212
2012 Schmidt, A. M. (2012). Effects of EPG treatment Schmidt focused on training two L1 Korean speakers to produce a consistent B2
for English consonant contrasts on L2 phonological and articulatory contrast between the members of the following L2 English
perception and production. Clinical Linguistics pairs using electropalatography as visual feedback: [s] – [ʃ], [z] – [ʤ], [l] – [ɹ]. During
& Phonetics, 26(11–12), 909–925. training sessions using the sounds in initial position in syllables and words,
participants wore pseudopalates which produced a computer screen display in which
areas turned green when the desired tongue-palate contact was made, or red for
inaccurate contact. Results indicated more stable production after training with
Debra M. Hardison
some transfer to improved perception ability.

2012 Strik, H., Colpaert, J., van Doremalen, J., & In the Development and Integration of Speech Technology into Courseware (DISCO) B3, 4
Cucchiarini, C. (2012). The DISCO ASR-based system, ASR technology was used to provide practice and feedback on pronunciation,
CALL system: Practicing L2 oral skills and morphology, and syntax for L2 Dutch learners. In previous research (CUCCHIARINI ET AL.,
beyond. Proceedings of the Conference on 2009), exercises and learners’ possible answers had been limited; however, in order for
International Language Resources and DISCO to address frequent and salient morphological, syntactic and pronunciation
Evaluation 2012, Istanbul, Turkey. http://www. errors in low proficiency learners’ speech, exercises in DISCO had to allow learners
lrecconf.org/proceedings/lrec2012/pdf/ more freedom in producing answers, but still remain predictable by ASR modules.
787_Paper.pdf Learners chose a prompt from the screen to read in a simulated real-world conversation
with an animated agent with lip movements that move in synchrony with recorded
utterances. Pronunciation feedback was available through the dialogues and in remedial
exercises. Learners chose either explicit feedback through a visually highlighted error,
which stops the dialogue, or a recast with emphasis on the correct form through
highlighting, allowing the dialogue to continue. At the end, learners received an error
summary and the option to practice problematic features.
2012 Wang, X. (2012). Auditory and visual training on Earlier research had focused on Mandarin lexical tones (e.g., Leather, 1990*). In this B1
Mandarin tones: A pilot study on phrases and study, beginning-level learners of Mandarin from a range of L1 backgrounds received six
sentences. International Journal of hours of training focused on tones in phrases and sentences using real-time computer
Computer-Assisted Language Learning and displays of pitch contours to compare their productions with those of multiple native
Teaching, 2(2), 16–29. speakers. Learners’ tone production significantly improved following training.
2013 Moradi, S., Lidestam, B., & Rönnberg, J. (2013). Using the gating paradigm, Hardison (2005*; HARDISON, 2018a) found that visual cues A
Gated audiovisual speech identification in (seeing a speaker’s face) facilitated word identification by native speakers and L2
silence vs. noise: Effects on time and accuracy. learners of English compared to A-only presentation. In gating, successively increasing
Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 359. amounts of a speech stimulus are presented until the target is correctly identified.
Using the same paradigm with Swedish consonants in VCV (vowel-consonant-vowel)
syllables, Moradi et al. found that native speakers of Swedish were faster and more
accurate in consonant identification in AV (vs. A-only) presentation in silence and
noise; the more visually salient consonants such as /b, f, m, p/ were more resistant
to noise. Results corroborate the findings of FORT ET AL. (2010).
2013 Yi, H-G., Phelps, J. E. B., Smiljanic, R., & Previous studies had shown the advantage of visual cues from a speaker’s face on A
Chandrasekaran, B. (2013). Reduced efficiency speech perception in noise (e.g., MacLeod & Summerfield, 1990*) and perception by
of audiovisual integration for non-native native and non-native listeners (e.g., Hardison, 2003*, 2005*). Yi et al. investigated the
speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of effect of seeing a speaker’s face on L1 English listeners’ ability to identify keywords
America, 134(5), EL387-393. in English sentences produced by native English versus native Korean speakers in
noise (background of babble). Keywords were more correctly identified in the AV versus
A-only condition, and visual cues benefited perception of speech produced by the
native versus the non-native speaker. In a separate accentedness rating task, Korean
speakers were rated as more strongly accented in the AV versus A-only condition,
suggesting a possible visual bias. (See also HARDISON, 2018a; KAWASE ET AL., 2014; ZHENG
& SAMUEL, 2019.)
2014 Hirata, Y., Kelly, S. D., Huang, J., & Manansala, For native Japanese speakers and listeners/observers, gestures correspond to the C
M. (2014). Effects of hand gestures on auditory moraic rhythm of the language. In this study, L1 English speakers with no knowledge of
learning of second-language vowel length Japanese were trained on Japanese vowel duration contrasts. In an extension of an
contrasts. Journal of Speech, Language, and earlier study (HIRATA & KELLY, 2010), in Hirata et al., participants both observed and
Hearing Research, 57, 2090–2101. produced the gestures. In a pretest (A-only)-training (four sessions)-posttest (A-only)
design, training stimuli consisted of pairs of Japanese words contrasting vowel
length in the first or second syllable. Native co-speech gesture varied as follows: Words
with short vowels were produced with two small downward hand movements
(‘syllable-rhythm’); those with long vowels were accompanied by either (a) one
horizontal dip, followed or preceded by a short vowel with a short movement
(‘syllable-rhythm’) or (b) a total of three movements corresponding to the number
of morae in each word (‘mora-rhythm’). Along with auditory input, training involved
one of the following: observation of the syllable-rhythm gesture, production of
syllable-rhythm with the instructor, observation of the mora-rhythm gesture, or
production of the mora-rhythm gesture. Results indicated improvement in auditory
perception of vowel length for all training types; however, observing the syllable-rhythm
gesture typical of L1 English produced the most improvement across word-initial
and word-final vowels. (See also HARDISON, 2019; OKUNO & HARDISON, 2016.)
2014 Katz, W., Campbell, T., Wang, J., Farrar, E., To help speakers reach consonant place-of-articulation targets, this interactive 3D B2
Coleman Eubanks, J., Balasubramanian, A., system provided real-time feedback on their tongue and jaw movements based on
Prabhakaran, B. & Rennaker, R. (2014). tongue sensors and a head movement sensor worn on glasses. Preliminary data showed
Opti-Speech: A real-time 3D visual feedback reliable feedback for American English consonant targets. (See also BLISS ET AL., 2018;
system for speech training. In Proceedings of ENGWALL, 2012; KOCJANČIČ ANTOLÍK, 2019 for reports using ultrasound as direct articulatory
Interspeech 2014, Singapore. 1174–1178. feedback.) These studies have implications for L2 learners and individuals with
communication disorders.
2014 Kawase, S., Hannah, B., & Wang, Y. (2014). The Kawase et al. investigated the contribution of visual cues from a speaker’s face to A
influence of visual speech information on the native English listeners’ perceptions of the intelligibility of CV syllables produced by both
Language Teaching
intelligibility of English consonants produced native Japanese and native English speakers. Consonant contrasts included /b-v/, /θ-s/,
by non-native speakers. Journal of the /l-ɹ/ in three stimulus conditions: AV, A-only, and V-only. Findings revealed that
intelligibility of the Japanese speakers’ productions of /b, s, l/ was better compared to
213
(Continued )
214
(Continued)
Acoustical Society of America, 136(3), /v, θ, ɹ/. Visual cues significantly improved intelligibility for /v, θ/ but not /ɹ/; the
1352–1362. non-natives’ articulatory gestures lacked the lip protrusion present in native English
speakers’ productions. The contribution of visual cues to a percept is subject to
perceivers’ familiarity with the articulatory gestures and their discernibility
(Hardison, 1996*) and may be most beneficial with native versus non-native speech
(YI ET AL., 2013).
Debra M. Hardison
2014 Olson, D. J. (2014). Benefits of visual feedback In contrast to the findings of RUELLOT (2011), Olson reported that spectrograms were B1
on segmental production in the L2 classroom. helpful for 26 intermediate-low proficiency learners of L2 Spanish (L1 English) to
Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), distinguish the stop consonants /b, d, g/ from their intervocalic variants, which are
173–192. produced more like approximants. These variants are distinguishable on a spectrogram
by the relative darkness of the image versus the silence of a stop’s closure period.
Findings revealed significant improvement and more native-like productions of the
target sounds for those who had received visual feedback.
2015 Chun, D. M., Jiang, Y., Meyr, J., & Yang, Following the successful outcome of WANG (2012), first-year learners of Mandarin were B1
R. (2015). Acquisition of L2 Mandarin Chinese taught to create pitch displays of their productions of bisyllabic words using Praat and
tones with learner-created tone visualizations. compare them to a gender-matched native-speaker example. Training involved 20–
Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 25 minutes per week during class time over nine weeks, focusing on one tone per week.
1(1), 86–114. Two tones (1 and 4) showed substantial improvement, and learners offered positive
feedback on their training.
2015 Kartushina, N., Hervais-Adelman, A., Several studies investigated production training with visual articulatory feedback B1
Frauenfelder, U. H., & Golestani, N. (2015). The such as ultrasound showing tongue position (e.g., BLISS ET AL., 2018; ENGWALL, 2012;
effect of phonetic production training with KOCJANČIČ ANTOLÍK, 2019). The focus of Kartushina et al. involved indirect articulatory
visual feedback on the perception and feedback training on the production of non-native Danish vowels by native French
production of foreign speech sounds. Journal speakers with no prior experience with the language. Participants received one hour of
of the Acoustical Society of America 138(2), training for each of four vowels /e/ - /ε/, /y/ - /ø/. Feedback involved an immediate
817–832. analysis of the acoustic properties of the vowels that participants had produced
including visual feedback showing tongue height (e.g., a more open mouth tongue
height is evident in a higher F1) and front-back position (e.g., a more back articulation
has a lower F2 value). Post-training productions were closer to the Danish target vowels.
In addition, production improvement transferred to improved perceptual discrimination
of the vowels.
2015 Katz, W. F., & Mehta, S. (2015). Visual feedback Building on KATZ ET AL. (2014), an interactive 3D tongue visualization system based on B2
of tongue movement for novel speech sound electromagnetic articulography was used to train native speakers of American English to
learning. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, produce a novel speech sound: a voiced palatal stop (requiring a closure between the
612. tongue tip and hard palate). Training involved viewing their own real-time tongue
movements using the 3D model, which produced a rapid gain in accuracy.
2015 Liakin, D., Cardoso, W., & Liakina, N. (2015). This study reported significant improvement in the production of the French front B4
Learning L2 pronunciation with a mobile rounded vowel /y/ by a group of elementary-level adult learners of French who used
speech recognizer: French /y/. CALICO, 32(1), ASR-based pronunciation instruction on a mobile device. Activities, consisting of reading
1–25. aloud target words and phrases, were accompanied by immediate orthographic
feedback from an ASR dictation system. Results revealed significant improvement for
learners using the ASR system versus those who practiced with a teacher and received
oral feedback or participated in conversations with the teacher with no specific focus or
feedback. The ASR group provided positive evaluation of its use. None of the groups
improved in perception. The authors suggested the use of this technology as a
complement to classroom instruction.
2015 Morett, L. M., & Chung, L-Y., (2015). This study explored whether hand gestures could facilitate English speakers’ ability C
Emphasising sound and meaning: Pitch to discriminate between Mandarin words differing only in lexical tone. English
gestures enhance Mandarin lexical tone monolinguals with no knowledge of Mandarin were assigned to one of three learning
acquisition. Language, Cognition and conditions in which the video of a Mandarin speaker varied according to gesture use
Neuroscience, 30(3), 347–353. as follows: pitch gesture (hand motions conveyed pitch contours), semantic
gesture (hand motions conveyed word meaning), and no gesture. A pretest-learning-
posttest sequence was used in which participants were instructed to view a series of
video clips, and after each one, they repeated the word the speaker said and its
English translation aloud while re-enacting any action they saw. Tone identification
accuracy increased significantly from pre- to posttest in the pitch gesture condition and
the no gesture condition, but not in the semantic gesture condition. This finding is
consistent with HIRATA AND KELLY (2010) which found that hand gestures did not enhance
perception of vowel length in Japanese by English listeners compared to an audio-only
condition although speakers’ lip movements were facilitative.
2015 Patten, I., & Edmonds, L. A. (2015). Effect of RUELLOT (2011) and OLSON (2014) used spectrographic displays as visual feedback in B1
training Japanese L1 speakers in the training for learners of L2 French vowels and L2 Spanish intervocalic approximants
production of American English /r/ using respectively. In Patten and Edmonds’ study, two L1 Japanese participants produced
spectrographic visual feedback. Computer isolated words involving American English /r/ in initial, medial, and final positions with a
Assisted Language Learning, 28(3), 241–259. range of adjacent vowels while viewing a real-time spectrographic display to encourage
a lowered third formant frequency (i.e., a key acoustic feature of /r/). Delayed visual
feedback was then implemented to promote self-monitoring. Improvement was noted
on trained and untrained isolated words, and those produced in a read passage.
Perception of the /r/ - /l/ distinction also improved as noted in other training studies
(e.g. OKUNO & HARDISON, 2016; THOMSON, 2011).
2016 Hisanaga, S., Sekiyama, K., Igasaki, T., & Hisanaga et al. (2016) recorded a speaker of English and a speaker of Japanese A, D
Murayama, N. (2016). Language/culture producing /ba/ and /ga/. English and Japanese speakers were presented with these
modulates brain and gaze processes in stimuli in their L1 for a syllable-identification task in the following conditions: AV
audiovisual speech perception. Scientific and A-only to collect ERP (event-related brain potentials) data, and AV only for
Language Teaching
Reports, 6, 35265. eye-tracking data. ERP data indicated that English speakers processed AV speech
more efficiently than A-only, whereas Japanese speakers showed the opposite pattern.
Eye-tracking data revealed a gaze bias to the mouth for English speakers, especially
215
(Continued )
216
(Continued)
before the audio onset, but not for Japanese. Findings were somewhat compatible with
the eye-tracking data of HARDISON AND INCEOGLU (2019), and consistent with the influence of
linguistic/cultural backgrounds on gaze behavior and speech processing. English
speakers tend to focus on a speaker’s mouth in contrast to Japanese speakers who
focus on the voice in speech tasks and the eye region to interpret facial expression.
However, L1 Japanese speakers enrolled in English instruction attend to the speaker’s
Debra M. Hardison
mouth when experiencing the McGurk Effect and show visual enhancement in English
speech processing Hardison, 1996*, 2003*, 2005*; HARDISON, 2018a).
2016 Inceoglu, S. (2016). Effects of perception In a pretest-perception training-posttest design, L2 French learners (L1 English) were A
training on L2 vowel perception and divided into three groups to improve their identification accuracy of three French nasal
production. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(5), vowels: AV training (visual input from a native speaker’s face), A-only training, and no
1175–1199. training. Similar to Hardison (2003*), both training groups showed significant
improvement; in contrast, the AV group in Inceoglu’s study did not show a significant
advantage in perceptual accuracy. However, production accuracy improved significantly
more for the group that saw the speaker’s face.
2016 Offerman, H. M., & Olson, D. J. (2016). Visual Following other studies involving electronic displays of acoustic information as B1
feedback and second language segmental training feedback at the segmental level (e.g., OKUNO & HARDISON, 2016; OLSON, 2014; PATTEN
production: The generalizability of & EDMONDS, 2015), Offerman and Olson used visual feedback for voice onset time (VOT)
pronunciation gains. System, 59, 45–60. training involving the voiceless stops /p, t, k/ in word-initial position produced by L1
English learners of L2 Spanish. Spanish is characterized by a shorter lag VOT compared
to English, often resulting in a noticeable foreign accent in L2 speech. Participants
recorded stimuli using Praat and were guided in the analysis of the spectrograms and
waveforms. Significant VOT improvement (i.e., more native-like) was found for both the
more controlled stimuli (read-aloud carrier sentences and short story) and less
controlled (picture naming task) for the experimental (vs. control) group.
2016 Okuno, T., & Hardison, D. M. (2016). Based on learners’ positive comments and perceptual accuracy improvement involving B1
Perception-production link in L2 Japanese the use of waveforms to visualize duration difference between L2 Japanese singleton
vowel duration: Training with technology. and geminate consonants (Motohashi-Saigo & Hardison, 2009*), waveform displays
Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 61–80. were chosen as visual feedback in Okuno and Hardison’s L2 Japanese vowel training
study. L1 English learners were divided into two training groups: AV (saw waveform
displays) or A-only training to improve the perceptual accuracy of Japanese vowel
duration. Both types of training provided significant improvement, with a higher rate for
the AV group, and no improvement for the control group. Greater perceptual
accuracy transferred to greater production accuracy.
2016 van Doremalen, J., Boves, L., Colpaert, J., The DISCO prototype system developed by STRIK ET AL. (2012) was evaluated by B3, 4
Cucchiarini, C., & Strik, H. (2016). Evaluating ‘domain experts’ with L2 Dutch teaching experience (no experience with ASR systems)
automatic speech recognition-based language and by learners (range of L1s) at the A2 (basic) level of the Common European
learning systems: A case study. Computer Framework of Reference. Learners worked with DISCO for 45 minutes and completed
Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 833–851. a questionnaire. Teachers recognized the advantage of such a system for more
introverted learners and recommended incorporating different strategies for responding
to different types of pronunciation errors. Learners commented that the exercises
were helpful and enjoyable, rating the system 7.8 out of 10, but suggested a more
focused approach to error correction.
2016 Wallace, L. (2016). Using Google Web Speech as Google Web Speech (GWS) is an ASR-based transcription tool that can help learners B4
a springboard for identifying personal build self-monitoring skills and identify pronunciation weaknesses. After GWS
pronunciation problems. In J. Levis, H. Le, transcribes the speech, learners look at the discrepancies between the transcriptions
I. Lucic, E. Simpson, & S. Vo (Eds.). Proceedings and what they had said; for example, Wallace reported that in one instance GWS
of the 7th Pronunciation in Second Language transcribed ‘The person page’ when the speaker had said ‘The percentage’. Learners can
Learning and Teaching Conference (pp. 180– focus on different features such as stress placement, thought group division, pitch
186). Dallas, TX. Amex, IA: Iowa State University. movement, etc., and practice until the transcription is closer to their production.
Wallace points out caveats to its effectiveness: (a) a headset microphone is needed for
clear input, and (b) the learner’s accent must fit within the parameters of the ASR
model. She further suggests that individuals whose L2 English speech is not heavily
accented would benefit the most. MCCROCKLIN (2019) investigated another
ASR-based dictation program, which could also be a useful pedagogical complement
to classroom instruction.
2017 Hacking, J. F., Smith, B. L., & Johnson, Using electropalatography (EPG) training, SCHMIDT (2012) had found improved B2
E. M. (2017). Utilizing electropalatography to pronunciation of several consonantal contrasts for L1 Korean learners of English.
train palatalized versus unpalatalized Hacking et al. used EPG feedback to highlight the tongue-palate contact, which is an
consonant productions by native speakers of important feature in distinguishing palatalized (e.g., /tj /) versus nonpalatalized (e.g., /t/)
American English learning Russian. Journal of consonants in Russian. Ten learners read several carrier sentences containing words
Second Language Pronunciation, 3(1), 9–33. contrasting /tj/-/t/ and /sj/-/s/. Eight training sessions involved learners monitoring their
own tongue placement by looking at visual EPG targets produced by native speakers
and listening to audio files. Learners showed significant increases in the frequency of
the second formant of the vowel preceding palatalized consonants, which is an
important cue. Native listeners’ ratings revealed only small improvements in
identification accuracy of the sounds.
2017 Venezia, J. H., Vaden, Jr., K. I., Rong, F., The human superior temporal sulcus (STS), located in the temporal lobe of the D
Maddox, D., Saberi, K. & G. Hickok (2017). brain, responds to visual and auditory information. Using an fMRI design, Venezia et al.
Auditory, visual and audiovisual speech measured activation in native speakers of English to a range of auditory and visual
processing streams in superior temporal speech (A-only, V-only, and AV) and nonspeech stimuli with a focus on the patterns of
sulcus. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, activation within STS. Speech-specific activations arose in multisensory regions of the
Language Teaching
11(174). middle STS; abstract representations of visible facial gestures emerged in visual regions
that immediately border the multisensory regions. The middle STS also exhibited
preferential responses for speech versus nonspeech stimuli.
217
(Continued )
218
(Continued)
2018 Bliss, H., Abel, J., & Gick, B. (2018). Bliss et al. review computer-assisted visual displays in the form of direct feedback B2
Computer-assisted visual articulation feedback on articulation, such as ultrasound imaging (e.g. Gick et al., 2008*) to observe the
in L2 pronunciation instruction: A review. position and movement of the tongue, and indirect feedback using displays of acoustic
Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, information such as pitch (e.g., CHUN ET AL., 2015) or waveforms (e.g., OKUNO & HARDISON,
4(1), 129–153. 2016). Bliss et al. noted that ultrasound feedback is more informative for vowel
articulations, laterals (/l/), and rhotics (/r/-like sounds).
Debra M. Hardison
2018 Cucchiarini, C., & Strik, H. (2018). Automatic Cucchiarini and Strik provide a recent overview of developments in ASR within the B4
speech recognition for second language context of L2 pronunciation. They point out that annotated corpora of native and
pronunciation training. In O. Kang, learner speech are needed to develop ASR-based systems so they can be trained to
R. I. Thomson, & J. M. Murphy (Eds.), The recognize areas where learner utterances deviate from the target. The assessments of
Routledge handbook of contemporary English pronunciation quality can be used as a basis for providing feedback, which can
pronunciation (pp. 556–569). London, UK: include visual representations of articulations (CUCCHIARINI ET AL., 2009; ENGWALL, 2012;
Routledge. VAN DOREMALEN ET AL., 2016). The authors emphasize that ASR-based systems should not
be viewed as substitutes for pronunciation instruction by teachers.
2018a Hardison, D. M. (2018). Effects of contextual Previous studies had shown that visual cues from a speaker’s face contributed to A
and visual cues on spoken language segmental perceptual accuracy for a variety of populations including L2 learners (e.g.,
processing: Enhancing L2 perceptual salience Hardison, 2003*). This study found that for L2 learners of English (L1 Japanese and
through focused training. In S. M. Gass, Korean), AV (vs. A-only) training resulted in earlier identification of words presented in
P. Spinner, & J. Behney (Eds.), Salience in isolation and in sentence contexts. Both the temporal precedence of visible articulatory
second language acquisition (pp. 201–220). gestures (Munhall & Tohkura, 1998*; NAVARRA ET AL., 2010), their increased salience
New York, NY: Routledge. following training, and the presence of context served priming roles in reducing the
initial cohort of word candidates in the recognition process. For L2 learners, visual cues
and contextual cues had independent effects statistically in contrast to the native
speakers for whom the variables showed a significant interaction; specifically, only 62%
of a word was needed for identification when both types of cues were present.
2018b Hardison, D. M. (2018). Visualizing the acoustic Annotations from Praat, a phonetic analysis tool, and ANVIL, a video annotation B1, C
and gestural beats of emphasis in multimodal tool were combined to provide a time-aligned display of visual (gestural) and acoustic
discourse: Theoretical and pedagogical beats in the natural speech of native and non-native teachers of English.
implications. Journal of Second Language Frame-by-frame analysis revealed several points of temporal convergence such as
Pronunciation, 4(2), 231–258. maximum brow raise and upright head position with pitch-accented vowels. The
temporal interval between the apex (most extended position) of each beat gesture was
fairly regular except for the lengthening that occurred around pitch-accented vowels.
These polyrhythmic sequences (i.e., those with different rhythms for speech and
gesture) were found to be perceptually salient highlighters of important information
for students (see also Dimitrova et al., 2016*).
2019 Hardison, D. M. (2019). Relationships among Hardison investigated (a) the temporal coordination of naturally occurring gestures C
gesture type, pitch, and vowel duration in the (head nods and hand-arm movements) by three native-speaking classroom teachers of
speech of native-speaking teachers of Japanese. beginning-level Japanese in Japan and two speech phenomena: pitch movement
Manuscript in progress. and vowel duration, and (b) the influence of these gestures on perceptual accuracy
by second-year L2 learners of Japanese (L1 English). Videorecordings were analyzed
with Praat and ANVIL (video annotation tool) allowing temporal integration of
videorecorded gestures with the pitch contour and waveform (see also HARDISON, 2018b).
A significantly greater number of head nods occurred with a long (vs. short) vowel for all
teachers. The apex of the head movement coincided with the peak of the syllable
containing the long vowel and pitch contour. Fewer hand gestures were used but tended
to occur with short vowels (see HIRATA ET AL., 2014). In contrast to HIRATA AND KELLY
(2010), learners’ perceptual accuracy in identifying vowel duration was greatest when
head movement and facial cues were present, followed by facial cues (no head
movement), and then the A-only and V-only conditions.
2019 Hardison, D. M., & Inceoglu, S. (2019). L1 and L2 Cues from talkers’ faces significantly enhance speech processing (e.g., HARDISON, A
auditory-visual speech perception: Using eye 2003, 2005, see Introduction HARDISON, 2018a; INCEOGLU, 2016; YI ET AL., 2013). Hardison
tracking to investigate effects of task difficulty. and Inceoglu used eye tracking to investigate where and when participants looked on a
Manuscript in preparation. speaker’s face while processing speech in L1 English and L2 French under different
conditions: AV, AVn (AV with noise added), V-only. Thirty-two participants
(L1 English) viewed one English and one French native speaker each producing
stimuli involving minimal triplets, differing in jaw height for English front vowels
and lip rounding for French nasal vowels. Areas of eye-gaze interest were the
forehead, each eye, nose, mouth, and lower jaw. For both languages, fixations
occurred (a) to the forehead infrequently but early; (b) to the nose early across
modalities; and (c) to the mouth earlier in V and AVn conditions (vs. AV). Fixation
durations increased to the mouth and decreased to the eyes with degraded or no
audio. Incremental examination of heat maps and gaze patterns revealed fixations were
often made centrally to the nose with strategic shifts of attention to other areas,
especially the mouth (the most informative area) with the slightest articulation-
related movement.
2019 Inceoglu, S., & Gnevsheva, K. (2020). Ultrasound This research extended the use of ultrasound technology (see BLISS ET AL., 2018) to a B2
imaging in the foreign language classroom: language classroom setting. L2 French learners (L1 English) received two lessons
Outcomes, challenges, and students’ involving ultrasound visual feedback on their articulation of the vowel contrasts
perceptions. In O. Kang, S. Staples, K. Yaw, & [y]-[u] or [e]-[ε]. Some improvement was noted in the production of [y] in word lists
K. Hirschi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th but not in a reading passage. Participants offered very positive comments on the use of
Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and ultrasound technology.
Teaching Conference (pp. 115–126). Northern
Arizona University, September 2019. Ames, IA:
Language Teaching
Iowa State University.

(Continued )
219
220
(Continued)
2019 Kocjančič Antolík, T., Pillot-Loiseau, C., & Based on the positive outcome of the pilot study by Gick et al. (2008*) involving B2
Kamiyama, T. (2019). The effectiveness of ultrasound feedback in L2 pronunciation training, L1 Japanese learners of French
Debra M. Hardison
real-time ultrasound visual feedback on tongue received three individual 45-minute lessons involving production of the French vowel
movements in L2 pronunciation training. [y]-[u] contrast using ultrasound feedback. Results showed improvement in their
Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, production of the French vowels, and in the contrast between the French vowels and the
5(1), 72–97. high back unrounded Japanese vowel.
2019 McCrocklin, S. (2019). ASR-based dictation ASR-based technology has been explored in some studies, especially for L2 Dutch B4
practice for second language pronunciation (CUCCHIARINI ET AL., 2009; VAN DOREMALEN ET AL., 2016), as a resource for learners to
improvement. Journal of Second Language monitor their speech or help detect errors; however, this technology is less accessible.
Pronunciation, 5(1), 98–118. ASR-based dictation programs (e.g., Windows Speech Recognition) are more accessible
(e.g., WALLACE, 2016). In a pretest-posttest design, McCrocklin found that L2 English
learners who received both face-to-face instruction and practice using the dictation
program showed significant pronunciation improvement as did a group receiving only
face-to-face instruction. While the groups did not differ significantly, results
suggested that dictation programs may be a useful pedagogical complement to
classroom instruction.
2019 Zheng, Y., & Samuel, A. G. (2019). How much do YI ET AL. (2013) found that visual cues benefited perception of speech produced by a A
visual cues help listeners in perceiving native versus a non-native speaker. Zheng and Samuel used a lexical decision task to
accented speech? Applied Psycholinguistics, explore the intelligibility of speech produced by native English speakers and two
40(1), 93–109. non-native English speakers who differed in the strength of their accent. Stimuli were
relatively frequent words plus nonwords. Two versions of each videorecorded token
were created: (a) one with a speaker far away, and (b) one focused on the speaker’s
head. The audio was the same. Accuracy was greater for L1 English listeners when
they could see a speaker’s lip movements at a closer distance, and this effect
was slightly stronger for recognition of nonwords versus words, and stimuli produced
with a stronger accent. There was no apparent influence of listeners’ prior experience
with Mandarin-accented speech.
doi:10.1017/S0261444820000026
T H I N K I N G A L LOW E D
Motivational connections in language classrooms: A

research agenda
Alastair Henry
University West, Trollhättan, Sweden
E-mail: alastair.henry@hv.se
Abstract
With roots in social psychology, second language (L2) motivation has largely been investigated using self-
report techniques. Studies drawing on observational data gathered in contexts where learning takes place
are rare, and understandings of how motivation evolves in classroom interactions remain limited (Boo,
Dörnyei, & Ryan, 2015). In a position paper in Language Teaching, Ushioda (2016) maps out an agenda
for qualitative research examining motivation that emerges in language classrooms. With a focus on psy-
cholinguistic processes, and with the aim of understanding how motivation ‘connects with specific aspects
of second language acquisition [and] particular features of linguistic development’, Ushioda makes the
case for researching L2 motivation ‘through a small lens’ (p. 564). Furthering this agenda, I make propo-
sals for research with a relational focus where, through a somewhat wider lens, motivation and engage-
ment generated through connections created by teachers in their classroom practice can be
investigated. To frame these proposals, I use the concept of connective instruction (Martin & Dowson,
2009). Connective instruction holds that motivation and engagement increase when students can connect
with the teacher as a person, with content that the teacher enables them to get involved with, and with the
working methods that the teacher promotes.
1. Introduction
In his systematic overview of the motivational dimension of language teaching, Lamb (2017) argues that it
is ‘responsiveness’, a capacity founded on empathy, and developed over years of practice, that is charac-
teristic for teachers who are successful motivators (p. 312). However, as Mercer (2018) notes, little atten-
tion has been given to the roles teachers play in creating environments and activities that trigger positive
responses from students. In line with calls for L2 motivation research that focuses on the classroom as a
context of learning, and for studies that adopt a relational approach (Ushioda, 2009; Mercer, 2018), my
colleagues and I conducted a program of ethnographic research in the classrooms of teachers of English
who we had identified as successful motivators. Through our work in the Motivational Teaching in
Swedish Secondary English (MoTiSSE) project (see e.g. Henry & Thorsen, 2018a, 2018b, 2019; Henry,
Sundqvist, & Thorsen, 2019), we came to understand how positive responses to learning could be traced
to connections emanating from practices founded on ‘responsiveness’ (Lamb, 2017, p. 312). As well as
connections forged in interpersonal interactions, the teachers we observed drew on knowledge and under-
standing of the young people in their classrooms in ways that enabled students to work with meaningful
content, and with activities promoting social interaction, creativity, and self-expression.
Drawing on these insights, and using the concept of connective instruction (Martin & Dowson,
2009) as an organizing framework, in this article I describe three types of motivational connection
that lend themselves to exploration in classroom-based research. For each connection I sketch out
research tasks that take an ethnographic approach, and which aim to shed light on teachers’ relational
practices and the influences on students’ motivation and engagement. For each of these tasks I identify
a specific research objective, and outline the steps needed to carry it out. I begin, however, by looking
222 Alastair Henry
at the concept of engagement, its relation to motivation, and how motivation and engagement can be
investigated through ethnographic inquiry.
1.1 Engagement
In mainstream education, motivation research with a classroom focus involves examining what teachers
and students DO, and how various types of interaction influence the student’s APPROACH to learning
(Martin & Collie, 2016). While in L2 motivation research it is widely acknowledged that social inter-
actions in language classrooms shape students’ learning behaviors (Ushioda, 2009), conceptualizations
of these situated influences are lacking. Noting that the quality of the classroom learning experience is
often the strongest predictor of motivated behavior, Dörnyei (2019) has described the L2 learning
experience as ‘the Cinderella’ of the L2 motivational self system. In a step aimed at linking the situated
motivational processes of the L2 learning experience to the system’s self-guides (the ideal and ought-to
L2 selves), Dörnyei argues that STUDENT ENGAGEMENT is a construct that provides ‘a well-defined and suf-
ficiently specific conceptual area that can be customized for use in L2 motivation research’ (p. 26).
Although it has been suggested that in learning sequences motivation and engagement are cyclically
interrelated, it is generally agreed that motivation underpins engagement (Reeve, 2012; Martin, Ginns, &
Papworth, 2017). As Reeve (2012) makes clear, while motivation involves ‘private, unobservable, psy-
chological, neural, and biological’ phenomena, engagement constitutes ‘publicly observable behavior’
(p. 151). It is also recognized that motivational factors often interact, and that a student’s motivation
rarely derives from a single source. Equally, motivation does not flow unhindered into action, but is
mediated by situational factors. For these reasons, motivation may be best understood as the ‘underlying
sources of energy, purpose, and durability’ that generate and sustain learning behavior (Skinner & Pitzer,
2012, p. 22). Engagement, which is evidenced in constructive, focused, and enthusiastic working, can be
understood as a consequence of motivation and the ‘visible manifestation’ of these driving forces
(Skinner & Pitzer, 2012). In language classrooms, where motivation can derive as much from situated
interactions as from longer-term goal-setting and the desire to achieve a future (idealized) state, engage-
ment can usefully be understood as the behavioral outworkings of various and sometimes intersecting
motivational sources (Henry & Thorsen, 2018c, 2019; Dörnyei, 2019; Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020).
While conceptual links between engagement and major theories of motivated behavior are well
established (see Martin et al., 2017 for a review), in the social context of L2 classrooms, Self
Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 1985) provides a framework that usefully facilitates
understanding of the motivation–engagement relationship. In SDT, optimal functioning depends
on the satisfaction of three basic psychological needs: competence, relatedness, and autonomy.
When these needs are fulfilled, positive learning behaviors are generated (Ryan & Deci, 2017).
While the contributions to students’ on-task engagement made by perceptions of competence and
autonomy are well established, it is more recently that the importance of RELATEDNESS – the need to
feel connected to and cared for by significant others – has become recognized as affecting engagement
(Martin & Dowson, 2009; Reeve, 2012). From research focusing on the effects of interpersonal rela-
tionships in schools, findings suggest that satisfaction of the need for relatedness is particularly
important in creating a positive emotional disposition to learning (Martin & Dowson, 2009). In cir-
cumstances where energy is derived from classroom relationships, a significant pathway toward
engagement in learning activities can arise, a proposition which has also received support in an L2
context (Joe, Hiver, & Al-Hoorie, 2017).
1.2 Relatedness and students’ learning behaviors

Recognizing the importance of relatedness in understanding students’ learning behaviors, and prefaced
on the idea that teachers ‘who frame practice in relational terms are more likely to foster motivated,
engaged, and achieving students’ (p. 344), Martin and Dowson (2009) developed the concept of
CONNECTIVE INSTRUCTION. Part of a larger, integrated model, where achievement, motivation, and
educational practice are seen as relationally conditioned, connective instruction recognizes but moves
beyond the immediate interpersonal relationship between teacher and student. It suggests that a tea-
cher’s interpersonal qualities, relational strategies, and interactive practices can combine in ways that
create classroom conditions where students feel motivated, demonstrate engagement, and can reap
positive academic rewards (Martin & Dowson, 2009; Martin & Collie, 2016, 2018). Connective instruc-
tion invokes the ‘who’, the ‘what’, and the ‘how’ of teacher–student interaction. It suggests that stu-
dents are likely to have greater motivation, and be more actively engaged in classroom work, when
they can connect with the teacher as a person, when they can connect with what the teacher is asking
them to do, and when they can connect with the teacher’s motives and aims in setting up classroom
working practices.
In the social environments of L2 classrooms, where target language (TL) communication is the
centerpiece of language developing activities, and where relationships are built ‘situation by situation’
(Oxford, 2016, p. 18; see also Mercer, 2016), the quality of these connections will be greatly conditioned
by the teacher’s capacity for empathy. Empathy is the cornerstone upon which interpersonal relation-
ships are built. Not limited to the capacity to experience compassion or concern for others, empathy
also involves the ability to adopt the psychological point of view of other people in day-to-day interac-
tions. This takes place spontaneously through the exercise of PERSPECTIVE-TAKING (Davis, 1994; Warren,
2018). In the context of language teaching – where use of the language is the means through which com-
munication skills are developed – teachers’ perspective-taking capacities develop through processes of
iteration. Gaining knowledge about students as individual people and relational partners, teachers
with empathic capacity are able to use these emerging insights to guide INTERPERSONAL INTERACTIONS, to
support choices about CONTENT, and to set up meaningful and rewarding WAYS OF WORKING. In classrooms
where teachers seek to actively facilitate students’ L2 interactions and to generate engagement with learn-
ing, perspective-taking translates pragmatically into INSTRUCTIONAL and INTERACTIONAL practices (Henry &
Thorsen, 2019). Underpinning teaching routines, it is in and through these practices that the motiv-
ational connections highlighted in the connective instruction model are forged.
1.3 Investigating motivation and engagement in L2 classrooms through ethnographic inquiry

In line with Ushioda’s (2009) encouragement of a PERSON-IN-CONTEXT approach in the study of L2
motivation, and Martin and Collie’s (2016) call for PERSON-CENTERED research into relational influences
on students’ engagement, I make proposals for research tasks that seek to develop understandings of
how relationally forged connections influence motivation and engagement. Viewing student engage-
ment as socially situated within particular events and experiences (Dörnyei, 2019), and as influenced
by teachers’ INSTRUCTIONAL and INTERACTIONAL PERSPECTIVE-TAKING PRACTICES (Henry & Thorsen, 2019),
the tasks I propose take the form of ‘locally grounded evidence-based analyses of how teachers
work with and enhance their students’ motivation’ (Ushioda, 2016, p. 567). The aim of the tasks is
not to quantify teachers’ relational moves and aspects of students’ engagement with the aim of gen-
erating propositions about the efficacy of a particular relational strategy or practice (see Durksen et al.,
2017 for an example in the context of mathematics). Rather, taking an ethnographic approach
(Kubanyiova, 2015), and through in-depth inquiry, the objective is to develop situated understandings
of the ways in which the relational practices of the teacher or teachers in focus influence the manner in
which students approach and work with classroom activities. Like Ushioda (2016), I argue that the
situated study of particular teachers’ relational practices, and the ways in which these practices influ-
ence students’ engagement, can have wider resonance, and can ‘contribute to informing theory and
practice at a broader level’ (p. 574).
2. Exploring interpersonal connections, and influences on students’ engagement

Important work is now being carried out into language teachers’ socio-emotional competences and
relational capacities (e.g. Gkonou & Mercer, 2017). Less, however, is known about teachers’ relational
224 Alastair Henry
practices, and the influences on students’ motivation and engagement. Recognizing this, one of the
aspects of motivational practice that we focused on in the MoTiSSE project was the ways in which
teachers developed positive interpersonal relationships (Henry & Thorsen, 2018a). Here, we drew
on work carried out by researchers at the Department of Education at Utrecht University.
Trusting relationships between teachers and students take time to build. In developing a theory of
teacher–student contact, researchers in the Utrecht group have examined situations in classrooms
where teachers and students experience moments of close connection (Korthagen, Attema–
Noordewier, & Zwart, 2014; Claessens et al., 2016; Pennings et al., 2018). Because each moment of
positive contact between a teacher and a student contributes to the development of the interpersonal
relationship, moments when teachers and students connect can be understood as the ‘building blocks’
from which teacher–student relationships are constructed (Wubbels, Brekelmans, Mainhard, den
Brok, & van Tartwijk, 2016). Moments of contact can also have immediate effects on a student’s
engagement. Alongside an external connection – manifested in a here-and-now encounter by a
smile, eye-contact, or a friendly nod – teacher and student can additionally experience the shared
sense of an internal connection, each becoming aware of the other’s emotions and desires. For the
teacher, a moment of positive contact involves showing the student that they are being seen, that
they are being understood, and that they are being ‘accepted in their thinking, feeling, and wanting’
(Korthagen et al., 2014, p. 30). For the student, a momentary experience of connection with a teacher
can have the effect that psychological energy increases. Often, this energy will be manifested in observ-
able forms of enhanced focus (for example, more time spent working on task, and more frequent
returns to the task), and increased engagement (visible as enthusiasm, joy, concentration, and calm-
ness) (Korthagen et al., 2014).
Research task 1
Among the most important contributions to language learning psychology is the understanding of the
function of positive emotions (MacIntyre & Mercer, 2014; MacIntyre, Gregersen, & Mercer, 2019).
Positive emotions are conceptualized as having distinct effects on behavior and cognition.
Positive emotions broaden the individual’s field of attention, and generate tendencies that favor cre-
ativity. These processes build resources that can be utilized in future activities (Fredrickson, 2001).
Unlike negative emotions, which tend to be narrowly channeled, the effects of positive emotions
develop cumulatively, and can contribute to the emergence of positively focused dispositions. In
group-level research, findings show how the frequency with which students experience a positive rela-
tionship with a teacher can predict positive attitudes and greater school engagement (Martin & Collie,
2018).
However, as I have indicated, in addition to influences that accumulate over time, a moment of
positive contact with a teacher can also have a more immediate effect on learning behavior. In fine-
grained studies examining the features of teacher–student contact, Korthagen et al. (2014) could
observe how, following a moment of positive contact, students’ behaviors demonstrated increased
engagement. These researchers also observed how students’ reactions indicated momentary increases
in self-assurance and autonomy.
Investigate how moments of close personal contact can generate positive responses
Given the importance of interpersonal connections for language learning, ethnographic methods
could be used to examine the circumstances surrounding moments of positive contact, and the influ-
ences that a positive interaction with a teacher might have on a student’s engagement. In such inves-
tigations, the aim initially would be to identify positive interactions. Here, one of the research
questions listed by Barcelos and Coelho (2016, p. 149), ‘What micro-moments of positivity resonance
are there in the language classroom?’ would provide an excellent starting point. Thereafter, the
characteristics of contact moments could be identified, and students’ downstream behaviors could be
examined. Here the research question that guided the work by Korthagen et al. (2014, p. 24), ‘How
does good teacher–student contact influence the student?’ could usefully direct analyses of the data
(see also Henry & Thorsen, 2018a).
Using the methodology developed by Korthagen’s team, this research task would be carried out in a
five-step process. The first step would involve finding teachers skilled in creating connections. This
could be done in various ways, ranging from specifically focused surveys (as in the MoTiSSE project),
to asking teachers to identify colleagues recognized to be skilled in forging relationships and motiv-
ating their students. In a second step, video-recordings would be made in these teachers’ classrooms.
Reviewing filmed events, in a third step a number of positive interactions would be identified. The
fourth step would involve using the video-recording as a stimulated recall tool. In separate interviews,
the teacher – and to the extent that it is possible also the students – would be asked to describe their
emotions around the time of identified moments of contact. Finally, in a structured analytical stage,
the video and interview data would be used to develop situated understandings of the ways in which
contact moments influence students’ learning behaviors in positive ways.
Research task 2
Observing the practice of the successful motivators in the MoTiSSE project, we could see how
moments of positive contact varied enormously. While some were fleeting, others could last for several
minutes. As well as individual-to-individual interactions – for example when a teacher provided guid-
ance on text composition – contact moments could also form parts of complex interactions taking
place in small-group, or whole-class settings. Contact moments also seemed to differ depending on
the type of activity; contact in a writing-focused activity could differ from an activity directed to
oral interaction. We found also that contact moments could be highly idiosyncratic; often, the char-
acteristics of a contact moment would be specific to the particular teacher–student relationship in
which it was embedded. In a dedicated study of teacher–student relationships (Henry & Thorsen,
2018a), we found that differences in the nature of contact moments appeared to depend on the matur-
ity of the relationship. In the context of emerging relationships, the teacher we focused on was more
openly demonstrative in her close interpersonal interactions. However, in classes where she and her
students had long-standing relationships, moments of contact tended to be less uniform, more subtle,
and more generally personalized. In a similar way, the Utrecht researchers were able to identify dis-
tinctive patterns of teacher–student interactions in particular classrooms, and in relation to particular
activities (Pennings et al., 2018).
Recognizing that there will always be a degree of variation in the close interactions between teachers
and students in different settings, an important research task would be to investigate the interactional
practices of individual teachers as they move between classrooms, between activities, and between
styles of teaching. Following the call by Pennings et al. (2018) for research that explores positive
teacher–student interactions in relation to (1) varying types of teaching (i.e. focused on different activ-
ity types), (2) varying interactional approaches (for example, working with small-group or whole-class
teaching), and (3) varying teaching styles (e.g. mediating or facilitating), the aim of this task would be
to explore variations characteristic of L2 teaching in particular investigated settings.
Investigate variation in teacher–student interactions in relation to activity types
Although contact is an idiosyncratic phenomenon (Korthagen et al., 2014), in studying the practice of
relationally skilled language teachers there can be value in investigating variations in interpersonal
interaction in relation to different activity types. Here the focus would be on teacher–student inter-
action in activities targeting varying language skills. In one version of this task, contact moments in
an activity with a focus on writing could, for example, be compared with contact moments in an
226 Alastair Henry
activity designed to promote oral interaction. Following the five-step approach previously described,
the aim would be to identify features of contact moments and students’ responses that might be
more generally characteristic of particular types of activity. Variations on this task could involve com-
binations of different activity types, as well as a focus on the relational dynamics when shifts from one
activity type to another take place.
Investigate variation in teacher–student interactions in relation to teacher roles
Using the same design, another task would be to examine the characteristics of contact moments and
their influences in relation to different roles that the teacher adopts (for example, being a mediator of
knowledge, or a facilitator of learning), and the things that happen when role-shifts takes place. Here,
analyses of video recordings would focus on features of interactions characteristic of situations involv-
ing a particular pedagogical approach, and how the quality of contact moments can differ depending
on the role the teacher adopts. Here too a dynamical focus would be appropriate when investigating
role shifts within and between lessons.
Investigate variation in teacher–student interactions in relation to group size
Finally, and again employing the same procedure, this research task would examine the characteristics
and influences of contact moments in relation to group size. Here, the aim would be to identify fea-
tures of interactions characteristic of situations where, for example, teachers work one-on-one, with
student pairs, with smaller groups, and in whole-class settings. Selecting lessons where it is known
that shifts between working practices are likely to take place, focus could be directed to the ways in
which the dynamics of teacher–student interaction pattern within the lesson.
Research task 3
Studying the work of the MoTiSSE teachers, we were often struck by how they enjoyed the things they
did with the young people in their classrooms. Like other human relationships, those constructed
between teachers and students are characterized by interactional reciprocity. Because the responses
of students have a continual influence on a teacher’s practice, the creation of connections can be
understood as a ‘bidirectional process that is mutually beneficial and enhancing to both teacher
and student’ (Martin & Dowson, 2009, p. 345). In a moment of contact, the positive reaction the
teacher perceives in the student can also positively influence the teacher. Echoing Fredrickson’s
(2003, 2013) theories of positivity in human relationships, Korthagen et al. (2014, p. 29) point to
the reciprocal nature of moments of positivity resonance, arguing that ‘in moments of good contact
the process is self-reinforcing, as positive notions, feelings, and behavior in the student trigger positive
notions, feelings, and behavior in the teacher, and in turn this triggers positive notions, feelings, and
behavior in the student’.
Investigate the effects on teachers of positive interactions with students
The well-being and motivation of teachers is linked to the well-being and motivation of students.
Pointing to the importance of processes of contagion – where emotions and motivation can spread
ripple-like between individuals – Mercer (2018) highlights the importance of investigating psycho-
logical transfer in teacher–student relationships. This third task focuses on bidirectional influences
associated with positive interpersonal interactions, and the ways in which the teacher can be affected
by positive contact. To carry out this task, the researcher would observe teacher–student interactions
over a number of lessons. In each lesson, situations where a positive interaction occurred – evidenced
for example in the parties’ body language, facial expressions and concentration – would be recorded in
fieldnotes. In order to gain insight into the teacher’s emotional and motivational response as close as
possible to a focal situation, field conversations would be carried out immediately after the lesson.
More flexible, and situationally more immediate than interviews, these conversations would ideally
be audio-recorded. To gain a rounded picture of these interpersonal dynamics, focus could also be
directed to interactions that develop in negative ways, or interactions where transitions between posi-
tive and negative responses occur.
3. Exploring connections with CONTENT, and influences on students’ engagement

In language education, scholars have long emphasized the importance of meaningfulness. While
Stevick (1980) spoke of the need for learners to experience relevance in engagement with the L2,
Thorne and Reinhardt (2008) have highlighted the value of bridging between L2 experiences in
and beyond the classroom. With a focus on English in a globalizing world, Ushioda (2013) and
Henry (2013) have drawn attention to the negative effects on motivation when students experience
a dissonance between the rich and often identity-relevant L2 experiences they have outside school,
and the more mundane interactions characteristic of many classrooms.
However, while the importance of tapping into L2 experiences beyond the classroom is well recog-
nized, the influences on engagement and motivation that are associated with bridging practices
(Thorne & Reinhardt, 2008) are only beginning to be explored. In our work in the MoTiSSE project,
we used the concept of FUNDS OF KNOWLEDGE to help understand how connections with L2 encounters
beyond the classroom can generate engagement (Henry & Thorsen, 2019). A central concept in cul-
turally responsive pedagogies, funds of knowledge refer to the cultural frames and linguistic resources
that young people bring to school classrooms (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992; Gonzalez, Moll,
& Amanti, 2005). Research shows that when teachers are responsive to students’ lives outside school,
and when experiences from home, community, and social contexts are activated in learning, the points
of contact created can support the development of targeted skills, and can function in ways that
increase engagement and motivation. As Moje and Hinchman (2004, p. 326) explain, when intersec-
tions between ways of knowing in and outside of school arise, points of interchange function ‘as a way
of helping students to connect more effectively to new ideas [and] as a way of engaging and motivating
students’.
Research task 4
Popular culture is central in young people’s lives. When teachers are responsive to the cultural experi-
ences students gain beyond the classroom, and when they design activities that recognize, legitimize,
and utilize students’ popular cultural knowledge, points of contact can positively influence engage-
ment. With a focus on connections between academic knowledge and young people’s POPULAR
CULTURE FUNDS OF KNOWLEDGE (Petrone, 2013), research in mainstream education has begun to investi-
gate how intersections between institutional and informal ways of knowing can foster engagement and
enhance academic achievement (Hall, Burns, & Edwards, 2011; Petrone, 2013). As this research sug-
gests, when students have opportunities to draw on popular culture funds of knowledge in learning
activities, and when popular culture experiences become a resource in developing academic skills,
learning can be perceived as inherently meaningful and intrinsically rewarding.
Identify and investigate bridging affordances in activity designs
For young people growing up today, and particularly so for many of the students in the Swedish con-
text where our research took place, English is a part of everyday life. Because rich and meaningful
interactions occur in online environments, classroom learning will often take place parallel with L2
228 Alastair Henry
encounters in networked spaces (Sockett, 2014). When, as in Sweden, the L2 is omnipresent in popular
culture, an important aspect of teachers’ motivational practice will involve developing ways of integrat-
ing popular culture experiences into classroom-based learning. Because teachers’ motivational prac-
tices are highly contextualized, and because the nature of students’ popular culture funds of
knowledge will vary between as well as within classes, it is important that research is carried out in
different classrooms.
Case studies conducted in the classrooms of teachers who are attuned to young people’s lives and
interests outside school can provide revealing insights into the ways that popular culture can be inte-
grated into activities. They can reveal how popular culture is used as a resource in learning, and how
working with or within a genre of popular culture can influence engagement. Focusing on teachers’
perspective-taking skills, in this task the questions ‘How do teachers integrate popular culture into
learning?’ and ‘How does this influence engagement?’ would guide the research. The research
would be carried out in four steps. First, interviews with the teacher would be conducted. Here,
focus would be on the aims for a lesson/lessons, and the rationale underpinning design choices.
The researcher would also collect lesson plans and activity designs. In the second step, the aim
would be to identify design features that can enable bridging between contexts of experience to
take place. Having identified these bridging affordances, the next step would be to examine the
ways in which students attune to them. Here, classroom observations would be directed to behavior
that indicates energy and involvement. Concurrent with instances of observed engagement, informal
field conversations with students would also be conducted. Here, the objective would be to understand
how and why aspects of an activity trigger a positive response.
Research task 5
In our work in the MoTiSSE project, we framed the use of popular culture in activity designs as an
example of teachers’ INSTRUCTIONAL PERSPECTIVE TAKING (Henry & Thorsen, 2019). While we saw an
abundance of examples of explicit bridging between experiences in and beyond the classroom,
other types of bridging also occurred. Often, we were able to see how teachers were receptive to stu-
dents’ initiatives, and were able to create spaces where students could draw on frames of reference
relating to their own particular cultural experiences. Reading the literature on popular cultural
funds of knowledge (Petrone, 2013; Warren, 2018), we came across work by the educational ethnog-
rapher Dyson (1993, 2003), and her ideas about what she calls a ‘permeable curriculum’. Unlike learn-
ing activities designed with the explicit aim of creating spaces where connections between cultural and
academic experiences can take place, in a permeable curriculum connections occur organically. That
is, connections are not part of the teacher’s initial learning design. Rather, they are created ‘in the
moment’ as interactions unfold, and through the teacher’s sensitivity to emerging opportunities for
bridging to occur. As Dyson (1993) explains, a permeable curriculum assumes and exploits students’
‘susceptibility to the appeal of meaningful activity’, and supports their active manipulation of the
dynamic relationship between experiences in and beyond school (p. 217).
Investigate how teachers’ accommodations of students’ interests, and support of agency can be
motivational
In our project, we observed the work of teachers who were interested in their students as young indi-
viduals, and who were receptive to their cultural experiences. Many of these teachers had a professional
practice characterized by INTERACTIONAL PERSPECTIVE-TAKING (Henry & Thorsen, 2019), and worked in
ways that corresponded with Dyson’s (1993) notion of permeability. They were receptive to genres
of knowledge and cultural practices familiar to students (but often unknown to themselves), they
were accommodating of the personal experiences students brought to learning, and they were sensitive
to opportunities to support students’ agency (Henry & Thorsen, 2019; Henry et al., 2019). Based on
these insights, and in recognition of the importance of perspective-taking in the teaching of languages,
this research task focuses on the ways in which responsive teachers (1) build scope for agency into
activity designs, (2) craft activities in ways that accommodate the interests and concerns of students
as unique individuals, and (3) make flexible accommodations that support personal preferences and
enable authentic self-expression.
To explore responsiveness of this sort, a two-step process can be adopted. In a first stage, observa-
tions in the classrooms of teachers identified as supportive of students’ agency would be carried out.
Then, at the end of each lesson, the teacher would be asked about situations where he/she experienced
being receptive to students’ initiatives, and if and how attempts were made to encourage or support a
student’s personal interpretation of an activity. Here, the focus would be on the teacher’s reasoning
about how and why accommodations were made, and perceptions of students’ responses.
Another approach would involve carrying out a case study of an activity or a project that offered
scope for individual interpretation. Here, in addition to the procedures previously described, the
researcher would also collect students’ outputs (i.e. the texts and performances they create), and exam-
ine the feedback and support provided by the teacher. Taking this approach, the aim would be to iden-
tify (1) how students may differently interpret an activity, (2) how different interpretations might be
informed or supported by knowledge from a particular genre of popular culture, and (3) how perso-
nalized adaptations of the activity are supported by the teacher.
4. Exploring connections with working approaches, and influences on students’ engagement

In Sweden, as in many other settings today, young people grow up in a world of Internet-mediated
communication. From an early age, interactions with popular culture and peer communication are
facilitated by mobile devices. When young people’s social lives become saturated by digital communi-
cation, school can constitute an anomaly in that social practices and interpersonal interactions are not
digitally mediated in a similar way. Exploring differences in communication modalities in and out of
school, we found recent use of the FUNDS OF KNOWLEDGE concept in the context of digital literacies to be
very useful (Subero, Vujasinović, & Esteban-Guitart, 2017). This perspective helped us to understand
how the integration of online interaction modes – for example, use of social media and cross-platform
messaging – into activity designs could generate positive responses.
As I have suggested before, the divide between young people’s digitally-mediated social interaction
and the communication practices of school can be important in understanding students’ motivation
(Henry, 2013). In a recent systematic review of CALL (computer assisted language learning) studies
reporting influences on students’ learning behaviors, Martin Lamb and I were able to see how
enhanced opportunities for collaboration and authentic social interaction could make technology
use motivational (Henry & Lamb, 2020). Similarly, in a survey carried out as part of the MoTiSSE
project where we asked teachers to describe activities that motivated students, the positive influence
of technology emerged as an important factor (Henry, Korp, Sundqvist, & Thorsen, 2018). In a con-
tent analysis of the descriptions provided by the teachers in this study, we found that a sizeable pro-
portion involved the use of digital technologies in ways which replicated modes of use common in
everyday social interactions. Speculating about the motivational properties of digital technologies in
L2 learning, we suggested that the use of commonplace technologies can help students experience
‘a closer fit between the social and communicative practices in classroom and leisure-time discourse
arenas’, and that mobile devices can ‘open up a performative space’ where students can experience
flexibility, immediacy, and autonomy (p. 267).
Research task 6
As in other aspects of the MoTiSSE research, we gained help in understanding engagement from eth-
nographies of young people’s digital literacy practices. In trying to understand influences related to
230 Alastair Henry
technology use, we drew on work by the cultural anthropologist Mizuko Ito (Ito et al., 2010, 2013).
Exploring the ways in which new media can support achievement in schools, Ito and her colleagues
developed the concept of CONNECTED LEARNING. Like the recent use of the funds of knowledge concept
(Subero et al., 2017), connected learning addresses the gap between learning in and outside school in a
digital age, and ‘taps the opportunities provided by digital media to more easily link home, school,
community and peer contexts of learning’ (Ito et al., 2013, p. 4). As Ito and colleagues explain,
when activities in school involve collaboration around the production of media in openly networked
infrastructures – for example, when students work together to create a blog or contribute to online
discussions – modes of interaction resonate with communication practices characteristic of peer
and social networks. Creating media in networked forms can be highly engaging. This, as Ito et al.
(2013) explain, is because conditions important for successful learning become knitted together. In
PEER-SUPPORTED INTERACTION students contribute, share, and exchange knowledge in familiar ways,
while through INTEREST-POWERED INVOLVEMENT they can engage around topics that can have meaning
and relevance. Most importantly, because activities take place within an ACADEMIC ORIENTATION, interests
become part of a route to achievement and opportunity.
Investigate the ways in which working in networked environments can generate engagement
As we discovered in our research, there was great variation in the ways in which teachers made use of
digital technologies, and attuned to various educational and motivational affordances. In this task, the
research would take place in classrooms where digital communication constitutes a part of the learning
infrastructure, and where activities involve some form of networked interaction. With the aim of
understanding how the use of technologies common in everyday communication can influence
approaches to classroom learning, a useful research question might be ‘How do networked connec-
tions stimulate engagement?’ Here, like several of the research tasks previously described, classroom-
based inquiry could be combined with digital ethnographies (Varis, 2016). Focus could be directed to
students’ working practices, their online interactions, and the crafting of digital artefacts. This would
allow analysis of the texts and multimodal assemblages (e.g. text, images, embedded film, hyperlinks)
that students create online, as well as the ways in which discourse is produced. To carry out this task, a
first step would be to identify classrooms where learning takes place in networked forms, and where
students demonstrate engagement. Then, in a second step, classroom and digital ethnographies could
be carried out. Ideally this would involve following the work process of a group or groups of students.
In these ethnographies, focus would be directed to patterns of interaction and collaboration. Based on
observations of interactions in the classroom and in digital spaces, and zooming-in on situations
where engagement is apparent – such as when students put particular effort into producing a text,
or where a digital artefact is particularly elaborate – focus group interviews would be carried out.
Here, the aim would be to gain insights into the origins of students’ engagement, and how engaged
behavior might be understood as an individual, as well as a collective phenomenon.
Research task 7
Online environments offer accessible opportunities for self-expression and creative self-presentation.
With access to sometimes limitless resources, young people who engage in digital media production
become ‘participants, makers, and doers engaged in active and self-directed inquiry’ (Ito et al.,
2013, p. 6). In language learning, opportunities for creativity and authentic self-expression can be par-
ticularly important for motivation. Digital technologies can provide unrivaled opportunities to engage
with learning in innovative and identity-congruent ways (Henry & Lamb, 2020). To gain insight into
the motivational affordances of the creative working practices we had observed in many of the
MoTiSSE classrooms, we again drew inspiration from ideas developed by Ito et al. (2010, 2013).
These researchers identify three properties of new media that facilitate creativity and self-expression.
First, because of the ready availability of free-to-use, high-quality digital production tools, opportun-
ities for multimodal self-expression are easily accessed. Second, because digital content is always open
to appropriation, young people develop digital literacy skills that enable them to work creatively with
new media, and to reframe, sample, remix, and curate the media content they meet online. Finally,
because the digital media young people create can be easily distributed and shared within social net-
works, the opportunity to gain feedback and recognition from networked peers and online audiences
can provide an important impetus for sustained engagement in creating artefacts with aesthetic appeal.
Investigate the ways in which the creation of online media can be motivational
In the MoTiSSE project we were able to closely examine activities where students made use of everyday
digital tools and commonplace digital literacy skills to create artefacts which they shared with imme-
diate peers and wider online audiences. Because the production process took place in digital arenas
that were often open to view, students could follow the work of other groups in the class, and in
this way gain ideas and inspiration for their own productions. For example, in a project focusing
on poetry, students created a dedicated Facebook group where they shared work in progress, and
received peer feedback (Henry & Thorsen, 2019). In a project where students blogged about an
imaginary journey to an English-speaking country on openly accessible websites, students monitored
each others’ work (Henry, 2019). When, for example, one group decided to include a video containing
bloopers alongside an ‘official’ vlog, several other groups followed suit.
For this research task, focus is directed to ways in which work involving the production of digital
media and which draws on students’ digital literacy skills, can provide opportunities for creativity and
the expression of identities. Exploring these affordances, central research questions would be ‘How do
students respond to activities that provide opportunities to be creative, and spaces for personal expres-
sion?’ and ‘What makes working with digital media motivational?’ As before, this task would involve
a combination of classroom and digital ethnographies. Here too the researcher would focus on a particu-
lar group or groups of students. Following their work in the classroom, the researcher would also examine
the digital artefacts and online narratives that students create. The focus would be on the ways in which,
in the assemblage of a digital artefact, students might draw on knowledge and practices associated with
particular media genres. Because for many young people online media production involves identity
expression, and because this can be highly motivational, analyses could usefully focus on the ways in
which students attune to opportunities for self-expression. To access these attunements, frameworks
developed to uncover aspects of identity revealed in discourse – for example, Zimmerman’s (1998)
model of discourse and social identities (described by Ushioda, 2011) and Tracy’s (2002) model of iden-
tities in discourse (described by Henry & Thorsen, 2018b) – would provide valuable tools.
5. Conclusion
With an emphasis on authentic communication and meaningful interactions, the contemporary lan-
guage classroom is a place where students’ motivation will be conditioned by the quality of inter-
personal connections. As Stevick (1980) long ago recognized, when interactions in language
classrooms draw ‘more widely and more deeply from the here and now’ (p. 26), students become
more actively engaged in learning. Recognizing that there is ‘limited understanding of how processes
of motivation evolve through day-to-day interactions and events in the classroom’, Ushioda (2016) has
developed a research agenda for exploring motivation in relation to psycholinguistic processes.
Highlighting the importance of investigations of L2 motivation at the micro-level of language acqui-
sition, she calls for research ‘through a small lens’ which explores the ways in which teachers work
‘responsively and adaptively to shape … interactions and events in motivationally constructive
ways’ (p. 566). Here, in sketching out research tasks with a relational perspective, I have argued for
the use of a WIDER LENS through which the social dimensions of students’ motivation and engagement
232 Alastair Henry
can be brought into focus. Using the concept of CONNECTIVE INSTRUCTION (Martin & Dowson, 2009) as
an organizing framework, I have outlined tasks that explore influences on students’ engagement that
stem from three types of connection: connections with the teacher as a PERSON, connections with
CONTENT that the teacher directs attention to or legitimizes as valid for language learning, and connec-
tions with the classroom WORKING PRACTICES that the teacher promotes or supports.
Like Ushioda (2016), I believe that sharply focused accounts of learners’ behaviors can provide
insights that have value not only in relation to particular types of teaching practice, the L2 in focus,
and the settings in which instruction and learning take place, but also in developing understandings
with broader relevance. In this respect, and in an age where language learning takes place across a diver-
sity of settings, approaches where classroom and digital ethnographies are combined may be of particu-
lar value. Moreover, because ethnographic research asks the question ‘what is going on here?’ local
contexts of experience are always in focus. In times when contexts of learning are diversifying, and
when language learning is no longer confined to bounded settings but is distributed across institutional,
social, and virtual spaces, study of the interactions, relations, and practices that shape students’ engage-
ment can facilitate understandings of L2 motivation in a digitalized world.
In the complex and diverse environments in which language learning takes place, it needs to be
recognized that the findings of individual studies are unlikely to be consistent across settings. For
example, the scope for individual agency generally afforded to students in secondary school classrooms
in Sweden means that the relational practices of the teachers in the MoTiSSE project are likely to differ
from those working in other cultural settings, or with different age groups. It is in the context of such
diversity – and the recognition that relational practices differ widely across settings – that the value of
the connective instruction framework may lie. In providing the researcher with an integrated frame-
work with which to study language teachers’ relational practices, it provides a means of structuring the
focus of ethnographic research. In using the model to focus on particular types of connection, and by
carrying out cross-case comparisons, it becomes possible to develop insights into observable charac-
teristics of relational practice specific to particular contexts of language teaching.
Finally, I would like to end this ‘Research Agenda’ article by reflecting on the potential of the connect-
ive instruction framework as a means through which teachers can research and understand the shaping of
students’ motivation in their OWN CONTEXTS OF PRACTICE. While the tasks I have proposed assume that
research will be conducted by a researcher–observer who comes to the classroom as an outsider, with
necessary refinements they can also form the basis for programs of practitioner-led inquiry. When
using the framework in an EXPLORATORY PRACTICE (EP) (Hanks, 2017) context, the objectives of inquiry
would need to shift. Rather than investigating the circumstances surrounding students’ engagement
with a view to identifying and accounting for the sources of observable energy, the purpose would be
to understand why and how students become engaged, and how emerging insights can be used to develop
the quality of the classroom experience. Shifting focus in this way, so that the methodology could also
serve a pedagogical purpose, the classroom and digital ethnographic approaches previously described
could be usefully complemented by AUTOETHNOGRAPHIC METHODS. Indeed, in carrying out EP with a
focus on motivational connections created in day-to-day teaching practice, autoethnography would
become the central tool for critical inquiry. As the teacher–researcher becomes engaged in reflecting
on the ways in which his/her actions and interactions influence students’ engagement, focus would extend
beyond the self, to the SELF IN RELATION TO OTHERS (Pinner, 2019). With the connective instruction model
(Martin & Dowson, 2009) as an analytical framework, the relational determinants of students’ engage-
ment can be explored. In this way teachers can become better placed to develop a motivational practice
which is systematically constructed around connections, and which is sustainable over time.
References
Barcelos, A. M. F., & Coelho, H. S. H. (2016). Language learning and teaching: What’s love got to do with it? In P.
D. MacIntyre, T. Gregersen, & S. Mercer (Eds.), Positive psychology in SLA (pp. 130–144). Bristol, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Boo, Z., Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). L2 motivation research 2005–2014: Understanding a publication surge and a chan-
ging landscape. System, 55, 145–157.
Claessens, L. C. A., van Tartwijk, J., van der Want, A. C., Pennings, H. J. M., Verloop, N., den Brok, P. J., & Wubbels, T.
(2016). Positive teacher–student relationships go beyond the classroom; problematic ones stay inside. The Journal of
Educational Research, 5, 478–493.
Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
Dörnyei, Z. (2019). Towards a better understanding of the L2 learning experience, the Cinderella of the L2 motivational self
system. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 21–32.
Durksen, T., Way, J., Bobis, J., Anderson, J., Skilling, K., & Martin, A. J. (2017). Motivation and engagement in mathematics:
A qualitative framework for teacher-student interactions. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29, 163–181.
Dyson, A. H. (1993). Social worlds of children: Learning to write in an urban primary school. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Dyson, A. H. (2003). The brothers and sisters learn to write: Popular literacies in childhood and school cultures. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive
emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). The value of positive emotions: The emerging science of positive psychology looks into why it’s
good to feel good. American Scientist, 91(4), 330–335.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Love 2.0: Finding happiness and health in moments of connection. New York, NY: Penguin.
Gkonou, C., & Mercer, S. (2017). Understanding emotional and social intelligence among English language teachers. London,
UK: British Council.
Gonzalez, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and class-
rooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hall, L., Burns, L., & Edwards, E. (2011). Empowering struggling readers: Practices for the middle grades. New York, NY:
Guilford.
Hanks, J. (2017). Exploratory practice in language teaching: Puzzling about principles and practices. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave
McMillan.
Henry, A. (2013). Digital gaming and ELT: Bridging the authenticity gap. In E. Ushioda (Ed.), International perspectives on
English language teaching: Motivation (pp. 133–155). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave McMillan.
Henry, A. (2019). Online media creation and L2 motivation: A socially situated perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 53(2), 372–
404.
Henry, A., Korp, H., Sundqvist, P., & Thorsen, C. (2018). Motivational strategies and the reframing of English:
Activity design and challenges for teachers in contexts of extensive extramural encounters. TESOL Quarterly, 52(2),
247–273.
Henry, A., & Lamb, M. (2020). L2 motivation and digital technologies. In M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry, & S. Ryan (Eds.),
The Palgrave handbook of language learning motivation. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Henry, A., Sundqvist, P., & Thorsen, C. (2019). Motivational practice: Insights from the classroom. Lund, Sweden:
Studentlitteratur.
Henry, A., & Thorsen, C. (2018a). Teacher–student relationships and L2 motivation. Modern Language Journal, 102(1), 218–
241.
Henry, A., & Thorsen, C. (2018b). Teachers’ self-disclosures and influences on students’ motivation: A relational perspective.
International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/
13670050.2018.1441261
Henry, A., & Thorsen, C. (2018c). Disaffection and agentic engagement: ‘Redesigning’ activities to enable authentic self-
expression. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1362168818795976
Henry, A., & Thorsen, C. (2019). Weaving webs of connection: Empathy, perspective taking, and students’ motivation.
Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 33–56.
Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Cody, R., Herr, B., … Tripp, L. (2010). Hanging out, messing around, geeking out:
Kids living and learning with new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., & Watkins, S. C. (2013). Connected learning. An agenda
for research and design. Irvine, CA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.
Joe, H.-K., Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2017). Classroom social climate, self-determined motivation, willingness to com-
municate, and achievement: A study of structural relationships in instructed second language settings. Learning and
Individual Differences, 53, 133–144.
Korthagen, F. A. J., Attema–Noordewier, S., & Zwart, R. C. (2014). Teacher–student contact: Exploring a basic but compli-
cated concept. Teaching and Teacher Education, 40, 22–32.
Kubanyiova, M. (2015). The role of teachers’ future self-guides in creating L2 development opportunities in teacher-led class-
room discourse: Reclaiming the relevance of language teacher cognition. Modern Language Journal, 99, 565–584.
234 Alastair Henry
Lamb, M. (2017). The motivational dimension of language teaching. Language Teaching, 50, 301–346.
MacIntyre, P. D., Gregersen, T., & Mercer, S. (2019). Setting an agenda for positive psychology in SLA: Theory, practice, and
research. Modern Language Journal, 103, 262–274.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Mercer, S. (2014). Introducing positive psychology to SLA. Studies in Second Language Learning and
Teaching, 4, 153–172.
Martin, A. J., & Collie, R. J. (2016). The role of teacher-student relationships in unlocking students’ academic potential. In K.
R. Wentzel, & G. Ramani (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognitive outcomes in school contexts (pp. 158–177).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Martin, A. J., & Collie, R. J. (2018). Teacher–student relationships and students’ engagement in high school: Does the number
of negative and positive relationships with teachers matter? Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1037/edu0000317
Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and achievement: Yields for theory,
current issues, and educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 79, 327–365.
Martin, A. J., Ginns, P., & Papworth, B. (2017). Motivation and engagement: Same or different? Does it matter? Learning and
Individual Differences, 55, 150–162.
Mercer, S. (2016). Seeing the world through your eyes: Empathy in language learning and teaching. In P. D. MacIntyre,
T. Gregersen, & S. Mercer (Eds.), Positive psychology in SLA (pp. 91–111). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Mercer, S. (2018). Psychology for language learning: Spare a thought for the teacher. Language Teaching, 51(4), 504–525.
Mercer, S., & Dörnyei, Z. (2020). Engaging students in contemporary classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
press.
Moje, E., & Hinchman, K. (2004). Culturally responsive practices for youth literacy learning. In T. L. Jetton, & J. A. Dole
(Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 231–250). New York, NY: Guilford.
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to con-
nect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31, 132–141.
Oxford, R. (2016). Toward a psychology of well-being for language learners: The ‘EMPATHICS’ vision. In P. D. MacIntyre,
T. Gregersen, & S. Mercer (Eds.), Positive psychology in SLA (pp. 10–87). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Pennings, H. J. M., Brekelmans, M., Sadler, P., Claessens, L., van der Want, A. C., & van Tartwijk, J. (2018). Interpersonal
adaptation in teacher–student interaction. Learning and Instruction, 55, 41.
Petrone, R. (2013). Linking contemporary research on youth, literacy, and popular culture with literacy teacher education.
Journal of Literacy Research, 45(3), 240–266.
Pinner, R. (2019). Authenticity and teacher–student motivational synergy: A narrative of language teaching. London, UK:
Routledge.
Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, &
C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). New York, NY: Springer.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and well-
ness. New York, NY: Guilford.
Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In S.
L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21–44). New York,
NY: Springer.
Sockett, G. (2014). The online informal learning of English. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stevick, E. (1980). Teaching languages: A way and ways. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Subero, D., Vujasinović, E., & Esteban-Guitart, M. (2017). Mobilising funds of identity in and out of school. Cambridge
Journal of Education, 47(2), 247–263.
Thorne, S. L., & Reinhardt, J. (2008). Bridging activities, new media literacies, and advanced foreign language proficiency.
CALICO Journal, 25(3), 558–572.
Tracy, K. (2002). Everyday talk: Building and reflecting identities. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self and identity. In
Z. Dörnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 215–228). Bristol, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Ushioda, E. (2011). Motivating learners to speak as themselves. In G. Murray, Q. Gao, & T. Lamb (Eds.), Identity, motivation
and autonomy in language learning (pp. 11–24). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ushioda, E. (2013). Motivation and ELT: Looking ahead to the future. In E. Ushioda (Ed.), International perspectives on
motivation: Language learning and professional challenges (pp. 233–239). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ushioda, E. (2016). Language learning motivation through a small lens: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 49,
564–577.
Varis, P. (2016). Digital ethnography. In A. Georgakopoulou, & T. Spilioti (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and
digital communication (pp. 55–68). New York, NY: Routledge.
Warren, C. A. (2018). Empathy, teacher dispositions, and preparation for culturally responsive pedagogy. Journal of Teacher
Education, 69(2), 169–183.
Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., Mainhard, T., den Brok, P. J., & van Tartwijk, J. (2016). Teacher student relationships and stu-
dent achievement. In K. R. Wentzel, & G. B. Ramani (Eds.), Handbook of social influences in school contexts:
Social-emotional, motivation, and cognitive outcomes (pp. 127–142). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Zimmerman, D. (1998). Identity, context and interaction. In C. Antaki, & S. Widdicombe (Eds.), Identities in talk (pp. 87–
106). London, UK: Sage.
Alastair Henry is Professor of Language Education at University West, Sweden. His research focuses on the psychology of
language learning and teaching. With Zoltán Dörnyei and Peter MacIntrye, he is the co-editor of Motivational dynamics in
language learning (2015, Multilingual Matters), and with Martin Lamb, Kata Csizér, and Stephen Ryan, he co-edited The
Palgrave handbook of motivation for language learning (2020, Palgrave MacMillan). He was principal investigator for the
MoTiSSE project (2014–2018), which was funded by the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet) (Grant 2013785).
Cite this article: Henry, A. (2021). Motivational connections in language classrooms: A research agenda. Language Teaching,
54(2), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000026
doi:10.1017/S0261444819000132
R E P L I CAT I O N S T U D I E S
Research on the on-line processing of collocation:

Replication of Wolter and Gyllstad (2011) and Millar (2011)
Suhad Sonbul1 and Anna Siyanova-Chanturia2*
1
Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia and 2Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
*Corresponding author. Email: anna.siyanova@vuw.ac.nz
Research employing psycholinguistic techniques to assess the on-line processing of collocation by native
and non-native speakers has flourished in the past few years. This line of research aims (among other
things) at exploring actual performance in real time as opposed to the traditional paper-and-pencil testing
techniques that have been extensively employed in collocation research. The present paper reviews some of
the pertinent research on the on-line processing of collocations and argues for the need for more repli-
cation studies in the area. It then looks at how two experimental studies on the topic – Millar (2011)
and Wolter and Gyllstad (2011) – may be replicated in order to gain deeper understanding of the key
factors behind collocation processing and to obtain more valid and generalizable results that can find
their way into language teaching practice.
1. Introduction
Interest in the processing of formulaic language, idioms in particular, has its roots in the 1980’s
psychology literature (see, for example, Gibbs & Gonzales, 1985; Gibbs, Nayak, & Cutting, 1989).
Recent years, however, have seen a growing interest in the topic with respect to other types of
multi-word sequences, such as collocations, binomials, and lexical bundles. This is, to a great extent,
due to the observation that formulaic language is a pervasive phenomenon in speech and writing,
serving a wide range of pragmatic, discourse, and cognitive functions (for an overview of formulaic
language from a cognitive, pragmatic, and pedagogical perspective, see Siyanova-Chanturia &
Pellicer-Sanchez, 2018).
While researchers have long advocated the use of psycholinguistic techniques in assessing on-line
language processing in a first (L1) and second (L2) language (Juffs, 2001; Marinis, 2003), employing
such techniques in the context of formulaic language – above and beyond idiomatic expressions – is a
relatively recent phenomenon (for an overview, see Siyanova-Chanturia & Van Lancker Sidtis, 2018).
The present paper focuses on one type of formulaic language, collocations, and their on-line (real-
time) processing as opposed to their off-line usage, as seen in traditional paper-and-pencil tests.
In the area of collocations, studies involving off-line measures have shown that L2 learners’ knowl-
edge of collocation often lags behind that of L1 speakers. This pertains to the research on error analysis
(Granger, 1998; Nesselhauf, 2005; Laufer & Waldman, 2011) and paper-and-pencil assessment tech-
niques (Bahns & Eldaw, 1993; Nguyen & Webb, 2017). Much of this research has shown that learners’
L1 can have a considerable influence on the knowledge of L2 collocation.
Recently, a number of studies investigated the on-line processing of collocation with several peda-
gogical implications in mind. One such line of research, for example, employed various reaction-time
techniques to examine the effect of L1 on L2 collocation processing (Yamashita & Jiang, 2010; Wolter
& Gyllstad, 2011; Wolter & Yamashita, 2015, 2018), as well as the interaction between corpus-derived
frequency and L1 influence on L2 processing (Wolter & Gyllstad, 2013). Another line of enquiry,
which was spearheaded by Millar (2011), has focused on using psycholinguistic techniques to
© Cambridge University Press 2019
complement traditional error analysis methods. The studies cited above, although innovative and
important for the field of second language acquisition, have been noted to suffer from several
methodological limitations, or have, indeed, produced contrasting results. This necessitates conducting
replication studies to arrive at more valid, reliable, and generalizable findings.
The present paper suggests replications of two empirical studies from within this literature – Millar
(2011) and Wolter and Gyllstad (2011). We begin with a brief overview of the relevant literature, fol-
lowed by an analysis of each study and suggestions for possible replications. The final section presents
concluding remarks and directions for future research.
2. Background
Although the way collocations are treated varies depending on the approach adopted (e.g., phraseo-
logical versus frequency-based), researchers agree that these phrasal configurations are not as fixed
as other types of formulaic sequences (such as idioms and proverbs). For example, Howarth (1998)
views free combinations, collocations, and idioms as forming a continuum, proposing that most lear-
ners’ difficulties are related to collocations (the central point on the scale). For the purpose of the pre-
sent paper, collocations are defined as two-word combinations (bigrams) with above-chance corpus
frequency, as evident in measures of association strength, such as t-score and mutual information/
MI (see Gablasova, Brezina, & McEnery, 2017 for an overview). Research examining L2 collocation per-
formance can be broadly divided into two categories: (1) corpus-based research analysing English as a
foreign/second language (EFL/ESL) learners’ written or, more rarely, spoken output and (2) research
employing off-line and on-line measures to explore issues specific to collocation processing and use.
Studies conducted under the first category (e.g., Granger, 1998; Nesselhauf, 2005; Laufer &
Waldman, 2011; for a review, see Granger, 2018) have generally reached the conclusion that EFL lear-
ners (L1 French, Hebrew, and German, respectively) use fewer typical, native-like collocations com-
pared to L2 speakers (but see Siyanova & Schmitt, 2008, Study 1 for different results), with a clear
influence from their L1. In classifying learners’ errors, these studies have mostly used L1 judgements
(e.g., Granger, 1998), but, more recently, other external measures have been employed, such as idiom-
atic dictionaries (e.g., Nesselhauf, 2005) and corpus-based norms (e.g., Siyanova & Schmitt, 2008;
Laufer & Waldman, 2011). In general, studies on error analysis have often been criticized for using
such off-line measures in error identification and classification (e.g., Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005). In
an innovative study, Millar (2011, see below for a detailed review) combined error analysis with a self-
paced reading task borrowed from experimental psychology to provide a more objective measure of
how L2 collocation errors, atypical of L1 usage, are treated and processed on-line.
Another area of research on collocation performance is concerned with assessing L2 knowledge of
collocations using paper-and-pencil tests. Studies employing measures of this type found that EFL
learners’ off-line collocation performance was particularly weak ranging between 53% in a translation
task and 48% in a cloze task for German learners (Bahns & Eldaw, 1993), 50% in a multiple-choice test
for Vietnamese learners (Nguyen & Webb, 2017), and 56% in a cued recall task for Spanish learners
(González Fernández & Schmitt, 2015).
Siyanova & Schmitt (2008, Study 2 and Study 3) were probably the first to combine traditional off-
line tests with on-line measures to test both L1 and L2 speakers. The results of a timed rating task used
in their study showed that L2 learners only exhibited native-like sensitivity to corpus-derived frequen-
cies after spending an extended period of time in the ESL context (see also Sonbul, 2015 for similar
evidence from an eye-tracking experiment). Phrase frequency effects have since been reported in a
wealth of studies, in particular in the context of usage-based approaches to language acquisition, pro-
cessing, and use (for a review, see Siyanova-Chanturia & Van Lancker Sidtis, 2018; Wulff, 2018).
Another prominent line of research is the effect of L1 on L2 formulaic language processing (for an
overview, see Conklin & Carrol, 2018). With respect to collocations, Yamashita and Jiang (2010) used
a timed judgement task (yes/no acceptability judgements) to examine this issue. The study included
both congruent (L1 = L2) and incongruent (L1 ≠ L2) collocations and tested two groups of Japanese
238 Suhad Sonbul and Anna Siyanova-Chanturia
learners (EFL intermediate and ESL advanced), as well as a control group of L1 speakers. Only the
lower-level EFL group showed a processing advantage for congruent collocations over incongruent
ones (in the by-participant analysis only). It was concluded that as L2 proficiency increases, the L1
effect fades away. This line of research is important as it can shed light on the organization of the
L2 mental lexicon (e.g., Kroll & Stewart, 1994), as well as inform teachers and material developers
as to the relative ease/difficulty of collocations with/without L1 equivalents.
The pioneering study by Yamashita and Jiang (2010) has since been followed by a series of
follow-up studies by Brent Wolter and his colleagues (see Table 1). As can be seen in the table,
given the variety of tasks, items, subjective proficiency levels, analyses performed, and the degree to
which L1s in question differ from L2 English (i.e., Japanese and Swedish), it is difficult to reach a
clear conclusion regarding the congruency effect in L2 collocation processing. Each of these studies
appears to be adding one piece to the puzzle without actually solving it completely. We believe that
this line of research may, in fact, represent a classic example of what Mackey (2012, p. 29) considers
‘ripe for replication’, with inconsistent findings in need of further investigation.
As is evident in this short (and inevitably selective) review, pedagogically oriented research employ-
ing on-line measures to explore L2 collocation processing, though promising, is still in its infancy and
is characterized by a number of methodological limitations that are likely to affect the validity and gen-
eralizability of the results reported. The scarcity of this research and the limitations associated with it
point to the need for replication studies that can systematically deal with the limitations in the original
designs (approximate replications) and re-explore the issues using different methods and techniques
(conceptual replications).
The present paper looks at two studies cited above – Millar (2011) and Wolter and Gyllstad (2011) –
and proposes several ways in which they can be replicated. The studies in question used psycholinguistic
techniques (self-paced reading and priming, respectively) in assessing on-line collocation processing
and were published in Applied Linguistics, thus, showing a clear link between the theoretical issues
explored and actual practice. Finally, the appendix to both studies contains a full list of items and
materials, thereby facilitating replication endeavours.
3. The original studies and approaches to replication

3.1 Wolter and Gyllstad (2011)
As indicated above, the effect of L1 on L2 collocation processing has been studied in some detail. This
study by Brent Wolter and Henrik Gyllstad is one of the first and most-cited in this area. The study is
also interesting in that it includes both off-line data from paper-and-pencil tests and on-line data from
a lexical decision task (LDT) within the priming paradigm, allowing for some useful comparisons. The
assumption behind such a priming task is that reaction times (RTs) to a target (the second word
within a two-word collocation) will be faster following a related prime (collocate) than an unrelated
one (control).
Wolter and Gyllstad (2011) conducted an experiment with two groups of adult participants: 35 native
English speakers (American university students) and 30 advanced (based on self-reported scores)
Swedish EFL learners. The study included three types of Verb + Noun (object) pairs: congruent col-
locations (33), incongruent collocations (33), and control non-collocate pairs (33). The authors tested
three hypotheses: (1) L2 learners will show a processing advantage for congruent collocations over
control pairs, (2) L2 learners will show a weaker advantage for incongruent collocations than congru-
ent collocations (in comparison to control pairs), and (3) L1 speakers will not show any differences
between the processing advantage for congruent and incongruent collocations over control pairs.
The target collocations were extracted from the British National Corpus (BNC) with a minimum
frequency of 5 and a minimum t-score of 2.0. There were no significant differences between congruent
and incongruent collocations in terms of their t-score or raw BNC frequency. Moreover, the three sets
(congruent, incongruent, and control) were controlled for the length, frequency, and concreteness of
Table 1. Summary of studies investigating L1 effect on L2 collocation processing
L2 learners (in addition to Summary of results for

Study Task L1 baseline) Items Analysis L2 learners
Wolter & Gyllstad Single lexical Advanced EFL learners, L1 Congruent, incongruent, MANOVA (F1 and F2 Congruency effect (in F1
(2011) decision task Swedish and baseline analyses) analysis)
(priming)
Wolter & Gyllstad Acceptability Advanced EFL learners, L1 Congruent, incongruent, Mixed-effects modelling Congruency effect
(2013) judgement task Swedish and baseline
Wolter & Yamashita Double lexical Intermediate EFL learners, Incongruent, L1-only, Mixed-effects modelling No processing advantage
(2015) decision task L1 Japanese and baseline for incongruent or for
L1-only collocations
over controls
Wolter & Yamashita Acceptability Intermediate and advanced Congruent, incongruent, Mixed-effects modelling Congruency effect for
(2018) judgement task EFL learners, L1 Japanese L1-only, and baseline and correlations both groups and no
processing advantage
for L1-only
collocations over
controls
Language Teaching
239
individual words (which included cognates). A norming collocation familiarity-rating task was admi-
nistered to 20 L1 speakers prior to the study confirming condition status with significant differences
between the baseline control condition and the other two conditions. It should be noted here that little
is reported in the study regarding the selection of non-collocate pairs. However, looking at the items
provided in the appendix, one can clearly observe semantic implausibility of most control items (e.g.,
*tell rug, *invite success). This alone is likely to cause a significant delay in the processing of such
phrases. Of note is that this also applies to the other studies summarized in Table 1.
In the priming LDT experiment, the prime verb (first word of the pair) was presented on a com-
puter screen for 250 ms followed by a blank screen for 50 ms; then the target noun (second word of
the pair) appeared and a lexical decision (whether or not the word on the screen is a real English
word) was required through pressing Yes/No-assigned keys on a standard keyboard. The target
items were counterbalanced across three experimental lists so that no prime or target was repeated
more than once, and the presentation of items was randomized. Response latency to and decision
accuracy on the target nouns were recorded using the DMDX software (Forster & Forster, 2003).
In addition to the experimental items, 440 filler items were included in the experiment comprising
either real word targets (121) or non-word targets (220). In addition to the priming experiment, L2
learners were also administered the Yes/No COLLMATCH collocation test (Gyllstad, 2007) to assess
their receptive knowledge of the same target collocations.
The analysis was done using traditional MANOVA (F1 and F2) analyses. The analysis of L1 data
showed a clear processing advantage (faster RTs) for both congruent and incongruent collocations
relative to control pairs but no difference between the two types of collocations (this was observed
in both F1 and F2 analyses). On the contrary, L2 learners exhibited a processing advantage for con-
gruent collocations over control pairs (in both F1 and F2 analyses), but the difference between incon-
gruent collocations and the other two types of items (congruent collocations and control pairs) was
only significant in the by-participant analysis (F1). The same pattern of results was observed when
cognates were excluded from the analyses. The results of the off-line test showed more ‘Yes’ responses
to congruent collocations than to incongruent collocations. On the basis of these results, Wolter &
Gyllstad (2011) concluded that learners’ L1 has a strong influence on how EFL learners process col-
locations in their L2 (although the effect appeared to be stronger off-line than on-line).
3.1.1 Approach to replication

Given the discrepancy between the reported findings on congruency effects in L2 collocation process-
ing (see Table 1), Wolter and Gyllstad (2011) can be approximately replicated in a series of studies,
wherein each study controls for one of the experimental variables to uncover its potential effect on
L2 processing.
A starting point, for instance, can be a study involving the same priming experiment and the same
experimental items as in the original study but including three different groups of participants: (1)
native speakers of English (same as original), (2) advanced Swedish EFL learners (same as original),
and (3) intermediate-level Swedish EFL learners (a new group). A more objective estimate of L2 pro-
ficiency (e.g., vocabulary size test scores) can be used instead of self-reported proficiency scores used in
the original study. The analysis can include a MANOVA to measure whether the original on-line con-
gruency advantage (evident in the F1 analysis only) can be stronger for a lower proficiency group.
Although two of the studies exploring the collocation congruency effect in L1 Japanese learners
included two levels of proficiency (Yamashita & Jiang, 2010; Wolter & Yamashita, 2018), the two stud-
ies involving L1 Swedish only included advanced learners (Wolter & Gyllstad, 2011, 2013) (see
Table 1). It will, thus, be interesting to explore the effect of proficiency on the congruency effect in
EFL Swedish learners.
The proposed replication study can benefit from a more complex and advanced statistical analysis,
such as mixed-effects modelling which can include both participants and items as random effects in
one model. Mixed models can also accommodate a range of continuous variables that are otherwise
difficult to include in traditional analyses (see Baayen, Davidson, & Davidson, 2008 for advantages of
mixed-effect modelling). A mixed-effects model can be fitted including the main effects (group and
item type) in addition to proficiency scores as fixed factors and participants and items as random fac-
tors. This analysis can add several pieces of evidence to our understanding of L1 congruency effect and
deal with the limitations related to the ways in which the analysis was conducted in the original study
(with separate F1 and F2 analyses).
Another approximate replication study can control for the potential effect of item type in a series of
experiments. The first experiment in this replication study can employ exactly the same task (priming
and LDT), two groups of participants as in the original study (native speakers and advanced Swedish
EFL learners), and the same experimental items (congruent and incongruent collocations). The differ-
ence, and, in our opinion an improvement, will be the way in which control (baseline) items are
devised. As reported above, most control items in the original study were not semantically plausible,
which was likely to introduce a confound affecting the results of the study. In addition, not much is
stated in terms of the corpus-derived frequency and association strength of control items in the ori-
ginal study. Control items for this replication experiment can be devised in a way that makes them
semantically plausible but with very low (close to zero) frequency and low association (e.g., *extreme
mistake, *impressive explanation, see Sonbul, 2015). In a norming study, a group of native speakers can
be asked to rate control items for ‘semantic plausibility’ in order to include only those that are plaus-
ible. If the pattern of results of the main experiment for L1 and L2 speakers is similar to what was
found in the original study, this can be taken to suggest that semantic plausibility is not a confounding
factor. If, on the contrary, the results of the replication study diverge from the original findings, this
will suggest that greater care should be exercised when creating control items in similar experiments.
Together, these multi-step replication studies can deepen our understanding of the effects of L1 on
L2 collocation processing, improving both the internal validity and the ecological validity of the study.
3.2 Millar (2011)

As discussed above (see Section 2), research on learner corpora (e.g., Nesselhauf, 2005) has mainly
used native speakers’ off-line judgements (intuitions) to identify learner errors in the use of L2 collo-
cation. In his study, Neil Millar employed an innovative design to explore how L1 speakers process
learner collocation errors in real time. The main aim of the study was to explore the widely held
assumption that the presence of atypical collocations in L2 production constitutes a hindrance to
communication.
Millar (2011) compiled a corpus of English essays collected from 960 EFL Japanese university stu-
dents (approximately 180,000 tokens). From this corpus, atypical significant two-word pairs were
extracted. These items had a minimum frequency of 2 (in the learner corpus), were produced by a
minimum of two learners, were not attested in the BNC, and were judged by the researcher to be
non-target-like. For each of the 32 atypical pairs, a semantically related, acceptable collocation was
identified (based on its MI score) in which either the first word (23 items) or the second word
(nine items) was replaced (but never both). Experimental items were categorized as representing either
a ‘lexical misselection’ (25 items) involving wrong word choice (e.g., *best partner versus ideal partner)
or ‘misformation’ (seven items) involving a morphological mistake (e.g., *culture background versus
cultural background) (p. 137). Of note is that various factors related to component words, including
length, frequency, and part of speech, were not controlled for.
Each typical-atypical pair was then inserted into an identical sentence context, created by the
researcher based on corpus examples, representing two experimental conditions (atypical and typical).
Sentence contexts were rated by 20 native speakers for acceptability, with a significant difference
found between the two experimental conditions (except for one item not specified by the researcher).
In addition to the experimental items, 16 filler items – all typical and native-like – were included in
the study. Each experimental block included 16 typical collocations, 16 atypical pairs, and 16 filler
(typical) items. It is noteworthy that atypical word pairs might have thus stood out due to the
ratio of 1:2.
The author employed a self-paced reading task where 30 L1 speakers of English read one version of
the sentence word-by-word (in two counterbalanced lists with a pseudo-randomized order) by means
of clicking an external mouse button using the software PsyScript (http://lancaster.ac.uk/psychology/
research/research-software/). Following the experimental session, participants answered simple com-
prehension questions. It should be noted that the instructions provided did not specify whether
the participants were required to read aloud or silently. As a result, as Millar (2011) reports, some
participants read the sentences aloud, while others read them silently. In addition, many individual
words, both in typical and atypical pairs, were repeated in more than one experimental item (e.g.,
happiness, big) or in the sentence contexts (e.g., older, people), which is likely to have led to an
unwanted repetition effect.
The analysis (linear mixed models in SPSS) focused on RTs on the second word of the pair (target
word), the word immediately following the second word of the pair (+1), and the following word (+2).
Results showed that L1 speakers read the second word of typical collocations along with the +1 word
and the +2 word significantly faster than atypical (learner) pairs. This result was obtained for the 23
experimental items where the first word was atypical of L1 usage. In a separate analysis, Millar (2011)
explored the effect of the error type (‘lexical misselection’ and ‘misformation’) on RT data. Only ‘lex-
ical misselection’ items showed a significant difference in RTs to the target words between the typical
and atypical conditions (no analysis was reported for the +1 or +2 positions). Although Millar (2011)
argues that it is the small number of items that prevented a significant difference to emerge for the
‘misformation’ category, one cannot exclude the possibility that L1 speakers might be more accepting
of morphological mistakes than those involving wrong word choice.
Based on the reported results, the author concluded that, in line with the widely held belief, L1
speakers do experience difficulty in reading when confronted with an atypical collocation with a ‘spill-
over effect’ from the target atypical item to the following context (Millar, 2011: 142). Given its innova-
tive design and a number of limitations, Millar’s (2011) study can be viewed as a fruitful avenue for
both approximate and conceptual replications, promoting the use of psycholinguistic techniques in
corpus-based research into L2 collocation errors.
3.2.1 Approach to replication

An approximate replication study can involve a more rigorous approach to item selection. As dis-
cussed above, the original study included items that differed in a number of ways: (1) classification
of deviation as ‘misformation’ or ‘lexical misselection’, (2) position of the deviation word (first or
second), (3) length in characters, corpus frequency, and part of speech of individual words, and (4)
unwanted repetition of individual words (across items and contexts).
An approximate replication of Millar (2011) can focus on a sub-set of more carefully selected items
and modify sentence contexts so as to avoid repetition. Including a larger participant pool can help
compensate for a small item set. Since length and frequency of the individual words (within each
pair) were not experimentally controlled for, mixed-effects modelling can be used to explore the
role of these factors (by including them as covariates in the model). If such a replication shows a com-
parable processing advantage for typical collocations over atypical pairs, this will provide support to
the results of the original study. However, if a different pattern of results is observed, this will provide
evidence for the need of a more stringent approach to experimental design and items selection.
A conceptual replication is also possible based on Durrant & Siyanova-Chanturia’s (2015) evalu-
ation of Millar (2011). These authors reviewed the study in question in some detail, pointing out a
number of limitations. First, Durrant and Siyanova-Chanturia (2015) are critical of Millar’s (2011)
use of the one-word-at-a-time reading mode in a study dealing with multi-word sequences. Having
to read multi-word sequences word-by-word is not ideal, as it may encourage single-word processing
at the expense of chunking. An alternative is to present target sentences phrase-by-phrase, or, indeed,
to use eye movements. Second, the native-like sentence context might put typical (native-like) colloca-
tions at an advantage over atypical (learner) pairs. Given that the study attempted to explore how L1
speakers process learner collocation errors, it will be more valid to use authentic (learner-created)
contexts.
Thus, the suggested conceptual replication can address the issue of L1 speaker processing of erro-
neous (learner) collocation using a different methodology, such as a phrase-by-phrase (two words at a
time) reading task or eye movements with authentic contexts extracted from the learner corpus. These
changes can make a tangible difference, rendering the study more valid by tapping into the processes
under investigation. This in turn is likely to increase ecological (pedagogical) validity and thus inform
writing assessment practices.
Ecological validity can be further enhanced through a second conceptual replication involving a
mixed-methods approach. The quantitative RTs data from a self-paced phrase reading task or an eye-
tracking experiment can be fruitfully combined with qualitative data from a follow-up think-aloud
protocol task. In this task, L1 participants can be presented with the target sentence contexts off-line
and asked to report on their thoughts as they identify and correct collocation errors. These qualitative
data, coupled with on-line data, can help us gain a better understanding of how L1 speakers treat and
process L2 learners’ atypical word pairs.
4. Conclusion
This paper focused on replication suggestions for two studies that are both influential and innovative
in the area of on-line collocation processing (Millar, 2011; Wolter & Gyllstad, 2011). We have shown
how replication research (both approximate and conceptual) can help solve several methodological
issues through a more stringent approach to experimental design and stimuli, the use of advanced stat-
istical analysis, and by means of exploring pertinent research questions from different perspectives. We
further advocate combining traditional off-line tests with on-line measures in future research on col-
location processing in order to help bridge the gap between experimental research findings and teach-
ing practices in the language classroom.
References
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Davidson, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects
and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.
Bahns, J., & Eldaw, M. (1993). Should we teach EFL students collocations? System, 21(1), 101–114.
Conklin, K., & Carrol, G. (2018) First language influence on the processing of formulaic language in a second language. In
Anna Siyanova-Chanturia & Ana Pellicer-Sanchez (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisi-
tion perspective (pp. 62–77).
Durrant, P., & Siyanova-Chanturia, A. (2015). Learner corpora and psycholinguistics. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier
(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp. 57–78). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. P. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Forster, K., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research
Methods, Instruments and Computers, 35(1), 116–124.
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T. (2017). Collocations in corpus-based language learning research: Identifying, com-
paring, and interpreting the evidence. Language Learning, 67(S1), 155–179.
Gibbs, R. W., & Gonzales, G. P. (1985). Syntactic frozenness in processing and remembering idioms. Cognition, 20(3), 243–
259.
Gibbs, R. W., Nayak, N. P., & Cutting, C. (1989). How to kick the bucket and not decompose: Analyzability and idiom pro-
cessing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(5), 576–593.
González Fernández, B., & Schmitt, N. (2015). How much collocation knowledge do L2 learners have? The effects of fre-
quency and amount of exposure. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 166(1), 94–126.
Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.),
Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications (pp. 145–160). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Granger, S. (2018) Formulaic sequences in learner corpora: Collocation and lexical bundles. In A. Siyanova-Chanturia &
Pellicer-Sanchez, A. (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective (pp. 228–246).
Routledge.
Gyllstad, H. (2007). Testing English collocations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lund University, Lund.
Howarth, A. P. (1998). Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 24–44.
Juffs, A. (2001). Psycholinguistically oriented second language research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 207–220.
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connec-
tions between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2), 149–174.
Laufer, B., & Waldman, T. (2011). Verb-noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners’ English.
Mackey, A. (2012). Why (or why not), when and how to replicate research? In G. Porte (Ed.), Replication research in applied
linguistics (pp. 21–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marinis, T. (2003). Psycholinguistic techniques in second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 19(2),
144–161.
Millar, N. (2011). The processing of malformed formulaic language. Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 129–148.
Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. John Benjamins.
Nguyen, T. M. H., & Webb, S. (2017). Examining second language receptive knowledge of collocation and factors that affect
learning. Language Teaching Research, 21(3), 298–320.
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Pellicer-Sánchez, A. (Eds.). (2018). Understanding formulaic language: A second language acqui-
sition perspective. London, New York: Routledge.
Siyanova, A., & Schmitt, N. (2008). L2 learner production and processing of collocation: A multi-study perspective. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 64(3), 429–458.
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2018) What on-line processing tells us about formulaic language. In
A. Siyanova-Chanturia & A. Pellicer-Sanchez (Eds.), pp. 38–61.
Sonbul, S. (2015). Fatal mistake, awful mistake, or extreme mistake? Frequency effects on off-line/on-line collocational pro-
cessing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(3), 419–437.
Wolter, B., & Gyllstad, H. (2011). Collocational links in the L2 mental lexicon and the influence of L1 intralexical knowledge.
Applied Linguistics, 32(4), 430–449.
Wolter, B., & Gyllstad, H. (2013). Frequency of input and L2 collocational processing: A comparison of incongruent and
incongruent collocations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(3), 451–482.
Wolter, B., & Yamashita, J. (2015). Processing collocations in a second language: A case of first language activation. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 36(5), 1193–1221.
Wolter, B., & Yamashita, J. (2018). Word frequency, collocational frequency, L1 congruency, and proficiency in L2 colloca-
tional processing: What accounts for L2 performance?. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(2), 395–416.
Wulff, S. (2018). Acquisition of formulaic language from a usage-based perspective. In A. Siyanova-Chanturia &
A. Pellicer-Sanchez (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective (pp. 19–37).
Yamashita, J., & Jiang, N. A. N. (2010). L1 influence on the acquisition of L2 collocations: Japanese ESL users and EFL lear-
ners acquiring English collocations. TESOL Quarterly, 44(4), 647–668.
Suhad Sonbul is Assistant Professor in the English Language Centre at Umm Al-Qura University. Her research interests
include vocabulary learning, formulaic language, and psycholinguistic measures. She has published in several refereed
journals including Language Learning and Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.
Anna Siyanova-Chanturia is Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics at Victoria University of Wellington. Anna’s research
looks at the acquisition, processing and use of vocabulary and multi-word expressions. Anna has published in Applied
Linguistics, Language Learning, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory and Cognition, Brain and Language, and other journals.
Cite this article: Sonbul, S., & Siyanova-Chanturia, A. (2021). Research on the on-line processing of collocation: Replication
of Wolter and Gyllstad (2011) and Millar (2011). Language Teaching, 54(2), 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0261444819000132
doi:10.1017/S0261444819000430
PLENARY SPEECHES
Coming of age: the past, present, and future of

quantitative SLA research
Susan Gass1,2*, Shawn Loewen2 and Luke Plonsky3
1
Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China, 2Michigan State University, East Lansing, United States and
3
Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, United States
*Corresponding author. E-mail: susangass@gmail.com
Abstract
First, we trace the history of second language acquisition (SLA) from early stages in the mid-twentieth
century to today. We next consider the status of the field in today’s research world with a particular
focus on all aspects of methodology and, finally, we take a look at the future and discuss issues related
to scientific rigor in light of Open Science.
Introduction
The field of second language (L2) research has undergone many changes in orientation as well as in
research design and elicitation techniques. In this paper we trace some of the history of SLA research.
We do this not from any particular research tradition; rather, we consider the changing criteria for
research in the field and look at those changing criteria as they parallel the establishment of the
field as a discipline in its own right. More specifically, the focus in the paper is on the development
of rigor in the field. In meeting this objective, we limit ourselves to quantitative research given our own
research experiences. We first consider how the development and establishment of the field parallels
an increased focus on research methods and analysis. This will be followed by a discussion of indica-
tors of current emphasis on rigor. We will close with a look at the future and how the field has posi-
tioned itself to move forward to ensure that our research results are ‘robust and unbiased,’ thereby
ensuring the stability and ultimate value of the field. In sum, we highlight where we have come
from, where we are now, and what the future directions in the field are with regard to increased sci-
entific responsibility. We recognize that new ideas require new tools for elicitation and for analysis.
Regardless of what those new tools are or will be in the future, and regardless of theoretical orientation,
the field can only thrive and develop if our research demonstrates rigor. And, it is our strong belief that
rigor in research crosses theoretical boundaries.
Rigor in scientific disciplines

Scientific rigor is the sine qua non in all areas of scientific inquiry. In a discussion of grant applica-
tions, the National Institutes of Health1 make the following comment about rigor:
the strict application of the scientific method to ensure robust and unbiased experimental design,
methodology, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of results. (https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2016/
01/28/scientific-rigor-in-nih-grant-applications/)
Revised version of a plenary presented at the Montpelier conference on Research Methodology in the Field of Second
Language Acquisition and Learning (30 May 2018).
© Cambridge University Press 2020
246 Susan Gass, Shawn Loewen, and Luke Plonsky
They go on to acknowledge that different disciplines will have their ‘own set of best practices or stan-
dards to achieve rigor.’ Nonetheless, whatever particular approach a field assumes as best practice, the
ultimate goal of research in any field is to understand how a particular research design and method
‘will achieve robust and unbiased results.’ Among the basic criteria are the use of appropriate statistics,
estimates of needed sample size, and designs that yield unambiguous results and that minimize poten-
tial threats to validity. In particular, ‘[r]obust and credible results are those obtained with methods
specifically designed to avoid bias, such as blinding, randomization, and prospectively defined exclu-
sion/inclusion criteria, to name a few.’ These issues are being debated and have taken center stage in all
areas of scientific inquiry, the field of SLA being no exception.
The history of the field is such that the recognition of SLA as something separate from other dis-
ciplines and, in particular, separate from language teaching has gone hand-in-hand with developing
rigor as well as with a focus on ensuring that we are skeptically and scientifically investigating con-
structs of interest. To understand our argument, it is first important to establish SLA as a discipline
that covers a body of knowledge recognizing and adhering to principles of scientific rigor. As noted by
Gass, Fleck, Leder, and Svetics (1998) ‘respect for the field…can come only through sound scientific
progress’ (p. 407).
In an important editorial statement from Byrnes (2013), the then editor of Modern Language
Journal raised the issue of the ‘methodological turn.’ In her words:
Methodological issues inherently merit a certain level of attention inasmuch as they assure the
quality of our work. But it appears that at this point in the development of applied linguistics,
they demand a kind of professional scrutiny that goes directly to the core of what we do and
what we know and what we can tell our publics that we know—and not only how we do it. (p. 825)
Along similar lines, Plonsky (2011) begins his dissertation with two assumptions: ‘Assumption 1:
Study quality matters. If the means by which researchers design, carry out, and report on their studies
lack in rigor or transparency, theory and practice are likely to be misguided or at least decelerated.
Assumption 2 is an implication of Assumption 1: Quality should be measured rather than assumed’
(Abstract). We return to current practices and issues related to study quality later in this paper.
The development of the discipline: a brief synopsis

As an initial step, it is important to understand the development of the field and the establishment of
SLA as an independent discipline. We will not go into detail, nor do we consider relevant to our argu-
ment what the beginning of the field is (see Gass et al., 1998 and Thomas, 1998 for discussions on this
issue). For purposes of this discussion, we take a somewhat arbitrary starting point of the 1960s or 1970s.
In Selinker (1972) we saw some of the early arguments regarding appropriate data on which to base con-
clusions about L2 learning (see Gass & Polio, 2014 for further elaboration). As further evidence of the
field’s founding, we might also point to events such as the emergence of doctoral programs and dedi-
cated journals (e.g., Studies in Second Language Acquisition) and conferences such as the Second
Language Research Forum (SLRF), which came into being at about this time, as we discuss below.
Whatever we take as the origins of the field, SLA grew out of concerns related to language teaching,
a discipline with an unquestionably long history. To wit, the title of Kelly’s (1969) book is: 25 centuries
of language teaching: 500 BC[E]–1969. His book treats topics of pedagogical interest, but also pays
some attention to language learning when he talks about what one needs to pay attention to when
designing a language course—the nature of language and what constitutes language learning.
Even prior to our arbitrary starting point of the 1960s/1970s, Lado (1957) and Fries in the foreword
to Lado’s book recognized the importance of understanding principles of language learning on which
language teaching materials should be based: ‘[t]he struggle to apply to the problems of foreign
language learning the new views of language arising out of “structural” analyses has served to shift
the focus of attention from methods and techniques of teaching to the basis upon which to build
these materials’ (Fries, 1957, no page indicated).
What we see is that the ultimate purpose of research into language learning in these earlier times
was to improve pedagogical approaches, tools, and methodologies. SLA was therefore subservient to
the discipline of language teaching in the sense that its existence depended on its value to another
field.
Even when the overt emphasis was on language learning, there was an underlying emphasis on
language teaching. In the late 1960s, the oldest journal dedicated to language learning (Language
Learning) published articles that were primarily pedagogical in orientation. Based on data from
Gass and Polio (2014), most papers in the five-year period from 1967 to 1972 dealt with language
pedagogy (40%) and only a small percentage (approximately 10%) was based on experimental data
analysis of language learning. In the six years following, there is a noticeable shift in orientation
with data analysis papers (approximately 46%) far exceeding pedagogically oriented papers (15%).
As reported in Gass and Polio (2014), this shift is likely due to the increased focus on learner data
rather than on teaching. They further argued that the shift in focus was likely due to the publication
of Selinker’s well-known 1972 Interlanguage paper. As was also reported in Gass and Polio (p. 152), at
that time, there was considerable discussion leading up to Selinker’s publication (particularly in
Edinburgh with S. Pit Corder, Larry Selinker, Elaine Tarone, and others) that stimulated a serious
look at learner data. In addition, perhaps a turning point comes from the division between the two
disciplines seen in Hatch’s (1979) important paper in which she warns us that we need to be mindful
of potential leaps in logic and warns us to ‘Apply with caution’ when we ‘apply research findings to
classroom teaching’ (p. 123).
Nonetheless, even as late as the 1990s, one could question whether we are dealing with one discip-
line or two separate ones. Scholars in each of the two disciplines continued to see themselves as
separate from one another, and professional organizations reflected the distance with debates about
the identity of professional organizations (see Gass, 2001). Approximately 20–25 years ago one
witnessed the fields of language teaching and language learning go their separate ways with the devel-
opment of journals (e.g., Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Second Language Research) and con-
ferences (e.g., SLRF, European SLA [EuroSLA], PacSLRF) focusing on issues of SLA, as separate from
language teaching. The argument that we put forward in this paper is that as SLA evolved into a
unique area of inquiry seeking to understand how second languages are learned without an emphasis
on how they are taught, the field itself also focused on its capacity to produce scientifically rigorous
research and thereby achieve respect as an independent discipline. Part of the respect comes from
an emphasis on the kind of research we do and the kind of analyses we undertake. Statistical trends
and an emphasis on research methods and design are strong indications of disciplinary sophistication
has also been echoed by others (Gass, 2001; Khany & Tazik, 2019; Lazaraton, 2005; Loewen & Gass,
2009; Plonsky, 2013; Plonsky & Gass, 2011).
Having made the argument of two separate disciplines, we do not intend to suggest that they are
unrelated. In fact, we would argue that the two disciplines feed one another and are relevant to one
another. One only has to look at the burgeoning field of Instructed SLA (e.g., Loewen & Sato, 2017
as well as the new journal Instructed Second Language Acquisition, established in 2017 and published
by Equinox) to understand the closeness of the two disciplines. What we do argue is that while the two
are relevant to one another, there may be aspects of each that are not. For example, for many working
within a generative SLA framework the main raison d’être for conducting SLA research is to under-
stand the nature of language and the human capacity for language. One further indication of the sep-
aration of the two is the fact that in early days of SLA research, it was common to have an ‘implications
for teaching’ section at the end of a paper. In today’s research climate, this is not so.
Khany and Tazik (2019) conducted an analysis of the content of ten journals over a nearly 30-year
period (1986–2015).2 Their database consisted of 4,079 studies. Table 1 gives an indication of the
research traditions3 that were covered, broken down by ten-year periods.
The first observation reflects the decrease in nonempirical studies over this time period. This
reflects earlier comments whereby we showed an increase over time of articles focusing on L2 data
analysis as opposed to articles focused on language pedagogy. A second observation reflects the
Table 1. Percentage of articles in four categories of research: 1986–2015 (adapted from Khany & Tazik, 2019, p. 60)
Years Nonempirical Quantitative Qualitative Mixed-Methods
1986–1995 40.73 39.15 19.57 0.55

1996–2005 12.06 64.23 21.58 2.13
2006–2015 4.53 40.21 41.75 13.50
Table 2. Classification of types of statistics in articles from 1986 to 2015 (expressed in %age) adapted from Khany and
Tazik (2019)
Years
Statistical Levels 1986–1995 1996–2005 2006–2015
Basic 79.39 72.36 60.92

Intermediate 14.70 19.12 26.12
Advanced 5.91 8.52 12.96
increased diversity in research types: qualitative research and mixed-methods research have increased
in the past decade and there is a balance between quantitative and qualitative research.
More germane to our argument of increased sophistication is the classification of types of statistics.
Khany and Tazik (2019) classified articles in their database using the Goodwin and Goodwin (1985)
classification scheme of basic, intermediate, advanced. Goodwin and Goodwin’s initial classification
considered articles only in one journal (American Educational Research Journal) over a five-year
period (1979–1983) in an effort to determine the degree to which graduate students were prepared
to read the educational literature. A brief summary of their categorization, as utilized by Khany
and Tazik, is given below:
• Basic
◦ Descriptive
◦ Pearson Correlation
◦ Chi-Square
◦ t-test
◦ One-way ANOVA
• Intermediate
◦ Univariate
◦ Nonparametric
• Advanced
◦ Multivariate analyses
In Table 2 we present the results of Khany and Tazik’s analysis.

As is clear, the percentage of articles at both the intermediate and advanced levels has increased
over the 30-year time period considered4 with a slight decrease in the percentage of articles using
only basic statistics.
In another attempt to determine statistical sophistication, Gass (2009) presented the results in
Figure 1 representing trends in SLA articles. The data are based on 1,411 articles appearing in four
journals whose focus is on L2 learning (Applied Linguistics, Language Learning, Second Language
Research, Studies in Second Language Acquisition). In her study, four categories were used to
Fig. 1 - Colour online, B/W in print
Figure 1. Trends in the use of statistics (%age)
determine statistical sophistication: articles with no statistics; articles with descriptive statistics only;
articles with single inferential statistics; and articles with multiple inferential statistics. Assuming stat-
istical use and sophistication as a measure of progress, we see that somewhere around the early 1990s
there is a shift where single and multiple inferential statistics are on the increase and articles with no
statistics and/or descriptive statistics only are on the decline.
The results from Plonsky (2014) also support this position. He examined the type and frequency of
statistical analyses from the 1990s into the 2000s. Using a sample of 606 studies published in Language
Learning and Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Plonsky found that the variety of statistical
analyses per study increased from the 1990s to the 2000s; the study also revealed greater use of a
number of more sophisticated analyses such as MANOVA and structural equation modeling.
The early 1990s represent an important time for SLA inasmuch as there is evidence that the field at
about this time shows signs of becoming an independent field not tied with language teaching. But per-
haps more important is that it was also a time when SLA was beginning to become normalized in the
sense that there was an independent body of accepted knowledge. Evidence for this assertion comes
from two main sources. First, at about this time the first textbooks appeared5 (Ellis, 1994; Gass &
Selinker, 1994; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1990). Second, a major conference dedicated to the discipline
of SLA (Second Language Research Forum) took on a national scope. When SLRF began in 1977, it
took place at one of two Los Angeles universities (UCLA and the University of Southern California,
both of which had a group of L2 researchers) even though participants came from outside of the imme-
diate area. In 1988, the University of Hawai’i hosted SLRF, but importantly for our purposes, after 1991,
the conference truly became a national (if not international) conference rather than a local California
one, with conferences being held over the next decade in Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, New York,
Arizona, and Canada. (see https://sites.google.com/site/secondlanguageresearchforum/home for a list of
all SLRF conference sites). A similar history can be presented showing the early 1990s as a period of
growth for SLA by looking at SLRF-type/SLA conferences around the world. PacSLRF held its first con-
ference in 1992 and, although not as regular, has held seven conferences in the Pacific area. Similarly, in
a different part of the world EuroSLA (European SLA) began hosting an annual conference in 1991
(Salzburg, Austria).
In sum, we have shown that the field of SLA has gone through a period of time when it was linked
(probably inextricably) to language teaching, to a time when there was an identity crisis as to its focus,
to a period when it showed signs (conferences, journals, books) of an independent discipline. This
development is paralleled by more advanced statistical approaches and measurements as an indication
of disciplinary rigor. In today’s world, we are concerned with issues that all sciences are faced with,
namely how our discipline can create results that are robust, credible, and reproducible. In fact, on
National Public Radio (NPR, a U.S.-based news organization) on May 20, 2018, the following inter-
view (www.npr.org/2018/05/20/612747674/magdalena-skipper-is-named-new-chief-of-nature) took
place between Lulu Garcia-Navarro from NPR and Magdalena Skipper, the new editor-in-chief of the
science journal Nature. Part of this interview is reproduced below.
Skipper: Science itself changes, and so the publishing of science needs to change and
evolve with it.
Garcia-Navarro: In what way?
Skipper: So, for example, right now scientists themselves are spending much more time
and thinking more carefully about how robust, credible and reproducible the
science is. And Nature…has actually led the way in helping scientists very
clearly state how research was done, how the data are being generated and…
Garcia-Navarro: Transparency.
Skipper: Transparency, indeed. Transparency to the process, transparency of the results
that leads scientists to make discoveries and come to their conclusions.
These are precisely the issues that our discipline is grappling with. The interview refers to science and
scientists. Some would argue that this is an appropriate term for SLA research. To wit, the journal
Studies in Second Language Acquisition has a submission category called ‘State of the Science’
which replaces the more common and earlier category ‘State of the Art’.
We turn next to a discussion of where we are now in terms of our trajectory toward becoming a
more methodologically mature and established discipline. In the final section, we address issues of
the future and what indications there are that we are concerned with the issues mentioned by
Skipper of robustness, credibility, and transparency.
The Present
We begin this section by noting, as was indicated earlier, that this paper was first presented at a
conference devoted to research methodology in the field of SLA. The very existence of the
Montpelier conference speaks to the current level of interest in research methods in the field.6
In 2011, Plonsky and Gass commented, ‘Although scarcely mentioned in SLA, a robust line of
research exists among other social sciences around the construct of study quality’ (p. 326), which
Plonsky (2014) defined as ‘(a) adherence to standards of contextually appropriate, methodological
rigor in research practices, and (b) transparent and complete reporting of such practices’ (p. 451).
The situation has changed some since 2011, and just two years later, Plonsky (2013) stated, ‘There
is no controversy over the necessity of rigorous quantitative methods to advance the field of SLA’
(p. 656). In that same year, Byrnes observed that the field was undergoing a methodological turn,
as we discussed earlier.
One of the clearest signs of the current interest in research methods in general, and quantitative
methods in particular, is the spate of recent publications on the topic. There are general methods
books, such as Mackey and Gass’s (2016) Second language research: Methodology and design, which
is now in its second edition, Paltridge and Phakiti’s (2015) Research methods in applied linguistics:
A practical guide, and Richards, Ross, and Seedhouse’s (2012) Research methods for applied language
studies: An advanced resource book for students. There is also a glossary of methodological terms by
Loewen and Plonsky (2015) titled An A to Z of Applied Linguistics methods, and in 2016, Riazi pub-
lished The Routledge encyclopedia of research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed methods research.
In addition to general research methods books, we also have discipline-specific books focused solely
on quantitative methods, such as Loerts, Lowie, and Seton’s (2019) Essential statistics for applied
linguistics: Using R or JASP. There is also Plonsky’s (2015a) edited volume Advancing quantitative
methods in second language research, which contains chapters on various inferential statistical analyses
that go beyond the more commonly used ones in our field. Another book that initially came out in
2010, but has a new edition, is Larson-Hall’s (2015) A guide to doing statistics in second language
research using SPSS and R. The first edition focused solely on SPSS, but the second edition now
includes instructions for using R as well.
And the flow of methods books shows no sign of stopping. A sampling of current work includes
Gudmestad and Edmonds’ (2018) edited volume Critical reflections on data in second language
acquisition, and Phakiti, De Costa, Plonsky and Starfield’s (2018) The Palgrave handbook of applied
linguistics research methodology.
In addition to these books, there are several special issues of journals, such as Language Learning’s
(2015) volume focusing specifically on quantitative analysis, as well as Applied Linguistics’ (2016) vol-
ume on innovation in research methods in applied linguistics. And, finally, there are numerous journal
articles on the topic of quantitative research methods. Several of the more recent and prominent ones
include Lindstromberg (2016) Inferential statistics in language teaching research: A review and ways
forward, Norouzian and Plonsky (2018) Eta- and partial eta-squared in L2 research: A cautionary
review and guide to more appropriate usage, Mizumoto and Plonsky (2016) R as a lingua franca:
Advantages of using R for quantitative research in applied linguistics, and a favorite of ours,
Al-Hoorie and Vitta’s (2019) The seven sins of L2 research: A review of 30 journals’ statistical quality
and their CiteScore, SJR, SNIP, JCR impact factors.7 Finally, Larson-Hall’s (2017) Moving beyond the
bar plot and the line graph to create informative and attractive graphics is a challenge to all of us to
improve our data visualization techniques.
While many of these articles provide guiding principles for conducting and reporting quantitative
analyses, there are an increasing number of journals that provide guidelines that authors must follow
in order to submit manuscripts. For example, Studies in Second Language Acquisition has a section on
quantitative research which states, among other things, a requirement for ‘completeness and transpar-
ency in quantitative data reporting practices.’ Language Learning has a page of submission require-
ments which specifically refers prospective authors to Norris, Plonsky, Ross, and Schoonen’s (2015)
Guidelines for reporting quantitative methods and results in primary research. TESOL Quarterly (a
journal which is focused on research that is relevant to or even feeds into teaching) very recently
updated its author submission guidelines on the journal’s website with reference in particular to stan-
dards for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method research (see also Mahboob et al., 2016). Prior
to this update, Brown (1991, 1992) served as important guidelines for researchers in both language
teaching and language learning.
In addition to the proliferation of publications on quantitative research methods, another sign of
increased interest is both seen in and draws on the growth of meta-analysis in the field. Plonsky’s bibli-
ography of meta-analyses and papers related to meta-analysis (https://lukeplonsky.wordpress.com/
bibliographies/meta-analysis/) includes over 300 references nearly all of which were published/
presented in the last 20 years. One major impetus for the proliferation of this type of research and the
scrutiny it often applies to different substantive domains is Norris and Ortega’s (2000) meta-analysis
on the effectiveness of L2 instruction. Not only did the authors introduce much of the field to the poten-
tial of meta-analysis as a set of techniques for synthesizing results across a large body of empirical evi-
dence, their study also called for ‘more rigorous practices for experimental and quasi-experimental
designs’ (p. 502), thereby calling researchers’ attention to a number of methodological issues.
In the years since the publication of Norris and Ortega (2000), meta-analytic techniques have been
applied widely as a means to both describe and evaluate L2 research methods. Research of this type,
often referred to as ‘methodological synthesis’, generally falls into one of two categories. The first
focuses on the research and reporting practices as observed in a particular substantive domain.
Examples of this type include methodological syntheses of research on L2 written feedback (Liu &
Brown, 2015), learner corpora (Paquot & Plonsky, 2017), task-based language production (Plonsky
& Kim, 2016), and computer-based interaction (Ziegler, 2016).
The other category of methodological syntheses looks across domains to examine the use of one or
more individual research techniques. Recent examples in this vein include Hashemi and Babaii’s (2013)
review of mixed-methods research; Marsden, Morgan-Short, Thompson, and Abugaber’s (2018) review
of replication research; Plonsky, Marsden, Crowther, Gass, and Spinner’s (in press) synthesis of the use
of judgment tasks; and Plonsky and Ghanbar’s (2018) synthesis of the use (and misuse) of multiple
regression in L2 research. In both types, the goal remains largely the same: to describe and evaluate
research and reporting practices as a means to provide empirically grounded recommendations for
future studies. Based on their findings, for example, Marsden et al. (2018) outline a set of 16 suggestions
for improving the culture and practice of replication research in applied linguistics.
Guidance from methodological synthesis on its own is, of course, not sufficient. In order for the
field to conduct and report quantitative studies appropriately, researchers need to be trained.
Several studies have looked at researchers’ statistical training and knowledge. For example, Loewen
et al. (2014) found that only 14% of doctoral students and 30% of professors felt that their statistical
training was adequate. In terms of statistical literacy, which Gonulal (2016) defines as ‘the ability to (a)
understand basic statistical terminology, (b) use statistic techniques appropriately, and (c) interpret
statistical analyses’ (p. 18), it is clear that there is a range of proficiency levels in the field.
However, statistics courses offered by SLA graduate programs do lead to students reporting greater
feelings of statistical self-efficacy (Gonulal, Loewen, & Plonsky, 2017). In a review of 14 graduate
program requirements, it was found that 40% required one quantitative research methods course,
while 21% required three courses. One program did not require any quantitative methods course.
In addition to classroom training, there are numerous workshops that researchers in the field can
avail themselves of. In recent years, the American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL) and
SLRF have held pre-conference workshops on both qualitative and quantitative methodology.
Furthermore, we are aware of three different summer schools, workshops, and ‘bootcamps’ that
have recently taken place, all devoted to research methods in applied linguistics.
Thus, it seems like it is a good time for someone to be interested in quantitative methodology in
applied linguistics and SLA research. There are advances currently underway in numerous directions.
The Future
We are encouraged by the progress that the field has made toward a greater awareness of and emphasis
on the importance of sound research methods. However, great strides are still needed in order for the
field to maximize its potential to inform our understanding of L2 learning, teaching, use, and assess-
ment. As an initial step, we would like to propose a definition of ‘study quality’ that expands upon a
traditional understanding of this term as research that is carried out according to standards of rigor
(e.g., appropriate design, valid instrumentation, justifiable analyses). This definition is useful, but it is
incomplete. Specifically, we would add that high quality research also possesses the following three
additional characteristics.
First, it is primarily concerned with estimating the magnitude of effects. Rather than seeking the
mere presence or absence of an effect or relationship, high quality research provides an indication
of the extent that such an effect or relationship is observed (Norris, 2015; Plonsky, 2015b).
Second, high quality research is transparent. Transparency can take many forms, but here we refer
in particular to researcher behaviors and practices following the completion of a study such as (a) hon-
est and thorough (as opposed to selective) reporting of results, and (b) making materials and data
available to other researchers for inspection and/or re-analysis (for a discussion on data sharing,
see Plonsky, Egbert, & LaFlair, 2015).
The third characteristic we would add to our definition is that of reproducibility. In order to con-
sider a particular study to be of high quality, its findings should be able to be reproduced. Part of
ensuring quality in this case involves the previous notion of transparency; any lack of critical proced-
ural details therefore poses a threat. Reproducibility, however, also implies a degree of stability and
accuracy such that a study’s findings could reasonably be expected to replicate given a comparable
sample.
Drawing on this expanded definition, and building on the developments that we have outlined thus
far, we would like to describe what we see as five directions for the field’s continued use and advance-
ment of quantitative methods.
Open science
The place and value of open science practices is closely linked with the notion of transparency
described above (see Marsden & Plonsky, 2018). However, open science is also manifested in many
different ways. For example, we envision and hope to see the field move toward more thorough report-
ing of quantitative data. Doing so not only increases the meta-analyzability of primary studies
(Larson-Hall & Plonsky, 2015), it also allows consumers to better understand, interpret, and evaluate
the studies they read. As stated by the American Statistical Association (Wasserstein & Lazar, 2016),
‘Proper inference requires full reporting and transparency’ (p. 131).
Practicing open science goes well beyond thorough reporting of data. It is critical that we also foster
a culture of collaboration in which researchers share and make available their materials on repositories
such as IRIS (https://www.iris-database.org/iris/app/home/index;jsessionid=08652A75E8B0264C36
BD0DE5C28E1E56). Such efforts increase field-wide efficiency, facilitate replicability, and support
researcher training, among other benefits (Marsden, Mackey, & Plonsky, 2016).
Replication
A second direction we hope to see the field taking is toward increased replication. As revealed very clearly
in Marsden et al.’s (2018) synthesis, a very small portion of L2 research to date has had an explicitly
declared interest in replicating previous findings. Part of the lack of such studies may be due to a number
of misconceptions about the place and value of replication research. Anecdotally, it is our experience that
many scholars continue to devalue replication studies due to their lack of novelty (cf. discussion in Porte
& McManus, 2019, p. 4). Others hold the mistaken view of replication research primarily as a means to
challenge or find fault in an existing study. This kind of self-correction is certainly part of the scientific
process, but it is rarely the main goal. Rather, replication studies are more appropriately viewed as a
means to (a) refine results and test their generalizability (e.g., for different populations, target structures,
settings; see Plonsky, 2012); (b) arrive at more stable conclusions which are often difficult to obtain based
on the small samples typical of L2 research; and (c) teach/learn how to conduct a study (see Porte &
McManus, 2019, for a practical guide to conducting replication research).
In addition to these meaningful contributions, we would also note that replication research can
entail a number of other benefits for scholars. For example, Marsden et al. (2018) found that replica-
tions tend to be cited approximately six times more often than nonreplication studies. Furthermore, in
recognition of the value of replication research, the tenure and promotion guidelines of American
Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL, n.d.) now urge annual review committees to consider
‘high quality replication studies…on par with nonreplication-oriented studies.’ We very much hope
and expect that these rationales will encourage an increase in replication research in the field.
Improving and advancing statistical analyses

We have generally seen two types of advances taking place in the field’s quantitative analyses:
improved use of familiar techniques such as multiple regression (Plonsky & Oswald, 2017) and the
introduction of novel techniques such as bootstrapping, and Bayesian data analysis (Larson-Hall &
Herrington, 2010; Norouzian, de Miranda, & Plonsky, 2018). As we continue on the path toward
methodological improvement, we anticipate further growth in both of these two areas.
One potentially fruitful avenue for introducing new techniques involves opening ourselves to the
work of colleagues in other departments such as psychology or economics, both of which have long-
standing traditions of methodological expertise and sophistication. To be clear, we are not arguing for
technification for the sake of technification. In some cases, however, more advanced statistical modeling
can lead to insights that cannot be accessed using simpler or more traditional analyses (see Brown, 2015).
Methodological expertise, training, and research

In order for the improvements in statistical analyses and other research practices described here to take
place, more education is certainly needed (Gonulal, forthcoming). Training of this type will most likely
and most often occur in formal settings such as graduate coursework and organized workshops.
However, the curricular changes needed to advance the field in this way will require foresight and
planning on the part of graduate faculties. Given the potential tension between the desire to include
such classes and associated staffing challenges, we would encourage graduate programs to, once again,
allow if not encourage students to take classes in other departments where greater expertise can be
found. Students can then share what they have learned with their home departments and in the
form of conference papers and published articles that demonstrate how novel and perhaps more
nuanced techniques might be applied to L2 research.
Wherever methodological training takes place, we encourage students as well as more established
scholars to develop methodological specialties, both for their own work as well as for the betterment of
the field. Of course, this assumes that critical thinking skills and the ability to critically read the lit-
erature form the basis of all graduate education. These skills are precursors to methodological training.
We envision a future in which L2 researchers identify not only as having expertise in substantive
domains but as experts in one or more methodological techniques as well.
Expanding the role of journals and learned societies

Many of the changes and advances we have discussed thus far require action on the part of individual
researchers. Improvements can—and, we would argue, should—also occur in a kind of ‘top-down’
fashion. One example of top-down reform can be observed in the requirement that many journals
have instated to report effect sizes. Following Ellis’s (2000) editorial announcing this change in policy,
a move since taken up by virtually all major applied linguistics journals, the reporting of effect sizes
has greatly increased (see Plonsky & Oswald, 2014; Rining, Hu, & Xiong, 2019). But there is certainly
more that can be done.
Journals can continue to refine their guidelines and to insist on methodological quality. We believe
that researchers will rise to the occasion. Journals can also dedicate space for the discussion of meth-
odological issues.
We would also encourage a greater role from learned societies such as AAAL and EuroSLA.
There are currently no field-specific standards that apply to all of applied linguistics. Norris et al.’s
(2015) guidelines are useful and represent a strong start, but they pertain only to quantitative L2
research.
Professional organizations might also consider weighing in on curricular issues. It is not unreason-
able to expect that AAAL could provide guidance to graduate programs with respect to what might be
expected for methodological training. Here, too, we can turn to other more established disciplines that
might serve as models. The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Division 14 of the
American Psychological Association), for instance, recently published a set of guidelines for graduate
education which include a clear description of methodological and statistical topics to be covered
(Gibson, Payne, Morgan, & Allen, 2018).
Conclusion
We have shown in this paper that the empirical methods employed in L2 research have undoubtedly
advanced since the field’s inception. The increased attention to methodological issues observed in
recent years should inspire greater confidence in our understanding of the constructs and relationships
of interest to SLA. However, as demonstrated by the growing body of methodological syntheses,
improvements are needed across a wide range of substantive and methodological domains. And the
stakes are high. By dismissing or overlooking weak designs and inappropriate analyses, for example,
we run the risk of committing massive inefficiencies, misinforming practitioners, and losing credibility
among our peers in other social sciences. At the same time, we have good reason to be optimistic. As
we have laid out in the final section of this paper, a future of continued methodological reform and
improvement in SLA is within reach.
Notes
1
A U.S. agency responsible for health, biomedical, and public health research.
2
Foreign Language Annals, System, Applied Psycholinguistics, Applied Linguistics, Language Learning, Modern Language
Journal, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, TESOL Quarterly Language Teaching, Language Testing. Unfortunately,
their mix of journals includes journals reflecting both language teaching and language learning and one dealing with language
testing. There is no way to separate which data come from which journal. Nonetheless, we feel that these data give us an
indication of the role of article types and statistical usage in all of the fields covered by these ten journals.
3
The authors did not define their categories. We assume that nonempirical studies include, for example, theoretical treatises.
Quantitative and mixed-methods studies include some sort of statistical analysis, with the latter also including qualitative
descriptions of data. Qualitative studies only include qualitative descriptions with no statistical analyses.
4
Clearly, we cannot become too complacent. Lindstromberg (2016), in a survey of the first 19 volumes of Language Teaching
Research (through 2015), reminds us that there is still a limited range of statistics used, small sample sizes, and frequently
there is no indication of effect sizes.
5
Prior to this time, courses in SLA (when they existed) relied on readings and did not have the benefit of received knowledge
in one location, as is provided by textbooks.
6
The current interest in methodology is further evidenced by another conference with similar themes: Georgetown
University Round Table in 2012, which was titled Measured Language: Quantitative Approaches to Acquisition,
Assessment, Processing, and Variation. A second important innovation is the recent addition of a research methods strand
at the annual AAAL meeting.
7
The sins include (1) not reporting reliability, (2) not discussing validity, (3) making inferences from descriptive statistics,
(4) incomplete reporting, including nonsignificant results, (5) not reporting effect sizes, (6) not adjusting for multiple
comparisons, and (7) not reporting assumption checks.
References
Al-Hoorie, A., & Vitta, J. (2019). The seven sins of L2 research: A review of 30 journals’ statistical quality and their CiteScore,
SJR, SNIP, JCR impact factors. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 727–744. doi:10.1177/1362168818767191
American Association for Applied Linguistics. (n.d.). Promotion and Tenure Guidelines. Retrieved 22 May, 2019 www.aaal.
org/promotion-and-tenure-guidelines
Brown, J. D. (1991). Statistics as a foreign language, part 1: What to look for in reading statistical language studies. TESOL
Quarterly, 25(4), 569–586.
Brown, J. D. (1992). Statistics as a foreign language, part 2: More things to consider in reading statistical language studies.
TESOL Quarterly, 26(4), 629–664.
Brown, J. D. (2015). Why bother with learner advanced quantitative methods in L2 research. In L. Plonsky (Ed.), Advancing
quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 9–20). New York, NY: Routledge.
Byrnes, H. (2013). Notes from the editor. Modern Language Journal, 97(4), 825–827. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12051.x
Ellis, N. C. (2000). Editorial statement. Language Learning, 50(3), xi–xiii.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Fries, C. (1957). Foreword to Linguistics across cultures (Lado). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Gass, S. (2001). Changing views of language learning. In H. Trappes-Lomax (Ed.), BAAL Proceedings. Multilingual Matters.
Change and continuity in applied linguistics (pp. 51–67). British Studies in Applied Linguistics 15.
Gass, S. (2009). A survey of SLA research. In W. Ritchie, & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of SLA (pp. 3–28). Bingley, UK:
Emerald.
Gass, S., Fleck, C., Leder, N., & Svetics, I. (1998). Ahistoricity revisited: Does SLA have a history? Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 20(3), 407–421.
Gass, S., & Polio, C. (2014). Methodological Influences of Interlanguage (1972): Data then and data now. In Z.-H. Han, &
E. Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage 40 years later (pp. 147–171). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (1994). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gibson, J. L., Payne, S. C., Morgan, W. B., & Allen, J. A. (2018). The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology's
guidelines for education and training: An executive summary of the 2016/2017 revision. American Psychologist, 73(5),
678–682.
Gonulal, T. (2016). Statistical literacy among second language acquisition graduate students (Ph.D. dissertation). Michigan
State University.
Gonulal, T. (forthcoming). Statistical knowledge and training in second language acquisition: The case of doctoral students.
ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics.
Gonulal, T., Loewen, S., & Plonsky, L. (2017). The development of statistical literacy in applied linguistics graduate students.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 168(1), 4–32.
Goodwin, L. D., & Goodwin, W. L. (1985). An analysis of statistical techniques used in the Journal of Educational Psychology,
1979-1983. Educational Psychologist, 20(1), 13–21.
Gudmestad, A., & Edmonds, A. (Eds.). (2018). Critical reflections on data in second language acquisition. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Hashemi, M. R., & Babaii, E. (2013). Mixed methods research: Toward new research designs in applied linguistics. Modern
Language Journal, 97(4), 828–852. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12049.x
Hatch, E. (1979). Apply with caution. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2(1), 123–143.
Kelly, L. G. (1969). 25 centuries of language teaching: 500 BC[E]-1969. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Khany, R., & Tazik, K. (2019). Levels of statistical use in applied linguistics research articles: From 1986-2015. Journal of
Quantitative Linguistics, 26(1), 48–65. doi:10.1080/09296174.2017.1421498
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1990). An introduction to second language research. London, UK: Longman.
Larson-Hall, J. (2015). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS and R. New York, NY: Routledge.
Larson-Hall, J. (2017). Moving beyond the bar plot and the line graph to create informative and attractive graphics. Modern
Language Journal, 101(1), 244–270.
Larson-Hall, J., & Herrington, R. (2010). Improving data analysis in second language acquisition by utilizing modern devel-
opments in applied statistics. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 368–390.
Larson-Hall, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). Reporting and interpreting quantitative research findings: What gets reported and
recommendations for the field. Language Learning, 65(Supp. 1), 127–159.
Lazaraton, A. (2005). Quantitative research methods. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language learning
(pp. 209–224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lindstromberg, S. (2016). Inferential statistics in Language Teaching Research: A review and ways forward. Language Teaching
Research, 20(6), 741–768.
Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81.
Loerts, H., Lowie, W., & Seton, B. (2019). Essential statistics for applied linguistics: Using R for JASP. London, UK: MacMillan.
Loewen, S., & Gass, S. (2009). Research timeline: Statistical rigor in SLA. Language Teaching, 42(2), 181–196.
Loewen, S., Lavolette, E., Spino, S., Papi, M., Schmidtke, J., Sterling, S., & Wolff, D. (2014). Statistical literacy among applied
linguists and second language acquisition researchers. TESOL Quarterly, 48(2), 360–388.
Loewen, S., & Plonsky, L. (2015). An A-Z of applied linguistics research methods. New York, NY: Palgrave.
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2017). The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2016). Second language research: Methodology and Design. New York, NY: Routledge.
Mahboob, A., Paltridge, B., Phakiti, A., Wagner, E., Starfield, S., Burns, A., … De Costa, P. (2016). TESOL Quarterly research
guidelines. TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 42–65.
Marsden, E., Mackey, A., & Plonsky, L. (2016). Breadth and depth: The IRIS repository. In A. Mackey, & E. Marsden (Eds.),
Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS repository of instruments for research into second languages (pp. 1–21).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Marsden, E., Morgan-Short, K., Thompson, S., & Abugaber, D. (2018). Replication in second language research:
Narrative and systematic reviews and recommendations for the field. Language Learning, 68(2), 321–391. doi:10.1111/
lang.12286
Marsden, E., & Plonsky, L. (2018). Data, open science, and methodological reform in second language acquisition research. In
A. Gudmestad, & A. Edmonds (Eds.), Critical reflections on data in second language acquisition (pp. 219–228).
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Mizumoto, A., & Plonsky, L. (2016). R as a lingua franca: Advantages of using R for quantitative research in applied linguistics.
Norouzian, R., de Miranda, M. A., & Plonsky, L. (2018). The Bayesian revolution in second language research: An applied
approach. Language Learning, 68(4), 1032–1075.
Norouzian, R., & Plonsky, L. (2018). Eta- and partial eta-squared in L2 research: A cautionary review and guide to more
appropriate usage. Second Language Research, 34(2), 257–271.
Norris, J. M. (2015). Statistical significance testing in second language research: Basic problems and suggestions for reform.
Language Learning, 65(Supp. 1), 97–126.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis.
Norris, J. M., Plonsky, L., Ross, S. J., & Schoonen, R. (2015). Guidelines for reporting quantitative methods and results in
primary research. Language Learning, 65(2), 470–476.
Paltridge, B., & Phakiti, A. (2015). Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical guide. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
Paquot, M., & Plonsky, L. (2017). Quantitative research methods and study quality in learner corpus research. International
Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 3(1), 61–94. doi:10.1075/ijlcr.3.1.03paq
Phakiti, A., De Costa, P. I., Plonsky, L., & Starfield, S. (2018). The Palgrave handbook of applied linguistics research method-
ology. New York, NY: Palgrave.
Plonsky, L. (2011). Study quality in SLA: A cumulative and developmental assessment of designs, analyses, reporting practices,
and outcomes in quantitative L2 research (Ph.D. dissertation). Michigan State University.
Plonsky, L. (2012). Replication, meta-analysis, and generalizability. In G. Porte (Ed.), Replication research in applied linguistics
(pp. 116–132). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Plonsky, L. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2
research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(4), 655–687. doi:10.1017/S0272263113000399
Plonsky, L. (2014). Study quality in quantitative L2 research (1990–2010): A methodological synthesis and call for reform.
Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 450–470.
Plonsky, L. (2015a). Advancing quantitative methods in second language research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Plonsky, L. (2015b). Statistical power, p values, descriptive statistics, and effect sizes: A ‘back-to-basics’ approach to advancing
quantitative methods in L2 research. In L. Plonsky (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research
(pp. 23–45). New York, NY: Routledge.
Plonsky, L., Egbert, J., & LaFlair, G. T. (2015). Bootstrapping in applied linguistics: Assessing its potential using shared data.
Applied Linguistics, 36(5), 591–610. doi:10.1093/applin/amu001
Plonsky, L., & Gass, S. (2011). Study quality in interactionist research. Language Learning, 61(2), 325–366.
Plonsky, L., & Ghanbar, H. (2018). Multiple regression in L2 research: A methodological synthesis and guide to interpreting
R 2 values. Modern Language Journal, 102(4), 713–731.
Plonsky, L., & Kim, Y. (2016). Task-based learner production: A substantive and methodological review. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 36, 73–97.
Plonsky, L., Marsden, E., Crowther, D., Gass, S., & Spinner, P. (in press). A methodological synthesis and meta-analysis of
judgment tasks in second language research. Second Language Research. doi:10.1177/0267658319828413
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4),
878–912.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2017). Multiple regression as a flexible alternative to ANOVA in L2 research. Studies in Second
Porte, G., & McManus, K. (2019). Doing replication research in applied linguistics. New York, NY: Routledge.
Riazi, A. Z. (2016). The Routledge Encyclopedia of research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
methods research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Richards, K., Ross, S., & Seedhouse, P. (2012). Research methods for applied language studies: An advanced resource book for
students. London, UK: Routledge.
Rining, W., Hu, Y., & Xiong, J. (2019). Effect size reporting practices in applied linguistics research: A study of one major
journal. SAGE Open, 1–11.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 209–231.
Thomas, M. (1998). Programmatic ahistoricity in second language acquisition theory. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 20(3), 387–405.
Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA’s statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. The American
Statistician, 70, 129–133.
Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second
Susan Gass is Professor in the School of Foreign Languages at Southeast University in Nanjing, China and University
Distinguished Professor in the Second Language Studies Program at Michigan State University. She has published more
widely in the field of SLA, including books on research methods (Data elicitation for second and foreign language research
and Second language research: Methodology and design), both published by Routledge and co-authored with Alison Mackey.
Many of her books/articles have been translated into Arabic, Chinese, Korean, and Russian. She has lectured in many parts of
the globe and is the recipient of numerous local, national, and international awards. She has held leadership positions at her
university and has also served as the President of the AAAL and the International Association of Applied Linguistics. She is
the current editor of Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
Shawn Loewen (Ph.D., University of Auckland) is Professor at Michigan State University in the MATESOL and Second
Language Studies programs. He also serves as director of the Second Language Studies program. His research interests include
instructed SLA, L2 interaction, and quantitative research methodology. In particular, his current interests include the link
between SLA research and researchers, on the one hand, and second language teachers and pedagogy on the other. In add-
ition to publishing in leading SLA journals, he has co-authored two books, Key concepts in second language acquisition (with
Reinders, 2009), and An A-Z of applied linguistics research methods (with Plonsky, 2016). His sole authored book,
Introduction to instructed second language acquisition, appeared in 2015, and the co-edited The Routledge handbook of
instructed second language acquisition (with Sato) was published in 2017. In 2018, he became the associate editor of
Modern Language Journal.
Luke Plonsky is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at Northern Arizona University, where he teaches courses in
second language acquisition and research methods. Recent and forthcoming publications in these and other areas can be
found in Applied Linguistics, Language Learning, and Modern Language Journal, among many other journals and volumes.
He has also written and edited several books. Luke is Senior Associate Editor of Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
Managing Editor of Foreign Language Annals, Co-Editor of de Gruyter Mouton’s Series on Language Acquisition, and
Co-Director of the IRIS repository for instruments in language learning and teaching (iris-database.org). Luke held previous
faculty appointments at Georgetown University and University College London. He has also taught in Japan,
The Netherlands, Poland, Puerto Rico, and Spain. Luke received his Ph.D. in Second Language Studies from Michigan
State University.
Cite this article: Gass, S., Loewen, S., & Plonsky, L. (2021). Coming of age: the past, present, and future of quantitative SLA
research. Language Teaching, 54(2), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000430
doi:10.1017/S0261444820000245
PLENARY SPEECH
Data-driven learning – a call for a broader research gaze

Anne O’Keeffe
Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick, Ireland
Email: anne.okeeffe@mic.ul.ie
1. Introduction
Over the last three decades, data-driven learning (DDL) has been widely championed by those of us
who see the exciting opportunities that it can bring to the language learner. From the initial days of
DDL, there has been a sense of enthusiasm about turning language learners into researchers who will
embrace language discovery (Johns, 1986; Barlow, 1996; Tribble & Jones, 1997). We have believed that,
as Pérez-Paredes (2010) puts it, the methods of research in corpus linguistics can be transferred to the
language classroom by turning linguists’ analytical procedures into a pedagogically relevant tool to
increase both learners’ awareness of and sensitivity to patterns of language while also enhancing lan-
guage learning strategies. Pedagogically core to DDL is the aim of fostering the INDEPENDENT acquisition
of language knowledge (lexis, grammatical constructions, collocations, and so on). Within the ethos of
DDL, learners are encouraged, in inductive processes, to DISCOVER patterns of language. It is widely
claimed that such an endeavour aims to foster more complex cognitive processes such as making infer-
ences and forming hypotheses (O’Sullivan, 2007; Lee, Warschauer, & Lee, 2019).
It is fair to say that the early enthusiasm was counter-balanced by some words of caution. Leech
(1997, p. 5) observed that while research is a natural extension of teaching and enables the learner
to explore, investigate, generalize and test hypotheses, ‘it does not itself initiate or direct the path of
learning’. Leech saw this as part of the teacher’s role. Widdowson (1991, p. 20ff.), referring to corpus
insights, argued that ‘[s]uch analysis provides us with facts, hitherto unknown, or ignored, but they do
not themselves carry any guarantee of pedagogic relevance’. Authors such as Römer (2006), Tribble
(2008) and Pérez-Paredes (2010) have pointed to the need to find a plausible way of moving DDL
from a research-oriented process suited to university settings (where learners analyse, hypothesize
and discover language) to one with a broader pedagogical application and theoretical underpinning.
As Römer (2006, p. 129) noted, a lot still remains to be done before arriving at the point where it
can be said that ‘corpora have actually arrived in language pedagogy’.
Over a decade ago, while the late Stig Johansson lauded the potential of DDL for enhancing lan-
guage learning because of the parallels between the natural processes of language acquisition and the
processes involved in hypothesizing about language in DDL, he also called for a greater connection
between DDL and second language acquisition (SLA) research (Johansson, 2009). Johansson foresaw
connections that could be made with ongoing SLA work on attention and awareness as well as con-
cepts such as INPUT ENHANCEMENT. Unfortunately, few of the many worthwhile DDL studies over the
years have engaged with SLA theory and indeed few SLA studies have sought out DDL as a means
of exploring their hypotheses. In this plenary paper, I wish to make a case for a broadening in our
research gaze. Firstly, I want to look closely at the pedagogical and theoretical underpinnings of
DDL. These are often inter-connected with SLA but under-explored by both DDL and SLA research-
ers. I want to focus on the question of how and where DDL fits within current SLA models and
debates. And underlying all of this, I want to address why, as DDL advocates and enthusiasts, we
should care about these issues. In summary, I will argue that while there has been a number of helpful
Revised version of a plenary address given at the 13th Teaching and Language Corpora Conference, University of
Cambridge, UK, 19 July, 2018.
260 Anne O’Keeffe
meta-analyses, reflections and reviews of ongoing DDL work across many variables, there has been a
dearth of focus on the learning theories that underpin DDL and on how this approach might
inter-relate with SLA theories and vice versa. I will also argue that DDL is well-placed to be part of
experimental research that could lead to cutting-edge insights into the cognitive processes of language
learning and enhance ongoing SLA debates, especially in relation to implicit and explicit learning pro-
cesses. Before we look at these issues, let us briefly summarize where the current meta-studies have
brought us to in terms of our aggregated understanding of DDL.
2. An overview of overviews of DDL

As Boulton and Cobb (2017) note, DDL is a flourishing field and it is fair to say that there has been no
shortage of empirical DDL research, as well as many reviews, syntheses and meta-studies (see
Chambers, 2007; Boulton, 2012; Boulton & Pérez-Paredes, 2014; Cobb & Boulton, 2015; Mizumoto
& Chujo, 2015; Boulton & Cobb, 2017; Vyatkina & Boulton, 2017; Lee et al., 2019). All of these
point to the value of DDL and meta-studies show a positive effect size overall (Cobb & Boulton,
2015; Mizumoto & Chujo, 2015; Boulton & Cobb, 2017; Lee et al., 2019). Studies illustrate an undying
enthusiasm and express a conviction about the worthiness of DDL as an aid to learning, as well as an
aspiration that it should become more mainstream. Recurring issues emerge within these meta-studies
and for the most part, classroom-based studies have served to greatly inform these, as the main
meta-studies show:
• What is the best DDL interaction type: learners engaging in hands-on computer-based processes
or using pre-prepared print-outs of selected concordances?
• What is the most suited level of proficiency required for successful DDL? Is it best suited to lear-
ners at an intermediate level of proficiency, and above?
• What is the best type of corpus data to use: locally curated corpora or publicly available data?
• What is the degree of learner training required to ensure successful learning outcomes?
• In which context does DDL work best: general ELT, ESL, EFL, EAP1 or specialized university
programmes or settings?
• Is DDL best suited to certain teaching points: vocabulary, grammar, lexicogrammar, text-awareness
or discourse level items?
Boulton and Cobb (2017, p. 386), whose meta-study analysed 64 empirical studies, concluded that
DDL seems to be ‘most appropriate in foreign language contexts for undergraduates as much as grad-
uates, for intermediate levels as much as advanced, for general as much as specific/academic purposes,
for local as much as large corpora, for hands-on concordancing as much as for paper-based explor-
ation, for learning as much as reference, and particularly for vocabulary and lexicogrammar’. They
note that many of these findings go against common perceptions and they arrive at the ‘surprising
and possibly encouraging conclusion that DDL works pretty well in almost any context where it
has been extensively tried’ (Boulton & Cobb, 2017, p. 39).
Taking a different focus and using a different methodology to correlate their meta-study, Lee et al.
(2019) looked at 29 studies, concentrating only on the effect of corpus use on second language (L2)
vocabulary learning. They reported that their ‘meta-analysis showed a medium-sized effect on L2
vocabulary learning, with the greatest benefits for promoting in-depth knowledge to learners who
have at least intermediate L2 proficiency’ (Lee et al., 2019, p. 25). As with Boulton and Cobb
(2017), they found a positive effect size for learners from intermediate level upwards, but they warn
that their finding is based on very limited data: there were only four effect sizes coming from one
unique sample for high proficiency levels. Slightly varying with Boulton and Cobb (2017), they
1
ELT = English language teaching; ESL = English for speakers of other languages; EFL = English as a foreign language;
EAP = English for academic purposes.
found that corpus use was more effective when the concordance lines were purposefully curated for
learners and when learning materials were given along with hands-on corpus-use opportunities
(though it is noted that they were not comparing like-with-like as they were only focusing on vocabu-
lary and were using a different quantitative approach to calculate effect size). Lee et al. (2019) also
report that corpus use was effective for vocabulary learning even without prior training, regardless
of the corpus type or the duration of a given intervention.
In summary, encoded within many of the key works on DDL has been a strongly held belief in,
enthusiasm for and evidence of the benefits of DDL by those who use it. It is seen to enhance learning
through the active and independent approach that underpins it. However, I make a call for DDL
researchers to broaden their research gaze so as to inform the debates within the field of instructed
SLA. By doing so, researchers will be opened up to more refined outcome variables in classroom-based
research. A broader focus will also provide opportunities for experimental research work within DDL
through engagement with SLA researchers. As a first step in broadening our research base, let us consider
the lack of robust definition of the theoretical underpinnings of DDL as a pedagogical approach in itself.
3. DDL and theories of learning

3.1 Constructivism and DDL
As noted by Cobb (1999) CONSTRUCTIVISM can provide theoretical support for corpus use. When we
think of constructivism (a term linked to educational psychology, and derived from psychology),
we think of processes and concepts such as: induction, inference, hypothesizing, learner-centredness
and discovery learning. It is fair to say that from the outset, we have lauded such constructivist ideals
in DDL. Johns (1994, p. 297), for instance, sought to ‘cut out the middleman as far as possible’ so as to
give direct access to the corpus data and thus allow learners to build up their own profiles of meaning
and use. We saw corpus data as offering ‘a unique resource for the stimulation of inductive learning
strategies – in particular the strategies of perceiving similarities and differences and of hypothesis for-
mation and testing’ (Johns, 1994, p. 297). In its purest form then, we saw DDL as open discovery
rather than a teacher-curated or -mediated focus on language input. In this sense, the aim is that
the learner will discover as salient (i.e. notice as relevant to them) any new language input, based
on their own FREE-RANGE explorations. Increased and intensive exposure to linguistic input through
DDL is seen as increasing the likelihood of a given linguistic item becoming noticed by a learner
(Cobb, 1997, 1999; Collentine, 2000; Flowerdew, 2015). The long-held and widespread consensus is
that the core pedagogical benefit of DDL lies in its potential to encourage learners to construct
their L2 knowledge independently by exploring the linguistic data from corpus input (Johns, 1994;
Cobb, 1999; Flowerdew, 2015; Lee et al., 2019). The associative link to constructivism is seen as a peda-
gogical hallmark for DDL.
Constructivist pedagogies are process-oriented, meaning that learners engage in tasks that draw
upon and activate higher-order cognitive skills that are associated with inductive learning. As
O’Sullivan (2007, p. 277) speculates, DDL is LIKELY to draw on and refine cognitive skills such as: ‘pre-
dicting, observing, noticing, thinking, reasoning, analysing, interpreting, reflecting, exploring, making
inferences (inductively or deductively), focusing, guessing, comparing, differentiating, theorizing,
hypothesizing, and verifying’. However, this link between DDL and the application of higher-order
cognitive skills has seldom been tested, leaving open the possibility of logical fallacy. This point
has not gone unnoticed by some of the main researchers of DDL. Boulton (2012, p. 86) put it
starkly: ‘ …it is notable that much of the research to date focuses on targets that are easy to measure
in a highly controlled experimental environment – short-term learning outcomes in vocabulary and
lexico-grammar, as well as error correction and Likert-scale questionnaires of learner attitudes, etc.’.
Additionally, Boulton notes that while such studies undoubtedly provide some valuable insights,
‘there is a notable dearth of studies looking at the major advantages that are generally attributed to
DDL’ (2012, p. 86), including its long-term effects on learner autonomy, responsibility, life-long learn-
ing, constructivism, cognitive and metacognitive development, among other areas listed in Boulton
262 Anne O’Keeffe
(2012, p. 86). Essentially, while independent discovery learning is (rightly) much lauded in DDL work,
the specific nature of this learning is under-explored and rarely critiqued.
Constructivism and DDL have been investigated in terms of the benefits for vocabulary learning,
retention and transferability through delayed post-tests (cf. Cobb, 1997, 1999). Such studies attempt
to explore the nature of vocabulary learning. These studies add weight to the benefits of computer-
based learning of vocabulary, and related patterns, over more transmissive definitional learning of
vocabulary (see Cobb & Boulton, 2015, for an overview).
Albeit small in scale, Chang (2012) is one of a small number of studies that examines the types of
cognitive skills with which DDL actually engages. This study, involving seven doctoral students, eval-
uated a web-based corpus interface developed to enhance authorial stance. One of the research goals
sought to investigate whether the tool fostered a constructivist environment which would prompt lear-
ners to infer linguistic patterns so as to attain deeper understanding. Chang found that the application
of higher-order skills, such as inference, was infrequent and reported that users deployed more lower-
level cognitive skills such as making sense and exploring as their main learning processes. Studies such
as Todd (2001) and Gabel (2001) also attempted, through quasi-experimental methods, to explore and
measure learners’ ability to induce rules and self-correct. While both report positive results and cor-
relations, as Papp (2007) notes, neither study’s research design captured students’ ability to induce pat-
terns and self-correct (see also Pérez-Paredes, Sánchez-Tornel, & Alcaraz Calero, 2012).
Constructivism is not an educational panacea. Over the years, there have been many critics of it.
However, apart from some notable exceptions (e.g. Boulton, 2010, 2012; Flowerdew, 2015), critiques
do not often feature in DDL literature. For example, key criticisms include that while learner inde-
pendence and self-directed discovery learning are rightly lauded within the constructivist paradigm,
such approaches may not work for all learners. Many learners may resist independent process-oriented
learning (see McGroarty, 1998; Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). Others have commented on the
cognitive demands that this approach puts on learners, advocating for the need for more supports
for learners in terms of SCAFFOLDING (see Cobb & Boulton, 2015 for a useful discussion on this).
Gabrielatos (2005) distinguishes between HARD and SOFT approaches across a spectrum from
teacher- to learner-controlledness. As evidenced by recent meta-studies (Section 2), this is manifested
in terms of hands-on corpus use versus teacher-curated handouts of corpus data; the degree of learner
training and teacher mediation and support; the degree of curation of corpus data and software by the
teacher; the role of pre-teaching of form versus free discovery, and so on. However, these are not linked
to or discussed in the context of what they mean for or how they relate to learning. As meta-studies
have shown, there is a tendency to measure net learning through pre- and post-testing rather than to
scrutinize the NATURE of the learning.
3.2 Sociocultural theory and DDL

Constructivism, within educational psychology, came in for some criticism because too much
WANDERING OFF on independent learning pathways was seen as opening up the possibility that some
learners simply went astray in terms of learning outcomes. In DDL, it is possible that learners too
may get lost amid the data (and some would argue that this is not a bad thing!) or that they may
induce or infer incorrectly or just not infer anything at all. To counter this, some work on DDL
has focused on the importance of ‘scaffolding’, a term coined by psychologist Jerome Bruner to
refer to the use of some kind of supporting mediation in the learning process within a
SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY (SCT) paradigm. Some key SCT-related concepts are seen as a boon of DDL
for learners. These include, for example, the development of learner agency and self-regulation
(O’Keeffe, McCarthy, & Carter, 2007; Cobb & Boulton, 2015; Flowerdew, 2015). Learner agency refers
to empowerment, whereby the learner takes control of learning rather than assuming a passive role in
a transmissive relationship with the teacher. The enhancement of learner agency is cited, though not
empirically explored, as one of the main advantages of DDL by O’Keeffe et al. (2007). It is argued that
learners can be trained to operate independently to develop skills and strategies and, in the process,
they can ‘surpass instructional intervention and become a better, self-regulated learner’ (O’Keeffe
et al., 2007, p. 55).
As Flowerdew (2015) notes, some studies involving learners have explored learner agency, for
example Cobb (1999) and Chau (2003). Though these studies are not designed to measure these
aspects experimentally (e.g. findings were observed from delayed post-tests), their results suggest posi-
tive outcomes in relation to learner agency. The emergence of DDL work on the role of mediation
through intra- and interpersonal dialogues in the acquisition of grammar through computer-aided
discovery is found in Huang’s (2011) study. Though small in scale, this fourteen-week study of under-
graduates examined ten groups of three learners. Learners’ peer-to-peer dialogues were recorded.
Students also kept logs. Reflected in the findings was a link between higher performance and engage-
ment with peers in negotiating form-focused episodes, leading to correct conclusions about a given
form. Huang (2011) is tentative about her findings, given the sample size and the many variables
that were not controlled within the study. Albeit fledgling in nature, an importance aspect of this
study is that its research gaze expanded to include a core concept within a learning theory (in this
case SCT) in relation to DDL.
Despite the many possibilities for seams of DDL research in relation to SCT, large-scale studies that
robustly investigate the role and nature of mediation and scaffolding in terms of the use of DDL do not
yet exist. As we shall discuss, the scope for enhancement in this regard, in terms of expanding the
research scope of DDL, is great.
Central to the Vygotskyan notion of SCT is the idea that cognitive processes are mediated and that
language is one of the most important tools in this activity (see Swain, 2006). Through dialogue,
higher-order cognitive processes are shaped and re-shaped. Within the classroom, mediation may hap-
pen through a teacher or a peer or it may involve the self, through private talk or inner speech.
Essentially, it is via mediation, manifested through dialogue, that we learn because, in this collaborative
process, we engage in the co-construction of knowledge. Clearly, while there is some overlap between
SCT and constructivist tenets, fundamentally, an SCT view of DDL moves away from the notion of a
learner independently grappling (Cobb, 2005) with the data in a discovery process to a focus on the
nature of such grappling and how it can be supported in order to lead to enhanced learning oppor-
tunities through self-regulation or mediation by peers or a teacher.
3.4 Positioning DDL theoretically

As we have discussed, one way of looking at work on DDL over the years has been to broadly categor-
ize it in terms of how it views learning. Some studies view learning more within a constructivist para-
digm where learners engage with language using independent discovery processes. Other studies take a
more SCT-like perspective on learning which values peer- and teacher-mediation and learner self-
regulation. Figure 1 represents this as a schematic cline from constructivism to SCT across some
key variables. Note: this cline is not presented as a longitudinal development, rather is it a framework
for interpretation of the pedagogical stance underpinning work on DDL.
By mapping out the theoretical position and what this means for learners, data type, target form
(learning outcome), in-class treatment and the role of peers, for example, we can see that at one
end of the cline, learner-led discovery means the learner controls what is being learnt (e.g. through
choices of which data searches and processes). At the other end of this schematic cline, in a more
mediated SCT scenario, the teacher and learners (as individuals and with peers) have a role in the
learning process either through self-regulation or collaboration. For instance, the teacher may have
chosen the target language that is being focused on, in line with an external syllabus, the teacher
may have provided pre-instruction on the target form(s) and may have curated the data and interface
(e.g. a corpus of learner readers at the proficiency level of the class, e.g. Allan, 2009). The teacher may
have chosen a corpus task that is designed for peer-to-peer learning.
At one end of this theoretical cline, discovery leaves learning open and more to chance (and of
course this can lead to many insights). It may also leave more open the possibility of incidental
264 Anne O’Keeffe
Figure 1. DDL cline of learning from constructivist to socioculturalist stances on learning
discovery of form and meaning at a subconscious level through implicit subconscious processes.
Equally, the freer discovery approach runs the risk of no learning taking place or the risk of FAKE
DISCOVERY. At the other end of the cline, the more mediated and structured model poses a more
teacher-controlled format, with a more explicit syllabus where a form or particular data is overtly
curated for the learners. This difference will tie in with the second part of this paper when I look
at a key debate in SLA, in relation to FOCUS ON FORM (FonF) and FOCUS ON FORMS (FONFS) approach.
One of the many reasons why these theoretical considerations are important to DDL research is
because we cannot compare classroom-based studies from an instructional perspective without an
insight into the ontological stance of the teacher(s) in the study.
If we can provide a more detailed articulation of the pedagogical underpinnings of DDL and the
related teaching and learning processes, we will be able to align more with key areas of concern within
instructed SLA, as we shall now discuss.
4. DDL, theories of SLA and new opportunities for research

In their meta-study, Lee et al. (2019) draw links between some of the SLA concepts and the use of con-
cordance lines. They cite Schmidt’s NOTICING HYPOTHESIS (Schmidt, 1990, 2001; Lai & Zhao, 2006); the
USAGE-BASED (UB) MODEL (Ellis, 2002; Tomasello, 2003); input enhancement (Chapelle, 2003; Wong,
2005); INVOLVEMENT LOAD HYPOTHESIS (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001) as supporting the DDL approach. So
from this we can clearly see that some aspects of SLA theory get a mention in DDL research but
these references often form part of the rationale for using DDL or appear as add-ons within the discus-
sion of empirical findings. Flowerdew (2015) and Pérez-Paredes (2019) are some of the lone voices that
have called out this lack of connection with SLA. Papp (2007) is another exception; she offers a worth-
while summary of the psycholinguistic processes relating to the concept of noticing.
4.1 Attention, noticing and exposure

Within SLA, there is a general acceptance that paying attention to certain features of language input is
a requirement for language development (Indrarathne, Ratajczak, & Kormos, 2018). Many studies
have looked at the effect of ATTENTION on input processing (e.g. Cintrón-Valentín & Ellis, 2015).
The Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990, 2001; Lai & Zhao, 2005) is widely accepted and the related
term ‘noticing’ is defined as attention that involves conscious awareness (Indrarathne et al., 2018).
Though the Noticing Hypothesis is frequently cited in DDL studies as a boon of the approach, the
broader concept of ATTENTION (and how it manifests via DDL) might be worth much more investiga-
tion. Over the years, many DDL studies refer to experimental groups showing enhanced noticing
which must have resulted from either conscious or subconscious attention (see Boulton, 2010; Shi,
2014).
Noticing and attention are linked with SALIENCE of input for learners (where salience refers to the
degree to which something stands out or catches the learner’s attention, see VanPatten & Benati,
2010). Sometimes learners will give attention to, notice and make salient a form at an implicit or sub-
conscious level. Other times (and often relative to the form itself), explicit instruction may be needed
in order for this process to take place. In essence, SLA studies of attention, noticing and salience seek
to establish how frequently a learner needs to be exposed to a novel item through encounters in a text
before they acquire the form (see Bybee, 2008; Ellis, 2018; Gass, Spinner, & Behney, 2018). Variables
such as the effectiveness of explicit and implicit instruction techniques and the degree of attention,
noticing and learning are variously explored (in SLA). Indrarathne et al. (2018) note that the role
of frequency and nature of exposure to constructions is crucial to understanding how grammatical
knowledge develops both from a pedagogical and a theoretical perspective.
Given the use of computer screens as a central part of learning within (most forms of) the DDL
approach, it is really surprising how few have looked at what learners actually do when they are grappling
with language using a computer (see Pérez-Paredes et al., 2012 for some interesting insights). With a dir-
ect interface between the learner, the patterns on a computer screen, coupled with facilities for screen- and
voice-capturing and eye-tracking, DDL has a major role to play in addressing this lacuna in this area of
SLA research. We are in a position to investigate questions around form, attention, noticing and salience.
For instance: What is the nature of attention in DDL? What is the nature of noticing in DDL relative to
key variables (e.g. level, form (lexical versus grammatical), degree of exposure, etc.)? What is the optimum
type/frequency of exposure within DDL? Which format of DDL fosters greater learner attention? What is
the relationship between form and attention (are some forms more noticeable)? What is the impact of
type of corpus data on attention (curated and differentiated data matching the level of the students versus
large corpora)? What is the impact of pre-instruction on noticing and attention in DDL?
Within this type of exploration, we have scope to investigate the relationship between noticing,
attention and form. The question of whether certain forms are more noticeable, and thus subcon-
sciously learnable, can be examined through eye-tracking attention experimentation as exemplified
in Cintrón-Valentín and Ellis (2015) and Indrarathne et al. (2018). Of importance to DDL researchers,
as Indrarathne et al. (2018) note, many within the field of SLA have examined the connection between
successful acquisition of lexical knowledge and multiple exposure in reading through eye-tracking
experimentation but far fewer look at syntactic constructions. For DDL, this type of research could
also tie in with a number of established SLA concepts. For instance, INPUT ENHANCEMENT (Sharwood
Smith, 1981; Chapelle 2003; Wong, 2005), which refers to the making salient of selected language
items so as to bring learners’ conscious attention to them. DDL, with its use of key word in context
(KWIC) formats, offers an obvious testbed for degrees of input enhancement (from purely concord-
ance level to teacher mediation). Lee et al. (2019) make the connection between engagement with con-
cordances and higher involvement, which, in line with Laufer and Hulstijn’s Involvement Load
Hypothesis, makes learning lexical items easier because the learner is more engaged with the item
of focus within a concordance line. For DDL researchers, this is another area waiting to be explored
more extensively, especially in relation to grammatical constructions and patterns.
Exploring the nature of learner cognition is central to our understanding of notions of exposure,
attention, noticing, input enhancement and involvement load. The question of whether cognition
operates at a conscious or subconscious level is part of a long-running SLA debate relating to the
nature of the connection between conscious explicit processes and subconscious implicit processes
of learning, especially the degree to which learners’ attention should be focused on form versus mean-
ing. This debate also ties in with the widely held UB model of SLA (Ellis, 2002), discussed further in
Section 4.2.
4.2 DDL and the Interface Debate

Let us now consider this fundamental debate that has dominated instructed SLA for over 20 years,
namely the Interface Debate. DDL has kept its eyes averted from it but it is time to engage. The
Interface Debate ultimately relates to whether the brain works on a conscious or a subconscious level
(or both) in the process of learning. Subconscious learning is referred to as IMPLICIT while conscious
266 Anne O’Keeffe
overt learning is referred to as EXPLICIT (Graus & Coppen, 2016). The long-running debate centres on the
question of whether there is any INTERFACE, or connection, between the explicit and implicit knowledge
systems. Core to this, in terms of instruction, is the issue of whether explicit and consciously taught (or
learnt) knowledge can ever be internalized by learners to become part of the implicit AUTOMATIZED sub-
conscious knowledge system. It is the automatized subconscious system which is the basis of long-term
and fluent language use (Han & Finneran, 2013; Graus & Coppen, 2016).
This debate has given rise to three overall positions within the field of instructed SLA (Han &
Finneran, 2013; Graus & Coppen, 2016), namely STRONG, WEAK and NON-INTERFACE POSITIONS. These
three positions, in turn, manifest in three different stances on the teaching of language forms. These
are (respectively): FonFs, FonF and FonM (FOCUS ON MEANING), as Table 1 summarizes. Each of these
three positions has a distinct implication for DDL in terms of its pedagogical underpinning, ranging
from discovery to mediated manifestations (and these are summarized in the shaded cells in Table 1).2
From a pedagogical perspective, the strong position aligns well with a teacher-mediated form of
DDL, linked to an external syllabus, manifesting in a FonFs approach where form is given overt
focus. Within this view, DDL would support explicit noticing through repeated encounters with a
given form. Ideally, this would lead to implicit learning.
The weak position, which foregrounds the importance of subconscious engagement with language
as the driver of learning, has gained much attention (Graus & Coppen, 2016; R. Ellis, 2006, 2016). It
ties in with the UB model of first and second language acquisition (Ellis, 2015; Tyler & Ortega, 2016).
If the weak interface position holds true, then there are implications for the classroom. From an FonF
perspective, there is a need to take a more subtle approach so as to incidentally focus on form as part
of a process that also engages subconscious implicit learning. According to Long (1991, pp. 45–46),
this can involve the overt drawing attention to elements of form ‘as they arise incidentally in lessons’
but the ‘overriding focus is on meaning or communication’. Within the weak position, there is discus-
sion and divergence in relation to the role of ATTENTION and whether learning springs primarily from a
conscious or a subconscious process (see Han & Finneran, 2013; R. Ellis, 2006, 2016). Crucially for
DDL research and practice, this further underscores the need to consider the role, nature and fre-
quency of exposure to a new language form.
From a cognitive perspective, within the UB model, based on many years of empirical work on first
language (L1) acquisition and latterly SLA, N. Ellis (2006) argues that frequent exposure to construc-
tions contributes to models of associative cognitive learning. Within this process, learners establish or
encode form-meaning mappings or associations (Ellis, 2015; Indrarathne et al., 2018). Proponents of a
UB model, N. Ellis, and his associates, for instance, envisage a process whereby learners intuitively
identify and organize constructions or form-function mappings based on their probabilistic encoun-
ters with relevant exemplars in the communicative environment (Ellis, Römer, & O’Donnell, 2016).
Ultimately, while the process of learning involves conscious attention and noticing of constructions
and form-function mapping, the internal reorganizing of one’s system of knowledge of the language
is done at a subconscious or implicit level (see Han & Finneran, 2013, p. 373). As noted by
Pérez-Paredes, Mark & O’Keeffe (In Press), within this view of language learning, learners first abstract
constructions from meaningful input and then gain understanding of the relationships between con-
structions. Learning is largely determined by frequency of exposure to new language – the more often
constructions are experienced and understood together, the more entrenched they become. Therefore,
it is predicted that learners subconsciously acquire first the constructions that they encounter most
frequently in the input that they receive. This theory has obvious relevance for DDL and holds a
lot of potential for further exploration, as we discuss in Section 4.3.
The third position of non-interface derives from a Chomskyian view and sees no connection
between conscious and subconscious learning. The work of Krashen (1991) promotes the idea that
2
Table 1 integrates ideas from the very constructive discussion which followed my plenary talk in the Q&A session. I am
grateful to those who engaged with me on the day and in follow up chats and email correspondences. I hope what I present
here properly captures an aggregation of thoughts.
Table 1. Three main positions in the Interface Debate and how they relate to pedagogical underpinnings (Strong Interface,
Weak Interface, Non-Interface)
Strong Interface Weak Interface Non-Interface
Position Explicitly learnt Through incidental noticing, There are two separate
knowledge can be forms can be gradually and systems and they do not
turned into automatic mostly subconsciously interface. The explicit
implicit subconscious acquired. system helps conscious
knowledge. monitoring of
performance; the implicit
system subconsciously
constitutes acquired
competence.
Pedagogical Focus on Forms (FonFs) Focus on Form (FonF) Focus on Meaning (FonM)
manifestation in Present and practice Draw overt attention to forms Emphasize incidental and
language forms according to a as they arise incidentally, within implicit learning of form
teaching structured syllabus. meaning/ through content-based
communication-focused instruction or immersion,
lessons (often task-based). with no overt focus on
form.
Implication for Use DDL as part of a Use DDL in a task-based, Unless DDL can be used in
DDL teaching structured syllabus in a discovery learning format. a solely meaning-focused
teacher-mediated context, it has no
format. pedagogical value.
Implication for Explicit noticing of form, Explicit and implicit noticing of Any explicit learning from
DDL learning through repeated form, through repeated DDL becomes part of the
encounter, will lead to encounter, might, over time, explicit knowledge system
implicit learning. lead to implicit learning. monitoring performance
and will not become part
of automatized fluency.
for adult learners of a second language, there are two possible learning paths and they do not interface
(see Han & Finneran, 2013). Firstly, learning can be a conscious process resulting in explicit declarative
knowledge that can be drawn upon in performance of language and, secondly, learning can happen
subconsciously and this becomes deep-set implicit knowledge and part of the learner’s store of lan-
guage competence. From this perspective, one can consciously learn and explicitly know a form (or
other knowledge or skills) and this can be explicitly assessed but this has no bearing on learning at
a subconscious level. From the non-interface position comes the notion that teaching should not
overtly focus on form in the classroom but rather on meaning (i.e. MEANING-focused instruction).
From this stance, DDL could only be incorporated pedagogically if it had a meaning focus and any
learning that might result from it would remain in the realms of the explicitly learnt knowledge system.
This linguistic knowledge could be used in (self-) monitoring of performance but would not become
part of automatized fluency (it would be interesting to test this using DDL).
Crucially, this much debated form- versus meaning-focused instruction motif is not found in the
discourse of DDL research. Given the fundamental nature of noticing of form, either implicitly or
explicitly, within the process of looking at concordance lines and patterns of language, DDL is
perfectly-positioned to contribute much to this debate through experimentation. By blithely assuming
that noticing leads to some kind of learning, in some cases, we are missing out on many research
questions that DDL-based studies could address, as we shall now discuss.
4.3 New opportunities for DDL research

Let us attempt to evolve a research purview where DDL can make some important empirical contri-
butions to SLA research questions, across a number of outcome variables. By designing research stud-
ies that can control for variables such as degree of mediation and cognitive processes across variables
268 Anne O’Keeffe
such as level of competence, L1, language form, implicit/explicitness of the learning format and type of
corpus data, our research could offer more fine-grained results through careful experimentation. This
might require the DDL research paradigm to expand beyond quasi-experimentation in the classroom
and to avail more of instruments which capture screen activity, eye movement, private and peer speech
and so on. This could offer endless opportunities for gaining insight into areas such as noticing and
attention in relation to multiple encounters with constructions. With a more longitudinal focus, it
would also allow for exploration around which language forms at which levels of proficiency might
be more learnable. For example, it could test assertions within the UB model of acquisition that
point to a movement from the acquisition of low scope morphemes, words and constructions that
have basic meaning to more abstract and productive ones as learners gain proficiency. With such a
focus, DDL could be contributing to studies that tie in with cutting-edge issues in instructed SLA.
For instance, current emerging learner corpus work on the acquisition of VERB ARGUMENT
CONSTRUCTIONS (VACs) could be enhanced by DDL-based explorations (see, for example, Römer, 2019).
It is also time for DDL empirical work to move towards a research design which will investigate the
long-held assertions that it enhances learning processes. As discussed, given the micro-interface of
DDL with the learner (through screens), it seems a missed opportunity that within the meta-analyses
of DDL research of the last three decades, we find no aggregation of work on what has been learnt
about the mechanics of acquisition and instruction. DDL has the potential to explore and test tenets
of the differing positions within the FonF(s) versus FonM debate. However, there are two critical
changes required. Firstly, there is a need to devise a more robust means of capturing longitudinal
data (especially in relation to the administration of delayed post-tests, as noted by Lee et al., 2019).
Most studies only conduct post-tests immediately after the test period of the DDL intervention and
the control groups but if we are to gain insight into implicit learning, delayed post-tests are essential
to exploring what has been implicitly learnt (Han & Finneran, 2013). Secondly, there is a need to
expand our research design so that we can capture data on cognitive processes through eye-tracking,
screen and voice-capturing as well as learner protocols. These data will inform us on the nature of
attention, noticing and salience. They will also capture data on learning processes and degrees and
effects of mediation, from self to other.
As Figure 2 illustrates, a broader research perspective can bring focus to many exciting research
questions.3 By digging deep into research questions across the variables of cognitive processes and
degrees of mediation, we can examine research questions on the cline from a constructivist to a
more SCT-focused type of DDL, relative to key variables such as level of student competence, L1, lan-
guage form (being either discovered or investigated), degree of implicitness or explicitness of learning
and the degree to which data is curated for the purpose of learning. Other variables such as learners’
pedagogic culture, year of study, etc., could be included. It can also bring our focus to contemporary
questions emerging from learner corpus research about UB models of SLA (Ellis, et al., 2016).
Learner corpora increasingly are being explored so as to identify the process of construction devel-
opment across levels of competence. Römer (2019) offers an interesting example of this type of
research. She explores, using learner corpora, the type and nature of VACs produced by German
English language learners at different levels of competence (based on the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages). Insights from work such as this could be tested pedagogically.
For example, through experimentation, DDL could be explored as a means of increasing exposure to
VACs both through explicit (overt) and implicit (covert) means. Within this focus, we could explore
cognitive processes and outcomes when corpora are used to ‘accelerate’ language experience or expos-
ure. There are many variables that could be investigated in such research, for example, the role of L1 in
terms of developmental and transfer errors; the role of meaning in terms of the types of data that is
curated for learners, the nature of learning (implicit or explicit) and degree of learning relative to level
of proficiency; the degree of mediation (teacher- or peer-led) relative to learning, and so on. There are
3
Figure 2 is an enhanced version of the figure presented at Teaching and Language Corpora (TaLC) Conference 2018 and
it is based on ideas from and reflections on the discussion that followed my talk.
Figure 2. A broader research framework for DDL
challenges in doing this kind of research not least of all in finding an appropriate methodology but the
tools are there and are already widely used in SLA studies (e.g. recall protocols, journaling, screen cap-
turing, eye-tracking).
5. Conclusion
As I have discussed, while there is clear evidence of vibrant research on DDL often leading to success-
ful learning outcomes, this paper argues that there is a need for greater critical engagement with the
pedagogical underpinnings in the form of theories of learning and theories of language acquisition
(see also Pérez-Paredes, 2019). While we need to continue and improve on pre- and post-testing in
quasi-experimental studies (and meta-studies such as Boulton and Cobb (2017) and Lee et al.
(2019) offer us much by way of how the future studies can be enhanced), we also need to add new
research questions and explore new methodologies as well. Informed by learning and acquisition the-
ories, DDL research has an important role to play by feeding into and informing the wider SLA
research community. Its results can have a far-reaching impact. From the perspective of how we
learn languages, DDL can help us gain a refined view on some important outcome variables, including
the role, nature and degree of mediation in form-focused instruction. Within the field of SLA, there are
so many exciting research questions being asked in relation to noticing, attention, salience, UB acqui-
sition of constructions, to name but a few. DDL can add to this body of work from the perspective of
individual learners by enhancing our understanding of the cognitive processes that second language
learning entails within DDL. We can also learn more from those who mediate learning: the teachers,
the peers and the self. Now is the time to shift our gaze. We will see more in the process of adopting a
more pedagogically aware and SLA-focused approach to researching DDL and by doing so we can
open up opportunities for SLA to use DDL within its methodological repertoire.
References
Allan, R. (2009). Can a graded reader corpus provide ‘authentic’ input? ELT Journal, 63(1), 23–32.
Barlow, M. (1996). Corpora for theory and practice. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 1(1), 1–37.
Boulton, A. (2010). Language awareness and medium-term benefits of corpus consultation. In A. Gimeno Sanz (Ed.), New
trends in computer-assisted language learning: Working together (pp. 39–46). Madrid, Spain: Macmillan ELT.
Boulton, A. (2012). Corpus consultation for ESP: A review of empirical research. In A. Boulton, S. Carter-Thomas, &
E. Rowley-Jolivet (Eds.), Corpus-informed research and learning in ESP: Issues and applications (pp. 261–291).
Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Boulton, A., & Cobb, T. (2017). Corpus use in language learning: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 67(2), 348–393.
Boulton, A., & Pérez-Paredes, P. (2014). Researching uses of corpora for language teaching and learning. ReCALL, 26(2), 121–127.
Bybee, J. (2008). Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of
cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 216–236). New York, NY: Routledge.
270 Anne O’Keeffe
Chambers, A. (2007). Popularising corpus consultation by language learners and teachers. In E. Hidalgo, L. Quereda, &
J. Santana (Eds.), Corpora in the foreign language classroom (pp. 3–16). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi.
Chang, P. (2012). Using a stance corpus to learn about effective authorial stance-taking: A textlinguistic approach. ReCALL,
24(2), 209–236.
Chapelle, C. A. (2003). English language learning and technology. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Chau, M. H. (2003). Contextualising language learning: The role of a topic- and genre-specific pedagogical corpus. TESL
Reporter, 36(2), 42–54.
Cintrón-Valentín, M., & Ellis, N. C. (2015). Exploring the interface: explicit focus-on-form instruction and learned atten-
tional biases in L2 Latin. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 197–235.
Cobb, T. (1997). Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing? System, 25(3), 301–315.
Cobb, T. (1999). Applying constructivism: A test for the learner as scientist. Educational Technology Research & Development,
47(3), 15–31.
Cobb, T. (2005). Constructivism, applied linguistics, and language education. In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol.
3, 2nd. ed, pp. 5–88). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Cobb, T., & Boulton, A. (2015). Classroom applications of corpus analysis. In D. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), Cambridge hand-
book of corpus linguistics (pp. 478–497). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Collentine, J. (2000). Insights into the construction of grammatical knowledge provided by user-behaviour tracking technolo-
gies. Language Learning & Technology, 36, 45–60.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit
language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188.
Ellis, N. C. (2006). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 1–24.
Ellis, N. C. (2015). Implicit and explicit learning: Their dynamic interface and complexity. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and
explicit learning of languages (pp. 3–23). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Ellis, N. C. (2018). Salience in Usage-Based SLA. In S. M. Gass, P. Spinner, & J. Behney (Eds.), Salience in second language
acquisition (pp. 21–40). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (2016). Constructions and usage-based approaches to language acquisition.
Language Learning, 66, 23–44.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA Perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83–107.
Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405–428.
Flowerdew, L. (2015). Data-driven learning and language learning theories: Whither the twain shall meet. In
A. Leńko-Szymańska & A. Boulton (Eds.), Multiple affordances of language corpora for data-driven learning (pp. 15–
36). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Gabel, S. (2001). Over-indulgence and under-representation in interlanguage: reflections on the utilization of concordances
in self-directed foreign language learning. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 14, 269–288.
Gabrielatos, C. (2005). Corpora and language teaching: Just a fling or wedding bells? Teaching English as a Second or Foreign
Language, 8(4), 1–34.
Gass, S. M., Spinner, P., & Behney, J. (2018). Salience in second language acquisition and related fields. In S. M. Gass,
P. Spinner, & J. Behney (Eds.), Salience in second language acquisition (pp. 1–18). New York, NY: Routledge.
Graus, J., & Coppen, P.-A. (2016). Student teacher beliefs on grammar instruction. Language Teaching Research, 20(5),
571–599.
Han, Z.-H., & Finneran, R. (2013). Re-engaging the interface debate: Strong, weak, none, or all? International Journal of
Huang, L. (2011). Corpus-aided language learning. ELT Journal, 65(4), 481–484.
Indrarathne, B., Ratajczak, M., & Kormos, J. (2018). Modelling changes in the cognitive processing of grammar in implicit
and explicit learning conditions: Insights from an eye-tracking study. Language Learning, 68(3), 669–708.
Johansson, S. (2009). Some thoughts on corpora and second-language acquisition. In K. Aijmer (Ed.), Corpora and language
teaching (pp. 33–44). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Johns, T. (1986). Micro-Concord: a language learner’s research tool. System, 14(2), 151–162.
Johns, T. (1994). From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of data-driven learning. In
T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp. 293–313). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of
the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist,
41(2), 75–86.
Krashen, S. (1991). The input hypothesis: An update. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics,
409–431.
Lai, C. & Zhao, Y. 2005). Introduction: The importance of input and the potential of technology for enhancing input. In
Y. Zhao (Ed.), Research in technology and second language learning: Developments and directions (pp. 95–101).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 1094–3501.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced
involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1–26.
Lee, H., Warschauer, M., & Lee, J. H. (2019). The effects of corpus use on second language vocabulary learning: A multilevel
meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 40(5), 721–753.
Leech, G. (1997). Teaching and language corpora: a convergence. In A. Wichmann, S. Fligelstone, A. McEnery, & G. Knowles
(Eds.), Teaching and language corpora (pp. 1–23). London, UK: Longman.
Long, M. H. (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 (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
McGroarty, M. (1998). Constructive and constructivist challenges for applied linguistics. Language Learning, 48, 591–622.
Mizumoto, A., & Chujo, K. (2015). A meta-analysis of data-driven learning approach in the Japanese EFL classroom. English
Corpus Studies, 22, 1–18.
O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M. J., & Carter, R. (2007). From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching.
O’Sullivan, Í. (2007). Enhancing a process-oriented approach to literacy and language learning: The role of corpus consult-
ation literacy. ReCALL, 19(3), 269–286.
Papp, S. (2007). Inductive learning and self-correction with the use of learner and reference corpora. In E. Hilgado,
L. Quereda, & J. Santana (Eds.), Corpora in the foreign language classroom (pp. 207–220). Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Rodopi.
Pérez-Paredes, P. (2010). Corpus linguistics and language education in perspective: Appropriation and the possibilities scen-
ario. In T. Harris, & M. Moreno Jaén (Eds.), Corpus linguistics in language teaching (pp. 53–73). Frankfurt, Germany:
Peter Lang.
Pérez-Paredes, P. (2019). A systematic review of the uses and spread of corpora and data-driven learning in CALL research
during 2011–2015. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1667832
Pérez-Paredes, P., Mark, G., & O’Keeffe, A. (In Press). The impact of usage-based approaches on second language learning
and teaching. Research Notes
Pérez-Paredes, P., Sánchez-Tornel, M., & Alcaraz Calero, J. M. (2012). Learners’ search patterns during corpus-based
focus-on-form activities. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17, 483–516.
Römer, U. (2006). Pedagogical applications of corpora: Some reflections on the current scope and a wish list for future devel-
opments. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 542, 121–134.
Römer, U. (2019). A corpus perspective on the development of verb constructions in second language learners. International
Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24(3), 268–290.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159–68.
Shi, J. (2014). Pedagogic processing of ESL corpora and its effects on ESL learners’ medium-term language awareness
enhancement. International Journal of English Linguistics, 4(4), 63–73.
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.),
Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London, UK/New York, NY:
Continuum.
Todd, R. W. (2001). Induction from self-selected concordances and self-correction. System, 29, 91–102.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Tribble, C. (2008). From Corpus to Classroom: Language Use and Language Teaching. ELT Journal, 62, 213–216.
Tribble, C., & Jones, G. (1997). Concordancing in the classroom. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Tyler, A., & Ortega, L. (2016). Usage-based approaches to language and language learning: An introduction to the special
issue. Language Cognition, 8(3), 335–345.
VanPatten, B., & Benati, A. (2010). Key terms in second language acquisition. London, UK: Continuum.
Vyatkina, N., & Boulton, A. (Eds.). (2017). Corpora in language teaching and learning. Language Learning & Technology,
21(3), (SI), 1–8.
Widdowson, H. (1991). The description and prescription of language. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown university round table on
languages and linguistics (pp. 11–24). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Dr Anne O’Keeffe is Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics, at the Department of English Language & Literature, Mary
Immaculate College, University of Limerick, Ireland. She has written numerous books and papers on corpus linguistics, lan-
guage teaching and pragmatics, including From corpus to classroom (CUP, with Michael McCarthy and Ronald Carter).
English grammar today (CUP, with Ronald Carter, Michael McCarthy and Geraldine Mark), Introducing pragmatics in
272 Anne O’Keeffe
use (2nd ed. 2020, Routledge, with Brian Clancy and Svenja Adolphs). She also co-edited the Routledge handbook of corpus
linguistics (with Michael McCarthy) and is currently curating its second edition. She was co-principal investigator of the
English Grammar Profile, a research project commissioned by CUP which explored the Cambridge Learner Corpus so as
to build an online grammar competency framework resource. She is co-editor of Routledge book series: Routledge Corpus
Linguistic Guides and Routledge Applied Corpus Linguistics Series. She has also guest edited a number of international jour-
nals, including Corpus Pragmatics, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics and Language Awareness. Dr O’Keeffe is also
founder and coordinator of the Inter-Varietal Applied Corpus Studies research centre and network.
Cite this article: O’Keeffe, A. (2021). Data-driven learning – a call for a broader research gaze. Language Teaching, 54(2),
259–272. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000245
doi:10.1017/S0261444820000403
S U RV E Y S O F P H . D ./ E D . D . T H E S E S
Doctoral dissertations on second language writing and

technology in the USA (2010–2019)
John Gibbons and Mimi Li*
Texas A&M University-Commerce, USA
*Corresponding author. Email: mimi.li@tamuc.edu
Abstract
This paper reviews 20 representative Ph.D. dissertations on second language (L2) writing and technology
completed in the USA over the past decade (2010–2019). These dissertations were selected using advanced
search via ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Five thematic categories were examined: (1) computer-
mediated teacher/peer feedback; (2) automated writing evaluation; (3) computer-based collaborative
writing; (4) technology-based writing instruction/assessment; and (5) digital composing/literacy. Each
dissertation study was closely reviewed, with the presentation of illustrative tables. After analyzing and
discussing the research designs, findings, and contributions of these studies, the authors identified the
research trend and highlighted directions for future dissertation research in the field of L2 writing and
technology.
1. Introduction and selection criteria

With the development of digital technology tools, L2 writing has witnessed innovation in teaching and
research. New technologies have revolutionized the ways we communicate and construct knowledge, and
have also reshaped the traditional notions of writing and literacy (Li & Storch, 2017). As Hyland (2016)
reminds us, the new technologies have impacted ‘the ways we write, the genres we create, the authorial
identities we assume, the forms of our finished products, and the ways we engage with readers’ (p. 40).
In response to the new directions in writing, an increasing amount of dissertation research has been
identified in relation to L2 writing and technology. As the role of technology in L2 writing will
continue to be a heated topic for future research (Godwin-Jones, 2018), the authors reviewed 20 doctoral
dissertations on L2 writing and technology completed in the USA during the past decade, in the hope
to provide timely research synthesis and shed light on research directions, particularly for doctoral
research.
The authors identified dissertations via the database ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
Under the advanced search option, ‘L2 or ELL’ (English Language Learner) AND ‘writing or literacy’
AND ‘technology or computer’ were input for abstract, and the manuscript type ‘Doctoral dissertations’
was selected. Meanwhile, ‘English’ was chosen for language and ‘Last 10 years’ (2010–2019) was
chosen for publication date. As this study focuses on dissertations within the USA, all the dissertations
conducted outside the US were removed. We also excluded work which did not explicitly report the
trustworthiness of the study or validation strategies. Taking the breadth of research approaches and
language learning contexts into consideration, we finally selected a total of 20 Ph.D. dissertations
for close review. Afterwards, the corresponding author examined the abstracts of the twenty disserta-
tions and derived five thematic categories, which were then verified by the co-author. The thematic
categories include (1) computer-mediated teacher/peer feedback; (2) automated writing evaluation;
(3) computer-based collaborative writing; (4) technology-based writing instruction/assessment;
and (5) digital composing/literacy. Table 1 displays an overview of the dissertations reviewed in
this study.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
Table 1. Overview of dissertations
274
Thematic category Author Year Institution Study context Research approach
Computer-mediated feedback Voborel 2013 University of South Florida High school English as a Second Language Qualitative-Multiple-case study
(ESL) program
Cunningham 2018 Iowa State University Tertiary-level ESL writing class in an Quantitative-Descriptive
intensive English program
Han 2019 University of South Florida Tertiary-level Chinese as a Foreign Qualitative-Multiple-case study
Language (FL) class
Automated writing evaluation Choi 2010 University of Virginia Tertiary-level ESL writing class Quantitative-Experimental
Cotos 2010 Iowa State University Graduate-level ESL writing class Mixed methods
Link 2015 Iowa State University Tertiary-level ESL writing class Mixed methods
John Gibbons and Mimi Li
Alsallami 2017 Iowa State University ESL students at tertiary level Mixed methods, including a lab experiment
Computer-based collaborative Li 2014 University of South Florida Graduate ESL students in an English for Qualitative-Multiple-case study
writing Academic Purposes (EAP) program
Alshalan 2016 Wayne State University Tertiary-level ESL students in an intensive Quantitative-Quasi-experimental
English program
Yim 2017 University of California, Irvine Middle school ELA class with bilingual Mixed methods
students
Technology-based writing Park 2010 Penne State University Tertiary-level ESL writing class Quantitative-Corpus analysis and
instruction/assessment descriptive study
Kyeu 2014 University of Wisconsin- Tertiary-level Swahili FL class Quantitative-Descriptive
Madison
Oh 2018 Columbia University ESL speakers at tertiary/graduate levels Mixed methods
Tseptsura 2019 University of New Mexico Tertiary-level ESL sections of online writing Mixed methods
courses
Zhi 2019 University of Texas at Tertiary ESL students in an EAP program Mixed methods
San Antonio
Digital composing/literacy Chen 2012 University of Arizona ESL students at graduate level Qualitative-Case study
Bauler 2012 University of California, Tertiary-level ESL writing class Qualitative-Discourse analysis
Santa Barbara
Jiang 2013 Michigan State University High school ESL program Qualitative-Multiple-case study
Dzekoe 2013 Iowa State University Tertiary-level ESL writing class Qualitative-Case study
Moore 2017 Bowling Green State ESL students at tertiary level Qualitative-Grounded theory
University
The research approaches of the chosen dissertations range from qualitative studies to quantitative
and mixed-methods studies. The participants were students in various learning settings. Of the total
dissertations, five were conducted by students from Iowa State University and three from the
University of South Florida, as the two institutions offer a doctoral degree program with a focus on
Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL). The majority of dissertations on automated writing
evaluation were written by graduates of Iowa State University.
In the following sections, the authors discuss the twenty Ph.D. studies in relation to five thematic
categories, focusing on the research designs, findings, and contributions. Illustrative tables (Tables 2–6)
are presented, including information on context and participants, technology, theoretical/pedagogical
frameworks, writing tasks, research focus, and research data.
2. Computer-mediated teacher/peer feedback

Teacher feedback and peer feedback in the Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) context is a
growing research area in applied linguistics. Teachers, beyond grading obligations, provide construct-
ive feedback to help students in achieving their writing goals. Meanwhile, peer feedback has been
widely implemented to allow peer scaffolding to occur during co-learning of writing (de Guerrero
& Villamil, 1994). With the development of technology tools, electronic feedback via MS Word or
Google Docs and screencast feedback have captured increasing attention in the field of L2 writing
(Tuzi, 2004; Elola & Oskoz, 2016). The following three dissertations address the theme of computer-
mediated teacher/peer feedback, ranging from typed text and coded written feedback through digital
mediums to feedback using screencast technology and video chat. Cunningham (2018) examined the
use of screencast as a medium to provide feedback on ESL students’ writing, while Han (2019)
addressed different types of computer-mediated teacher feedback in a Chinese as an FL class.
Vorobel (2013) researched ESL students’ peer feedback in the K-12 setting. Regarding the three dis-
sertations, research and instructional methods are examined, and teacher and student reception to
this relatively new and changing way of pedagogical interaction is explored (summary displayed in
Table 2). Effective feedback using different modes and technologies in an online learning environment
is suggested, as well.
In line with previous research (e.g., Elola & Oskoz, 2016) drawing our attention to multimodal
feedback, Cunningham (2018) examined the role of feedback modalities by comparing screencast
video feedback using Snagit and text feedback using MS Word Comment across four ESL writing
assignments. Results showed that students preferred video feedback for its efficiency, clarity, and
ease of use. Cunningham (2018) also explored the differences in video and text feedback in terms
of the use of interpersonal language, drawing on the Systemic Functional Linguistics-informed
Appraisal Framework (Martin & White, 2005). Appraisal is useful in capturing interpersonal consid-
erations of linguistic choices through the three systems of attitude, engagement, and graduation
(White, 2015). Results revealed that textual feedback was more likely to point out deficiencies and
weakness in students’ writing, while video feedback provided a more balanced evaluation, with a larger
number of responses, both positive and negative. Video feedback was also found to have encouraged
student agency: Students were able to play, pause, revise, and then re-watch the video until they felt
they had addressed each teacher comment. This dissertation initially explored the differences between
multimodal feedback and text feedback, with a fresh new focus on the use of language for interper-
sonal considerations. The Appraisal Framework has proven to be an effective construct for L2 research
into student identity, perception, and ownership, and can be adjusted for multiple feedback contexts in
future studies.
Informed by Ferris’s (2010) finding that direct and indirect teacher feedback may deliver different
but complementary results on student writing, Han (2019) applied a multiple-case study design to
investigate the effects and students’ perceptions of both direct and coded Written Corrective
Feedback (WCF) in an online, multiple-draft Chinese as an FL writing environment. Six intermediate-
level Chinese as an FL learners completed four writing drafts, four revisions, four surveys, and four
276
Table 2. Computer-mediated teacher/peer feedback
Theoretical/
Context and Pedagogical
participants Technology framework Writing task Research focus Research data
Cunningham 12 intermediate ESL Snagit for screencast Appraisal framework TOEFL essays of Teacher video vs. text Surveys, interviews,
(2018) students at a video feedback and across attitude, 200–300 words feedback and screencast
midwestern university MS Word for text engagement, each comments
feedback graduation
Han (2019) 6 intermediate Chinese Course management Vygotsky’s Zone of Four Chinese Computer-mediated Interview and
FL learners at a system and MS Word Proximal essays on Chinese teacher WCF and error survey data
southeastern university Development (ZPD) traditional stories correction
and scaffolding and current
events
Vorobel (2013) 4 adolescent ELLs peer Web 2.0 (i.e., Ecological English essays on Peer feedback in online Observations,
review in online and Wikispaces) perspective – looking symbols of a vs. face-to-face interviews,
face-to-face at context and Mandala circle environments e-journals,
environment in a examining and life goals Wikispaces archives
southeastern high components, ZPD
school
interviews. Student responses to computer-mediated feedback were evidenced through acquisition and
writing accuracy reflected in error changes over the semester. Students’ attitudes to computer-
mediated WCF were also examined. Based on an analysis of the participants’ responses, the researcher
identified cross-case patterns on how the students viewed indirect and coded WCF and the computer-
mediated WCF in the course management system. The results of the survey indicated that student atti-
tudes played an important role in writing, and that a clearer understanding of WCF and its purpose
was significant in the reduction of error rates. Focused, coded error feedback in particular was found to
be useful and effective. However, it took time for students to become familiar with feedback codes and
task specifics. Immediate pedagogical implications of this study are students’ enhanced ability to trans-
fer feedback knowledge to new writing assignments, and that students may be better served if they
have the opportunity to discuss errors with teachers, further increasing student motivation. This dis-
sertation study is one of the first studies that examined the effect of computer-mediated WCF on
Chinese L2 writing, which shed light on future research and pedagogy regarding computer-based
teacher feedback in an FL context.
In addition to computer-mediated teacher feedback, online peer response has been increasingly
implemented in L2 contexts due to its advantages of facilitating interactive textual exchange and
enhancing student participation (Guardado & Shi, 2007). Vorobel (2013) examined the peer response
practices of four ELLs in relation to two essays in the K-12 setting, using both face-to-face and online
formats. Triangulated data sources included researcher and student e-journals, and written artifacts,
including peer comments and students’ writing revisions. The four participants perceived peer scaf-
folding beneficial to their writing performance and incorporated most of the peer feedback during
the revision process. Moreover, students found peer reviewing in the online context easier than in
face-to-face sessions due to the convenience of the technology and the technology affordance of work-
ing at one’s own pace, in contrast to the time constraints and pressure during face-to-face peer review.
This dissertation explored the positive role of Web 2.0 tools in L2 literacy practices of adolescent ELLs,
and discussed how computer-mediated peer review can be beneficial in the online context from an
ecological perspective (van Lier, 2004): how the learner makes meaning out of and employed affor-
dances in their writing and makes revisions accordingly as an active agent.
3. Automated writing evaluation

The research on automated writing evaluation (AWE) has been developed with the fact that auto-
mated essay scoring (AES) systems have grown in sophistication and effectiveness since first being
introduced in 1966, and later developed at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard
University (Keith, 2003; Wang & Brown, 2007). With this initial exploration into the feasibility
of such a system, and the ubiquitous presence of computers and online ecosystems in the current
learning environment, AES systems such as IntelliMetric, the Educational Testing Service’s
Criterion system, and other specialty systems developed across universities and businesses have
been increasingly used in the US. From high stakes testing such as Graduate Records
Examinations to the quotidian tasks of grading daily essays of L2 students, AES systems such
as IntelliMetric and Criterion have the potential to assess student writing fairly and accurately,
while at the same time relieving educators of some of the more time-consuming and subjective
tasks of L2 teaching and evaluation (Shermis & Burstein, 2003).
The four dissertations (see Table 3) provided valuable insight into teacher and student perceptions
of AES systems, the impact of AES on student writing, as well as novel systems developed using free
online software, which can be customized for specific student populations and learning goals.
Alsallami (2017) examined students’ perceptions of automated writing evaluation compared with trad-
itional feedback. Choi (2010) investigated actual improvements in student writing following the use of
automatic writing evaluation. Cotos (2010) examined the nature of Intelligent Academic Discourse
Evaluator (IADE), which produces immediate automated feedback on writing samples, while Link
(2015) developed and evaluated another new AES engine, CAFFite.
278
Table 3. Automated writing evaluation
Context and Theoretical/Pedagogical

Alsallami 30 college ESL Automated writing Sociocultural Theory, ZPD Prompted texts Graduated Dialogue states of
(2017) students in the evaluator wTutor, targeting the automated written iTutor, questionnaire,
intensive English CyWrite Analyzer grammatical feedback, student stimulated recall, and
program at a structure (i.e., perceptions and semistructured
Midwestern simple past tense) preferences interviews
university
Choi 118 college ESL Criterion integrated Social constructivism, Three essay tasks: Impact of AES on Criterion automated
(2010) students at an AES ZPD, scaffolding, narrative, English writing essay scoring, written
eastern university Interaction hypothesis expository, and quality across texts
persuasive different levels of
integration
Cotos 105 graduate ESL Moodle, Wordsearch Systems Functional Prompted The role of AWE in IADE records, Likert-
(2010) students at a concordance tool, Linguistics, Interactionist academic essay: genre-based scale questionnaire,
midwestern IADE (Intelligent views on second language Research article learning in L2 pre-test, and post-test
university Academic Discourse acquisition (SLA), Skills introductions writing contexts
Evaluator) Acquisition Theory
Link 154 students in ESL CAFFite (AWE) Complexity Theory, Comparison of Development and English placement
(2015) classes at a assessing System Functional texts responding to evaluation of the tests, CAFFite scores,
midwestern complexity, accuracy, Linguistics writing prompts reliability and and human rating
university and fluency effectiveness of an scores
AES
Alsallami (2017) examined 30 college ESL students’ experiences of automated corrective feedback
(CF) via a lab experiment, supplemented with a survey. Descriptive statistics of the surveys and
exploratory factor analysis were used to identify relationships between writers’ attitudes toward auto-
mated written CF and their preferred frequency of feedback. The results indicated students’ strong
preference for direct correction, with metalinguistic CF, identification of errors, and graduated CF
(from implicit to explicit) following respectively. A close association between perceived clarity and use-
fulness of comprehensive CF and direct correction was identified. Also, CF preferences are primarily
shaped by the time required to use CF successfully; students overall preferred more frequent and
comprehensive CF, and the amount of time dedicated to a learning task influenced their preferences
the most. This study suggested that when developing AES, developers should consider learner
concerns and partiality, as well as their language proficiency and purpose of the specific writing
task, rather than using the one-size-fits-all strategy of design. This dissertation was particularly strong
because of the author’s development of an automated graduated CF, wTutor, which was not offered by
any commercial or free AWE at the time of writing.
Choi (2010) explored the impact of AES on ESL students’ writing quality across different levels of
integration of Criterion (i.e., No-AES, Optional-AES, and Integrated-AES with the mandatory use of
Criterion) via a quantitative study. Data were collected through student essays, student surveys,
instructor interviews, and course artifacts. Students were randomly assigned, and pre- and post-tests
were given involving a writing task on a given topic for 40 minutes. Students’ writing performance was
assessed by measuring writing quality across three dimensions: holistic view of quality, accuracy, and
fluency. Two types of statistical analysis (i.e., ANOVA and ANCOVA) were used to determine if
different levels of AES integration impact students’ performance over time. Results showed better
performance from the Integrated-AES group in the writing quality of their essays than other two
groups. Results indicated that the high performance of the Integrated-AES group was directly
attributed to features of Criterion, e.g., timely feedback, recursive and multiple drafting processes,
and comprehensive feedback. This dissertation highlighted the positive effect of AES on students’ writ-
ing performance and provided valuable pedagogical insights on integrating AES as an instructional
process.
Relating to genre knowledge, Cotos (2010) investigated the effectiveness of another AWE technol-
ogy, IADE, which is a web-based program that analyzes research article introductions. IADE provides
immediate, individualized feedback in relation to writing tasks specific for graduate students in
multiple disciplines. A mixed-methods approach was used, and multiple data sources were analyzed,
including surveys, automated and human scores for drafts, pre-/post-test scores, students’ writing
drafts, think-aloud protocols, screen recordings, observations, and interviews. The study found
IADE to be an effective formative assessment for targeted instructional contexts and also to scaffold
learning and writing through learner noticing/focusing on discourse form, understanding, and output
modification. The results showed that learners repeatedly modified their output through engagement
with the program’s Help options, producing higher-quality research article introductions, with better
and more appropriate rhetorical moves. While previous studies have investigated AWE, such as Choi’s
use of Criterion, Cotos’s line of research added important insights to the field, as it shed light on
genre-specific AWE in L2 classrooms. Furthermore, IADE’s colorcoded and numerical feedback
was shown to be a successful method for enhancing students’ awareness of academic writing discourse.
In the fourth dissertation, Link (2015) developed and validated an AES engine named CAFFite,
utilizing measures of complexity, accuracy, fluency, and functionality (CAFF). CAFFite was built
into computer algorithms using natural language processing (NLP), Standford CoreNLP, which
uses an annotation-based processing pipeline that can be integrated with student writing to give lin-
guistic annotations (Manning et al., 2014). This dissertation used a mixed-methods triangulation
design addressing different parameters within the AES engine and used qualitative and quantitative
data in a complementary manner to produce a comprehensive analysis of the validity of CAFFite.
Essay responses were collected and input into the engine for multiple phases of analysis to detect
the accuracy of CAFFite compared with human raters, and consistency of the relationship between
280 John Gibbons and Mimi Li
human raters and the CAFFite scoring engine across different writing prompts. Results of the study
showed a mixed set of validity evidence, mitigating both for and against the use of CAFFite measures
for assessment. This dissertation research, informed by the knowledge in computational linguistics
(i.e., NLP), innovatively offered detailed methods and procedures for evaluators and developers of
ASE, and created a novel hybrid approach with first statistical parsing of students’ text and then devel-
oping rule-based algorithms from the parsed text.
4. Computer-based collaborative writing

As technology has continued to evolve, the use of web-based applications has offered increased oppor-
tunities for students and teachers to take advantage of collaborative writing activities across variable
locations and time (Bikowski & Vithanage, 2016; Li, 2018). Different tools afford different options
for collaboration, and students develop their own processes to perform their collaborative tasks.
Although the importance of teachers in the collaborative process cannot be overlooked, computer-
based collaboration allows for more student agency and increased autonomy as students take control
of the collaborative process of content creation and revision.
The three dissertations (i.e., Li, 2014; Alshalan, 2016; Yim, 2017) examine computer-based collab-
orative writing from different learning settings, using different research approaches (summaries
displayed in Table 4). Alshalan (2016) investigated the effect of collaborative writing on individual
writing performance, while Li (2014) and Yim (2017) examined the nature of collaborative writing
in the asynchronous CMC and synchronous CMC (S-CMC) context, respectively.
Alshalan (2016) utilized a quasi-experimental study (with a pre-test and post-test comparison) to
examine the effects of wiki collaboration on the development of writing skills, as well as the under-
graduate ESL students’ perceptions of using Wiki for collaborative writing. Eighteen students in the
experimental group received the wiki-based intervention, in which they collaboratively wrote three
essays in pairs on wikis, while the twelve students in the control group received the individual writing
strategy, in which they completed the three essays individually. After examining the timed essays
graded on a rubric via the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test, the researcher found that wiki-based collab-
orative writing significantly improved individual student performance across five measured areas: con-
tent, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics. While many studies have highlighted the role
of wikis in the collaborative writing processes and students’ perceptions, this dissertation implemented
an intervention for a close examination of ESL writing improvement and language development, and
also provided important implication on technology use. As the researcher noted, the absence of
synchronous communication and only single access at a time involving wikis may prove a hindrance
for student communication, and Google Docs can be an alternative tool for CMC collaborative writ-
ing, which allows for synchronous multiple edits by multiple students.
Differently, Li (2014) and Yim (2017) explored peer interactions as students worked on joint online
writing tasks in small groups. In Li’s (2014) multiple-case study conducted in a graduate EAP class at a
public southeastern university, small groups of ESL students worked on two collaborative writing tasks
using the wiki: a research proposal and an annotated bibliography. Li (2014) examined the patterns of
interaction across two wiki tasks, the joint wiki writing products, and factors mediating the peer inter-
action. Informed by Storch’s (2002) model that analyzed indexes of ‘equality’ and ‘mutuality’ to derive
patterns of face-to-face interaction, Li (2014) developed an analytical framework to examine wiki-
based interaction drawing on wiki records, including three focused aspects: (1) language functions
(initiating vs. responding), (2) writing change functions (self vs. other), and (3) scaffolding strategies.
The results revealed distinct dynamic patterns of interaction in relation to four focal groups:
Collective-Active/withdrawn; Expert/novice, Dominant/defensive-Collaborative, and Cooperating in
parallel. After examining the wiki papers, graded according to the rubric, the researcher found that
the group demonstrating a collective interaction pattern produced a wiki paper of the best overall qual-
ity while the group exhibiting a cooperating-in-parallel pattern produced a paper of the lowest quality.
Moreover, content analyses of interviews and reflection papers revealed that peer interactions were
Table 4. Computer-based collaborative writing
Theoretical/
Alshana 30 undergraduate Wikis Sociocultural Wiki-based The effects of wiki-based Timed writing essays
(2016) students enrolled in an Theory, ZPD, collaborative writing, collaborative writing on and demographic survey
advanced writing Interaction pre- and post- individual writing
course at a northern hypothesis, and intervention essays performances
university Output hypothesis
Li (2014) 12 graduate ESL Wikis Sociocultural Two collaborative wiki Interaction patterns across Questionnaires,
students in an EAP Theory, ZPD, writing tasks: research two wiki writing tasks, and interviews, reflection
class at a southeastern scaffolding, proposal and annotated connections between papers, wiki records
university collective bibliography interactions and writing
scaffolding, and products as well as
activity theory students’ perceptions
Yim 102 students from Google Sociocultural Three collaborative Effects of grouping and Individual and group
(2017) eighth grade ELA Docs Theory, writing tasks on Google language proficiency levels focus interviews, Docuviz
classes in middle Communities of Docs: narrative, on interactions in online data, student essays and
schools in California Practice (CoP) argumentative, and collaborative writing tasks reflections, online
informative tasks discussion
Language Teaching
281
mediated by factors such as goals, agency, and emotion. Li (2014) contributed methodologically to the
field of collaborative writing in that the study developed a systematic way to evaluate equality and
mutuality in CMC contexts, with respects to language functions, writing change functions, and scaf-
folding strategies. This dissertation also initially examined the links between online interaction pat-
terns and qualities of wiki writing products (i.e., rhetorical structure, coherence, and accuracy),
which extended research (e.g., Storch, 2002) exploring connections between interaction patterns
and student learning gains in the face-to-face collaborative writing environment. Moreover, drawing
on the activity theory, this study innovatively interpreted group dynamics in the online collaborative
writing task environment.
In the K-12 setting, Yim (2017), via a mixed-methods study, examined bilingual adolescents’
collaborative writing experiences and how students’ English proficiency and grouping status may influ-
ence their interaction and learning experience, as they worked on three collaborative writing tasks (i.e.,
narrative, argumentative, and informative essay) using Google Docs. Specifically, Yim divided the stu-
dents into different groups: the same ability Proficient groups, and mixed ability groups consisting of
Proficient + Advanced and Proficient + Basic groups. Based on the interview data, the researcher found
that collaborative writing practices were seen as relevant to cultural practices by the students, in that
digital literacies practiced in the collaborative writing activities have significant overlap with
out-of-school literacy practices. In particular, Yim innovatively implemented computational analysis
through text mining via Docuviz to determine the group dynamics (regarding students’ writing/
revision history across various scales of participation and collaboration). Along with the grading
rubric, the Coh-Metrix text analysis tool was used to analyze writing quality in terms of lexical diver-
sity, grammatical complexity, and textual cohesion. Results indicated that group dynamics of norms
and agreed-upon rules of interaction, shared responsibility, and conflict resolution were important
in developing consensus among peers. Echoing the finding of Watanabe (2008) examining the role
of proficiency grouping in face-to-face collaborative writing, the researcher found that proficiency
gaps present in some groups was less important than group dynamics when assessing the benefits
of collaborative writing using Google Docs. For instance, mixed ability groups in this study were
detected to provide more opportunities for students to edit, and what matters most is the ability of
the group to negotiate and maintain cohesion. This longitudinal study highlighted the value of syn-
chronous collaborative writing as a new literacies practice for secondary school students. In particular,
it makes an important methodological contribution to L2 writing in that it shows how a text mining
approach can be integrated to enhance research capacity, suggesting patterns and trends of students’
interaction via statistics.
5. Technology-based writing instruction/assessment

Technology-assisted writing instruction/assessment has become increasingly important in writing
pedagogy, including the wide use of online corpora to assist in the writing process. Early corpus
research was frequently limited to the creation of classroom materials and perhaps grammar refer-
ences, but recently researchers and instructors are beginning to fully use corpora in the context of
writing instruction (Yoon, 2008). Researchers (e.g., Yoon & Hirvela, 2004; Lee & Swales, 2006)
have examined ESL students’ use of corpora and found that online corpora aid students in common
usage of words, as well as in investigating lexicon-grammar patterns and genre analysis. While corpora
are widely regarded as a valuable tool for writers when they navigate genres and registers, how corpus
linguistics can be best implemented to writing pedagogy is still an emerging area of inquiry. Moreover,
the effect of technology-based writing assessment is still under-examined.
The following dissertations investigated the use of technology for L2 writing tasks in diverse learn-
ing contexts (summaries displayed in Table 5). Oh (2018) and Park (2010) examined ways of using
technology and corpora (e.g., Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA)) in and out of
class to assist ESL students’ academic writing. Kyeu (2014) examined how synchronous computer-
mediated communication (S-CMC) and face-to-face communication impacted individual essay
Table 5. Technology-based writing instruction/assessment
Theoretical/
Oh (2018) 120 adult students Microsoft Word Kane’s Genre-based The effect of learning tools for Writing samples,
(undergraduate, Argument-based writing tasks spelling, grammar, and surveys, proficiency
graduate, visiting Approach to reference (dictionary/ test
scholars) in US validation (2004) thesaurus) on ESL students’
universities in the writing performances across
New York area proficiency levels and genres
Park 12 students (three focal iShowU screen Distributed Cognition Genre-based Use of corpus-based resources Query log and MySQL
(2010) students) in an recording Theory, ZPD writing tasks: to improve lexicogrammatical computer database,
undergraduate ESL software, summary and performance in genre-based oral and written
class at an eastern Google custom reaction paper, writing reflections, screen
university search engine research report recordings, and
stimulated recall
Kyeu 10 Swahili as an FL Facebook Sociocultural Theory, Five 30-minute Impact of student Facebook Essays, student
(2014) students at a instant Interactionist and essay writing interactions on essay writing interviews, holistic
midwestern university messenger Collaborative tasks based on in Swahili rating scales
learning theories the preceding
Facebook chats
Zhi (2019) 60 graduate/ Word Test authenticity Two prompted Authenticity of Pre-survey, typing test,
undergraduate processing essays adapted computer-based assessment cognitive processing
students at a from TOEFL compared with paper-based questionnaire, pre-
southwestern university assessment and post-interview
Tseptsura 15 multilingual LMS eComp Community of Variety of Usability of OWC and online Student discussion
(2019) students in an online Online Writing Inquiry Framework, genres and identity formation posts, student writing
writing class at a Course (OWC) Sociocultural Theory portfolio and multimodal work,
midwestern university creation questionnaire, student
interviews
Language Teaching
283
writing in Swahili as an FL. Tseptsura (2019) explored multilingual writers’ experience with technol-
ogy, identity construction, and the online learning community in a fully online college composition
class. Different from the other four studies, which addressed writing instruction, Zhi (2019)
thoroughly examined computer-mediated writing assessment.
Oh (2018) used a mixed-methods design to examine how adult students (e.g., undergraduate
students, graduate students, visiting scholars) use linguistic tools, namely spelling, grammar, and
reference resources, in the process of L2 composition. These tools were frequently used for confirm-
ation of spelling or linguistic choices, often through the use of online spell checks, thesauruses, or
dictionaries, with free and accessible online word processing, as well. Via the writing assessment
based on a coding scheme, Oh (2018) aimed to examine how access to different linguistic tools impacts
ESL learners’ writing performance on three tasks (i.e., email, online review, and discussion post) across
three language proficiency levels (Basic, Advanced, Proficient). The tasks were chosen specifically to
assess grammar form and meaning, lexical form, topical meaning, intended meaning, and implied
meaning under different assessment conditions and linguistic tools. The results indicated that the
spelling tool and reference tool (dictionary/thesaurus) were shown to have great potential in facilitat-
ing L2 students’ writing, with distinctions in test-taker performance less pronounced across
proficiency levels for those who used linguistic tools. This study provides empirical evidence that
can be of value to test developers, and also has important implications for educators, causing teachers
to recalibrate the common perception that linguistic tools can be a form of distraction, while in fact
they may be beneficial in developing students’ overall writing ability.
Park (2010) examined corpus-based learning, with a focus on improving the lexicogrammatical aspect
of writing from L2 academic writers. Rather than using concordance programs such as COCA, Park
(2010) innovatively employed a customized search engine, the Google CS, and developed discipline-
specific corpora, used for both instruction and research in academic writing. The academic corpus
for this study was a virtually compiled corpus of hyperlinks to academic journals. Specifically, the
study examined undergraduate ESL students’ lexicogrammatical performance, their evaluations of the
system, and the effect of the system on writing performance. Data were collected from screen video
clips, oral and written reflections, and the query log. The results revealed that the writer interaction
with the corpus was highly structured and interactive, and the custom corpus played a facilitative
role in improving students’ lexicogrammatical performance, thus providing teachers with a potentially
effective means to help students engage in independent academic writing tasks. Park’s (2010) study
made an important contribution to the field, highlighting and confirming the role that corpora can
play in the improvement of students’ lexicogrammatical performance. This dissertation sought to bypass
the ‘long enculturation processes’ (p. 195) of genre writing by directly using genre-specific corpus data-
bases to reflect on the target genre, thus leading to students’ enhanced awareness of genre knowledge.
Theoretically grounded in interactionist and collaborative learning theories, Kyeu (2014) examined
how S-CMC and face-to-face communication impacted individual essay writing in Swahili as an FL at
the tertiary level. While S-CMC chat research is not new, what makes this study unique is that it inves-
tigates how participants transfer written aspects of their chat into essays written in Swahili (Sotillo,
2016). The students took part in five 50-minute computer-mediated pair interactive sessions as well
as five face-to-face pair interactive sessions, followed by 30-minute timed essays on topics previously
discussed. Interviews and perception questionnaire were used to derive student perceptions. Results
indicated that students using S-CMC transferred aspects of their communication more frequently
than when they participated in face-to-face communication. Participants noted that the S-CMC
enabled more time to think about the interactions, while face-to-face allowed little reflection.
Moreover, students did not transfer as many of the ideas and syntactic structures from their
face-to-face communication into their essays as they did with chat. This study pointed to the value
of collaborative practice in writing with students with limited linguistic resources and informed us
that speaking-to-write activities stimulate social learning and the opportunity to think deeply about
a topic. Integrating two digital media environments into learning tasks, this dissertation addressed
pedagogical innovation on teaching Swahili as an FL.
Tseptsura (2019) employed a mixed-methods case study design to explore the experiences of
linguistically diverse students in an online writing class, with participants recruited from an online
composition program. Through student interviews and written work, as well as instructor interviews,
the researcher examined L2 writers’ experience with technology, identity construction, and the online
learning community built for multilingual writers. The usability and engagement aspects of the
Learning Management System (LMS) were viewed through the lens of the Community of Inquiry
Framework, a social constructivist model of learning in online and blended environments, built on
cognitive, teaching, and social presence (Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, & Fung, 2010). Results revealed
important aspects of students’ peer interactions and identity construction, particularly how students’
unwillingness to disclose their language background may impact instructor decisions, as well as
student-student interactions and creation of social presence. The findings are particularly useful for
online composition instructors when developing instructional materials, specifically the call for the
use of multimodal video or audio instructions, additional guidance on the LMS, and frequent usability
tests to help students master English writing skills.
Zhi (2019) re-examined the delivery mode of writing assessment, which was reported to have an
important influence on student assessment performance in previous research (e.g., Lee, 2004). Zhi’s
study compared the authenticity of computer-based and paper-based academic writing, expanding
validity to include test takers’ perceptions of the assessment, which may influence measurement.
Specifically, each participant completed two writing tasks with separate prompts (adapted from
TOEFL) in computer-based and paper-based modes. Immediately after the writing tasks, a cognitive
writing process questionnaire was adapted to capture participants’ writing processes while writing.
Trained raters assessed the essays according to rubrics, with high inter-rater reliability determined.
Overall findings point to the advantage of the computer-based tests in the assessment of advanced
ESL students’ writing proficiency for a higher degree of authenticity, while simultaneously exposing
potential issues of validity and fairness. Test takers perceived themselves performing better and had
more confidence in test validity with the test mode they were most familiar with. If students were
not accustomed to computer-based writing tasks, it was perceived as less valid because they felt dis-
advantaged due to lower computer literacy skills. Contrary to previous research by Li (2006), which
showed that paper-based writing led to higher-level revisions of ideas and structures, this study showed
more high-level revisions in the computer-based writing. Moreover, a correlation was identified
between scores and computer literacy. Computer familiarity and computer availability at school
produced the highest correlation with computer-based essay scores. The results informed us that
equal access and use of computers in school for academic work are an important factor in learning
outcomes, and students from settings with limited computer availability are at a disadvantage that
needs to be addressed by teachers and administrators in order to close the digital divide. This disser-
tation is expected to capture researchers’ wider attention to validity and reliability of computer-based
writing assessments, which plays an increasingly important role in the digital era.
6. Digital composing/literacy
Given the development of digital technologies and radical changes in the communication environ-
ment, digital practice captures increasing attention in L2 writing contexts. The digital age provides
rich opportunities for writers to deploy multiple resources to make meaning, construct knowledge,
and express self-identity (Li & Storch, 2017). The following five dissertations examined students’
digital composing practice from different perspectives (summaries displayed in Table 6). Dzekoe
(2013) examined college students’ computer-based multimodal composing activities and their effect
on revisions and writing development. Moore (2017) examined the ways in which college ESL stu-
dents’ interaction with technology influences their understanding and implementation of multimodal
writing practices. Bauler (2012) examined online forums specifically, and the role they play in the
development of academic literacy and language learning in college ESL writing classes. Jiang (2013)
examined high school ESL students’ school-sponsored and self-sponsored digital writing practices
286
Table 6. Digital composing/literacy
Theoretical/
Pedagogical
Context and participants Technology framework Writing task Research focus Research data
Bauler 23 ESL students in a Moodle LMS, Sociocultural Persuasive essays, The role of online forum Written texts from
(2012) college writing course at a online forums, Theory, Critical online discussion discussions as practices online postings
midwestern university discussions Discourse Analysis of digital literacy in
college-level ESL writing

Chen 2 multilingual Facebook and Sociocultural Online texts in class ESL students’ Background survey,
(2012) writers, international SNS Theory and SNS posts out of participation in field notes,
graduate students at a class networking participants’
southwestern university communities and types Facebook pages,
of literacy practices over semistructured
time interviews
Dzekoe 22 undergraduate ESL Google Docs, Noticing Four multimodal The effect of multimodal Stimulated recall
(2013) students at a midwestern Glogster, and Hypothesis expository essays composing activities on interview, Google
university NaturalReader revisions and writing Docs archives, and
10.0 development exit survey
Jiang 4 high school students in a Facebook, Sociocultural and Self-sponsored Divergence of individual Web logs, literacy
(2013) western urban community Twitter, forums, socio-critical view out-of-class writing school-sponsored and logs, Facebook posts,
etc. of literacy, New and in-class writing self-sponsored writing field notes, videos,
Literacy Studies tasks (e.g., term paper, tasks and taped classroom
multimodal self- interactions
advertisement)
Moore 14 ESL students at a Email, Facebook, Grounded theory Variety of student An ESL student’s Interviews and online
(2017) midwestern university and WhatsApp composition tasks perspective on digital survey
literacy and composing
practices
with new media/social networking. Chen (2012) researched digital literacy practices of college ESL stu-
dents and explored the relationship between SLA and social networking.
First, Dzekoe (2013) conducted a case study on six ESL students’ using computer-based multimodal
composing activities integrating multiple language skills to facilitate writing revisions in a college ESL
composition classroom. Specifically, ‘multimodality’ refers to transforming written text to poster form,
and ‘Text-to-Speech’ (TTS) refers to hearing the written texts to help identify errors, using the TTS
software (NaturalReader). Data were collected from students’ written drafts and final copies of four
expository essays (via Google Docs), posters (using Glogster), screen records of their editing activities
in the revision process, as well as reflections, survey responses, and stimulated recall interviews. The
research findings indicated that computer-based multimodal composing helped students independ-
ently evaluate linguistic and rhetorical elements, organizational structure, and specific information
that they used in the revision process. Students reported a greater sense of agency and voice, while
also performing more content-level revisions than surface-level ones, which contrasts with previous
studies by Chambers (2011) and Suzuki (2008). Dzekoe showed that the use of computer-based multi-
modal composing activities, particularly listening-writing connections, could help students self-revise
academic writing, while simultaneously developing their own writing voice. Another valuable take-
away from this research was the need for teachers and researchers to focus more on revision history
and strategies than the changes of writing products.
Via an ethnographic multiple-case study, Jiang (2013) conducted a year-long research project with
four high school ELLs in an urban community in the western US. Jiang sought to understand the rela-
tionships, links, and gaps between the school-sponsored writing practices and self-sponsored writing
practices through the use of different media. Jiang collected data from multiple sources, including
in-class writing, formal and informal interviews, field notes, writing samples, and recorded classroom
interactions. Inductive analysis drew out important themes related to negotiation and construction of
identity, socialization, and language use across different platforms. To compare school-sponsored
writing and self-sponsored writing, Jiang (2013) analyzed writing activities (including writing topics,
genres, and audience) and student engagement, respectively. The study uncovered that no clear
boundary was identified between the two types of writing practices, with overlapping between various
environments and communities, but each maintaining a distinct circle of friends. With reading and
writing in online digital environments being the norm now, as evidenced with participants in this
study, teachers should encourage digital multimodal writing both in and outside classrooms. This dis-
sertation highlighted the connections of the digital literacies practices in in-school and out-of-school
contexts and motivated researchers to conduct further inquiry on this topic in broader language learn-
ing contexts (e.g., Vandommele, van den Branden, van Gorp, & de Maeyer, 2017).
Bauler (2012) examined the role of digital media, particularly online discussion forums, in college
ESL students’ literacy practices. Bauler (2012) explored different discourse practices and collected data
from online discussions and argumentative essays produced in writing classes. Results revealed that
online forums offer a space with greater variety combined with increased student engagement.
Online discussions contribute to L2 learning via meaningful language use and language negotiation
with peers. Moreover, the study revealed that the online discussion forum can be a valuable place,
if connected to curriculum design, to create a participatory multimodal environment for student
engagement and idea generation, which provides a low-stakes setting for social and cultural mediation
with peers. The ideas generated in online discussions contributed to construction of follow-up persua-
sive essays. Building on work by Snyder and Bulfin (2008), who uncovered gaps in school prepared-
ness to integrate technology in learning environments, and Warschauer and Grimes (2007), whose
research further highlighted the importance of collaboration through sharing of content, Bauler
(2012) adds to the field of online collaborative learning by providing a detailed analysis of the digital
literacy practices of college-level ESL students’ collaborative discursive interactions while negotiating
meaning in online forums.
Chen (2012) explored the use of multimodality through digital media and the relationship between
social networking and L2 learning in and out of school among graduate L2 students. The research
consisted of three components: (1) a survey-based study of social networking sites (SNSs) and literacy
practices in SLA (data from questionnaire and interview); (2) a case study addressing two L2 users’
SNS-mediated identity and community relationships (data including a background survey,
Facebook and SNS usage analysis, and semistructured interviews and field notes); and (3) genre aware-
ness through SNS-enhanced instruction (data from reflective journals and student-teacher confer-
ences). Results revealed that SNSs served an important role in connecting with home country
discussions as well as new discourses. The study provided illustrative examples concerning two
focal students who negotiated multiple identities and affiliations across varied networks. Moreover,
Facebook and SNSs were found to become a hybrid third space where multiple languages, identities,
and literacies are navigated, and which raises a sense of engagement and awareness of rhetorical fea-
tures, audience, contexts, and genre. This dissertation highlighted the value of learning L2 writing in
informal ways, which is increasingly discussed in the current body of literature (e.g., Lehtonen, 2017;
Zheng, Yim, & Warschauer, 2018).
The last dissertation discussed in this section, Moore (2017), aimed to fully understand how ESL
undergraduate students interacted with digital resources in the writing process through a grounded
theory approach. Moore examined the technologies that students used and their attitudes toward vari-
ous media. This dissertation involved a survey phase, in which an online questionnaire was used to
explore students’ composing process and engagement with social media, and two interview phases,
in which ten students discussed the kinds of compositions they were comfortable sharing, who they
were as digital composers, and the role of technology in the writing classroom. Results of the study
indicated that participants were highly digitally literate, yet still were apprehensive of the situation
of adopting digital literacy in place of traditional practices. As ELLs attempt to negotiate their way
and become members of a community, their language use/fluency either makes them a member of
the institutional community, or can cause them to feel excluded. This dissertation attempts to add
to a small but growing body of research exploring the attitudes of ESL students toward digital writing
practices. This study enhanced our understanding of how students approach a video composition
compared with text-dominant composition, and how the teachers navigate the pros and cons while
integrating these different modes into the classroom.
7. Conclusion and future directions

This article has reviewed 20 Ph.D. dissertations on L2 writing and technology completed during the
last decade (2010–2019) in the USA. It has addressed five relevant thematic categories: computer-
mediated teacher/peer feedback, AWE, computer-based collaborative writing, technology-based
writing instruction/assessment, and digital composing/literacy. We specifically analyzed and discussed
the research design, research results, and contribution for each dissertation study. Overall, these dis-
sertations conducted rigorous inquiries of significant research topics, using different methodological
approaches. They have collectively made an important contribution to the scholarship in the fields
of L2 writing and CALL.
Based on the close review, we highlight future directions for Ph.D. research on L2 writing and tech-
nology, within the US and beyond. Regarding study contexts and participants, the majority of participants
in the dissertations (17 out of 20) were at the tertiary level. Only three dissertation studies were conducted
in the K-12 setting, but with no elementary school students. Regarding the language context, dissertation
research was mainly conducted in the English as an L2 setting (18 out of 20). Only two addressed a for-
eign language, namely Chinese and Swahili, respectively. Research in the contexts of teaching and learning
modern languages other than English are still largely under-represented. Dissertations addressing more
diverse language learning contexts would definitely be welcome in the future.
The 20 dissertations employed qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods design. Studies of
some thematic categories tended to rely on a certain research design more than others. For instance,
most of the data analysis in relation to computer-based collaborative writing and digital composing/
literacy tended to be more qualitative, drawing on data such as writing archives, observation,
questionnaire, and interviews. Thus, mixed-methods design is to be encouraged, since this offers
strengths that will offset the weaknesses of either quantitative or qualitative research and at the
same time provides a comprehensive picture of the role of technology in L2 writing. In addition, it
should be noted that the majority of the qualitative dissertation studies used the case study approach,
while just one utilized discourse analysis and one grounded theory. Other qualitative approaches such
as narrative inquiry and phenomenological research are largely missing. Therefore, narrative inquiry
telling stories of students’ digital literacy practice and phenomenological research exploring students’
lived experiences of learning writing through corpora, for example, can be potential directions for
future dissertation research, due to the increasing role of narrative and digital rhetorics in composition
classrooms (Sundvall, 2019).
Moreover, the dissertation research reviewed in this paper has been informed by various theoret-
ical/pedagogical frameworks, such as Sociocultural Theory, the Interactionist approach, Systemic
Functional Linguistics, Complexity Theory, and the study of new literacies. With the increasing atten-
tion to interdisciplinary research, future dissertation studies are expected to draw on diverse theoretical
constructs for the inquiry of research issues from multiple lenses. With the reiteration of technology
development, more thematic strands are likely to occur in the following decade, such as exploring the
effectiveness of computer-assisted writing instruction. In particular, given the pandemic, more future
studies will respond to the need for research in online pedagogy addressing synchronous teaching
environments, such as the virtual classrooms facilitated by Zoom or Google Classroom, which have
taken on increased importance due to social distancing guidelines and imposed school shutdowns
(Gunawan, Suranti, & Fathoroni, 2020). The continuously changing situations for learning will call
for future doctoral research studies that will continue to shed new light on research and pedagogy
worldwide in the field of L2 writing and technology.
References
Alsallami, N. (2017). L2 learners’ perceptions and preferences of automated corrective feedback (Doctoral dissertation). Iowa
State University. Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/15244
Alshalan, A. (2016). The effects of Wiki-based collaborative writing on ESL student’s individual writing performance (Doctoral
dissertation). Wayne State University. Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/15244
Bauler, C. V. (2012). Examining online forum discussions as practices of digital literacy in college-level ESL writing (Doctoral
dissertation). University of California, Santa Barbara.
Bikowski, D., & Vithanage, R. (2016). Effects of web-based collaborative writing on individual L2 writing development.
Chambers, L. (2011). Composition and revision in computer-based written assessment. Research Notes, 43, 25–32.
Chen, H. (2012). Social networking, socialization, and second language writers: The development of new identities and literacies
(Doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona. Retrieved from https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/232494
Choi, J. (2010). The impact of Automated Essay Scoring (AES) for improving English language learner’s essay writing (Doctoral
dissertation). University of Virginia. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/116200/
Cotos, E. (2010). Automated writing evaluation for non-native speaker English academic writing: The case of IADE and its
feedback (Doctoral dissertation). Iowa State University. Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/11630/
Cunningham, K. J. (2018). Modes of feedback in ESL writing: Implications of shifting from text to screencast (Doctoral disser-
tation). Iowa State University. Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/16336/
de Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. Modern
Language Journal, 78, 484–496.
Dzekoe, R. (2013). Facilitating revision in the English as a second language (ESL) composition classroom through computer-
based multimodal composing activities: A case study of composing practices of ESL students (Doctoral dissertation). Iowa
State University. Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4156&context=etd
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting second language writing using multimodal feedback. Foreign Language Annals,
49(1), 58–74.
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201.
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and
social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education,
13(1–2), 31–36.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2018). Second language writing online: An update. Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 1–15.
Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 443–461.
Gunawan, G., Suranti, N. M. Y., & Fathoroni, F. (2020). Variations of models and learning platforms for prospective teachers
during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Indonesian Journal of Teacher Education, 1(2), 61–70.
Han, J. (2019). The effects and students’ views of teachers’ coded written corrective feedback: A multiple-case study of online
multiple-draft Chinese writing (Doctoral dissertation). University of South Florida. Retrieved from https://scholarcom-
mons.usf.edu/etd/7802/
Hyland, K. (2016). Teaching and researching writing (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Jiang, P. (2013). Learning to write in the digital age: ELLs’ literacy practices in and out of their Western urban high school
(Doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University. Retrieved from http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/disserta-
tions/individuals.shtml
Kane, M. (2004). Certification testing as an illustration of argument-based validation. Measurement, 2(3), 135–170.
Keith, T. Z. (2003). Validity of automated essay scoring systems. In M. D. Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay
scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 140–160). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kyeu, D. W. (2014). The impact of interactive discussions on essay writing in Swahili as a Foreign Language (Doctoral disser-
tation). The University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/10439467/The_Impact_
of_Facebook_Chat_on_Swahili_Essay_Writing
Lee, D., & Swales, J. (2006). A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students: Moving from available specialized cor-
pora to self-compiled corpora. English for specific purposes, 25(1), 56–75.
Lee, H. K. (2004). A comparative study of ESL writers’ performance in a paper-based and a computer-delivered writing test.
Assessing Writing, 9(1), 4–26.
Lehtonen, T. (2017). You will certainly learn English much faster at work than from a textbook. System, 68, 50–59.
Li, J. (2006). The mediation of technology in ESL writing and its implications for writing assessment. Assessing Writing,
11(1), 5–21.
Li, M. (2014). Small group interactions in wiki-based collaborative writing in the EAP context (Doctoral dissertation).
University of South Florida. Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/5254/
Li, M. (2018). Computer-mediated collaborative writing in L2 contexts: An analysis of empirical research. Computer Assisted
Li, M., & Storch, N. (2017). Second language writing in the age of CMC: Affordances, multimodality, and collaboration.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 1–5.
Link, S. (2015). Development and validation of an automated essay scoring engine to assess students’ development across pro-
gram levels (Doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University. Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=5574&context=etd
Manning, C. D., Surdeanu, M., Bauer, J., Finkel, J. R., Bethard, S., & McClosky, D. (2014). The Stanford CoreNLP natural
language processing toolkit. In Proceedings of 52nd annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics:
System demonstrations (pp. 55–60).
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London, UK/New York, NY: Palgrave/
Macmillan.
Moore, J. S. (2017). Digital literacy and composing practices of second language students: A student perspective on writing,
technology, and privilege. (Doctoral dissertation). Bowling Green State University. Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.
edu/!etd.send_file?accession=bgsu148715983643726&disposition=inline
Oh, S. R. (2018). Investigating test-takers’ use of linguistic tools in second language academic writing assessment (Doctoral dis-
sertation). Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/
D8B00HDQ
Park, K. (2010). Enhancing lexicogrammatical performance through corpus-based mediation in L2 academic writing instruction.
(Doctoral dissertation). Penn State University. Retrieved from https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/3583
Shermis, M., & Burstein, J. (Ed.). (2003). Automated essay scoring. New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from https://doi.org/
10.4324/9781410606860
Snyder, I. A., & Bulfin, S. A. (2008). Using new media in the secondary English classroom. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C.
Lankshear, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 805–837). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum
Sotillo, S. M. (2016). An update on discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous commu-
nication. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 166–171.
Storch. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158.
Sundvall, S. (2019). Rhetorical speculations: The future of rhetoric, writing, and technology. University Press of Colorado.
Suzuki, M. (2008). Japanese learners’ self-revisions and peer revisions of their written compositions in English. TESOL
Quarterly, 42(2), 209–233.
Tseptsura, M. V. (2019). Multilingual writers and online writing instruction: Expanding our theoretical and instructional fra-
meworks (Doctoral dissertation). University of New Mexico. Retrieved from https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcon-
tent.cgi?article=1273&context=engl_etds
Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and
Composition, 21(2), 217–235.
Vandommele, G., van den Branden, K., van Gorp, K., & de Maeyer, S. (2017). In-school and out-of-school multimodal writ-
ing as an L2 writing resource for beginner learners of Dutch. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 23–36.
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Vorobel, O. (2013). A case study of peer review practices of four adolescent English language learners in face-to-face and online
contexts (Doctoral dissertation). University of South Florida. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/
1430500718
Wang, J., & Brown, M. S. (2007). Automated essay scoring versus human scoring: A comparative study. Journal of Technology,
Learning, and Assessment, 6(2). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/103259/.
Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2007). Audience, authorship, and artifact: The emergent semiotics of Web 2.0. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 27, 1.
Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer-peer interaction between L2 learners of different proficiency levels: Their interactions and reflec-
tions. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4), 605–663.
White, P. R. R. (2015). Appraisal theory. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of language
and social interaction, (1st ed., pp. 1–7). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Yim, S. (2017). Digital literacy in academic settings: synchronous collaborative writing among linguistically diverse students
(Doctoral dissertation). University of California. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0bh1s43v
Yoon, H. (2008). More than a linguistic reference: The influence of corpus technology on L2 academic writing. Language
Learning & Technology, 12(2), 31–48.
Yoon, H., & Hirvela, A. (2004). ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,
13(4), 257–283.
Zheng, B., Yim, S., & Warschauer, M. (2018). Social media in the writing classroom and beyond. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The
TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–5). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
Zhi, M. (2019). Investigating the authenticity of computer-and paper-based ESL writing tests (Doctoral dissertation). The University
of Texas at San Antonio. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/openview/5636f1642915659d132c64d9e1624f59/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=51922&diss=y
Mimi Li, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics/TESOL in the Department of Literature and Languages at
Texas A&M University-Commerce. Her main research areas are second language writing and CALL. She has conducted
research projects on online collaborative writing, computer-based peer review, gamification and vocabulary learning, and
multimodal pedagogy in teacher education. Her work has appeared in Journal of Second Language Writing, Computer
Assisted Language Learning, Language Learning & Technology, System, Computers & Education, Computers and
Composition, among others. She serves on the editorial boards of Journal of Second Language Writing and Language
Learning & Technology.
John Gibbons, M.S., is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Literature and Languages at Texas A&M University-Commerce.
He teaches English Composition and Rhetoric, and his main research interests include second language writing,
mobile-assisted language learning, and composition and rhetoric. He was an assistant editor for Best of the Journals in
Rhetoric and Composition 2019. He has taught English as a Foreign Language in Jordan, China, and Taiwan, as well as
ESL in the US.
Cite this article: Gibbons, J., & Li, M. (2021). Doctoral dissertations on second language writing and technology in the USA
(2010–2019). Language Teaching, 54(2), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000403
doi:10.1017/S0261444821000045
RESEARCH IN PROGRESS
Second language acquisition at Carnegie Mellon

University, USA
Joy Maa*, Xiaomeng Li, Nuria Ballesteros Soria, Zhe Gao, Katharine E. Burns and Seth Wiener
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
*Corresponding author. Email: jymaa@andrew.cmu.edu
1. Background
The Second Language Acquisition (SLA) Ph.D. program, housed in the Department of Modern
Languages at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), was established in 1997 under the leadership of
Professors G. Richard Tucker and Barbara Freed. The program has since graduated 47 students,
many of whom have advanced to tenure-track, postdoctoral research, and teaching positions at uni-
versities in the US and abroad, while others have transitioned into successful careers in industry.
The SLA program admits a small cohort each year and is built upon an advisor model that emphasizes
early and close mentorship. Courses are designed to strengthen students’ theoretical foundation in
applied linguistics; train them broadly in quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research methodologies;
and introduce them to a wide and representative spectrum of topics and sub-disciplines within SLA.
Commitment to teaching development and effectiveness is another hallmark of the program: Graduate
students are given the opportunity to be instructors of record for various language and culture courses,
and faculty and students of the Modern Languages Department are regularly recognized for their
pedagogical excellence. SLA students also actively pursue their research and professional interests in
other spheres, including working as consultants at the university’s Eberly Center for Teaching
Excellence and Educational Innovation; collaborating on projects with other programs and depart-
ments; and taking courses and forming connections at other area universities, including the
University of Pittsburgh. The SLA program is ideally positioned for interdisciplinary research,
given CMU’s strengths in technology-enhanced learning, learning science, and the arts. Diversity
and collaboration are also well-represented among the SLA faculty, whose research spans four core
areas: Instruction and learning; society, language, and multilingualism; speech and cognition; and
literacy development.
2. Instruction and learning

The first primary area of research in the SLA program is second language (L2) instruction and learn-
ing. The program’s emphasis on teaching is reflected in faculty research that considers classroom prac-
tices as well as opportunities for learning beyond the classroom and explores various pedagogical
approaches for developing different learner competences and knowledge areas.
Professor Rémi A. van Compernolle examines various issues related to classroom discourse, inter-
action, and instruction in his research. He designs and implements instructional interventions
grounded in sociocultural theory (SCT), and recently published an article with doctoral student
Nuria Ballesteros-Soria on dynamic strategic interaction scenarios for promoting learners’ inter-
actional repertoires (van Compernolle & Ballesteros-Soria, 2020). Professor van Compernolle also
directed recent graduate Dr. Alexis Adams’ dissertation (Adams, 2020) on classroom discourse inter-
vention in an upper-level Hispanic Studies course. He is currently editing a volume on concept-based
instruction (van Compernolle, forthcoming) and conducting a study on epistemics and deontics in
classroom interaction in Chinese, French, and Spanish, which includes an upcoming paper on
topic management and opportunities for learning in an advanced French culture class (van
Compernolle, forthcoming).
Professor Khaled Al Masaeed’s research focuses on interaction and teaching in multidialectal and
multilingual contexts. He has analyzed translanguaging practices in interactions between learners of
Arabic and their native speaker language partners (e.g., Al Masaeed, 2020). Recently, he has expanded
his research into instructional methods for promoting L2 Arabic learners’ sociolinguistic repertoires and
multilingual practices (Nassif & Al Masaeed, 2020) and is working with Professor van Compernolle on
an ongoing project on L2 Arabic conversations-for-learning. Doctoral student Joseph Schaefer is also
investigating instruction for multidialectal competence in L2 Arabic, with an emphasis on comparing
learners from Modern Standard Arabic-centric and Integrated Approach programs.
Professor Sébastien Dubreil’s work addresses L2 learning in diverse contexts, including online
spaces and (digital) games (Dubreil & Thorne, 2017; Sykes & Dubreil, 2019). His most recent study
concerns leveraging gameful learning during social distancing (Dubreil, 2020). In one of his ongoing
projects, Professor Dubreil examines the power of a spatialized approach to language, culture, and lit-
eracy education (Malinowski, Maxim, & Dubreil, forthcoming). Additionally, he is collaborating with
Professor Stephan Caspar and CMU’s Eberly Center on a series of projects that explore the efficacy of
virtual reality in developing cultural competence.
2.1. Society, language, and multilingualism

The second core SLA discipline addresses the relationship between language and society through vari-
ous theoretical and methodological perspectives. From speech acts to multilingualism, pedagogical
practices to language ideologies, and heritage language classes to study abroad, work in the program
brings together a broad range of themes and foci across distinct contexts.
Professor Katharine E. Burns addresses issues of language ideology, language policy, and L2 learner
identity in her research (e.g., Burns, 2018; Burns & Waugh, 2018). She is presently working on a study
that investigates the relationship between language ideology, dialectal competence, and L2 learner
identity construction among advanced L2 Spanish learners. In addition, Professor Burns is collabor-
ating with doctoral candidate Joy Maa on a project exploring L2 ideologies, identities, and discourses
in computer-mediated communication. Other current research includes a study with recent graduate
Dr. Gerdine Ulysse on the relationship between educational language policy, literacy, and language
attitudes in Haiti’s multilingual society, as well as a project with doctoral student Ding
Wang-Bramlett and Professor van Compernolle on a sequential conversation analysis of instructor
translanguaging in a business Chinese course.
An additional focus of Professor Al Masaeed’s research is the relationship between multidialectal
practices and the development of pragmatic competence. Currently, he is engaged in a project exam-
ining the effect of proficiency in spoken Arabic dialects on pragmatic development in study abroad. In
addition, Professor Al Masaeed is expanding his work to other multilingual environments with Dr.
Ulysse in an article that explores language attitudes and literacy in French and Creole in Haiti
(Ulysse & Al Masaeed, forthcoming).
Professor van Compernolle has also written extensively on L2 pragmatics and sociolinguistics. In
this line of research, he extends his SCT-based approach to instructional pragmatics, in which he
has employed pedagogical practices such as concept-based instruction and dynamic assessment.
Recently, he has begun to examine L2 sociolinguistic development from a usage-based perspective
(van Compernolle, 2019). He is currently collaborating with SLA graduate Professor Tianyu Qin
(University of North Georgia) on a study that implements computerized dynamic assessment to meas-
ure L2 Chinese learners’ comprehension of implicatures (Qin & van Compernolle, forthcoming).
2.2. Speech and cognition

The third major research area centers around speech (phonetics, phonology) and cognition (learning, mem-
ory, processing) in L2 development. Much of the work in this domain is the product of rich interdisciplinary
294 Joy Maa et al.
collaboration with faculty and students from various sectors of CMU, such as the Department of Psychology,
the Entertainment Technology Center, and the Language Technologies Institute.
Professor Seth Wiener heads the Language Acquisition, Processing, and Pedagogy (LAPP) Lab at
CMU, which conducts a variety of experiments on L2 speech perception/production and lexical pro-
cesses. He is presently conducting a study with Professor Lori Holt (CMU Psychology) on adult L2
speech sound acquisition, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Language
Learning. The study examines whether incidental category learning of L2 speech sounds taps into
the same category learning systems that are engaged in more explicit classroom learning (Wiener,
Murphy, Goel, Christel, & Holt, 2019). The LAPP Lab also trains undergraduate and graduate students
in psycholinguistic approaches to SLA. Ongoing research projects include the doctoral dissertation
research of Zhe Gao (co-advised by Professor Brian MacWhinney) on the acquisition of Chinese com-
pound nouns and verbs by adult L2 learners (Gao, 2020), non-native English anterior fricative acqui-
sition, perception of Japanese pitch accent by first, second, and third language speakers (Wiener &
Goss, 2019), the perception-production link of Arabic L2 learners (in collaboration with Professor
Al Masaeed), and heritage learners’ lexical processing.
Professor Brian MacWhinney (CMU Psychology) manages the NIH and NSF-funded CHILDES
and TalkBank (including SLABank) corpora (MacWhinney, 2020) and continues to refine his influ-
ential Competition Model of language processing (MacWhinney, 2015). His current work with SLA
students includes studies with online tutors for the learning of English article usage (Zhao &
MacWhinney, 2018), studies of beginners’ learning of French noun gender, L2 learning of definite art-
icle selection in Wikipedia articles in German, and online L2 learning through captioned video.
Ongoing studies also include language learning in virtual reality, eye-movement monitoring of pre-
dictive processing in L2 Japanese, literacy training in Latin, online methods for learning Pinyin and
Chinese tones, computational tools for corpus analysis, and the development of an online database
with commentary for analyzing interactions in the L2 classroom.
2.3. Literacy development

The fourth principal strand of research in the SLA program is literacy development. Over the years,
faculty and students have explored cross-linguistic issues in L2 reading acquisition in a variety of lan-
guages, including Arabic, Chinese, English, Japanese, Kannada, and Portuguese. SLA members inves-
tigate differences in the development of reading in L2 learners with contrasting first language (L1)
backgrounds, as well as the role of L2 linguistic knowledge in mediating L1 literacy effect on L2 read-
ing development.
Professor Keiko Koda conducts extensive research in L2 reading competence and, in particular, the
relationship between L1 literacy and L2 metalinguistic awareness and word recognition. Her ongoing
work in this area includes a meta-analysis conducted in collaboration with SLA alumni Professor Sihui
Ke (University of Kentucky), Professor Ryan Miller (Kent State University), and Professor Dongbo
Zhang (University of Exeter), which examines cross-linguistic sharing of morphological awareness
in biliteracy development (Ke, Miller, Zhang, & Koda, 2021). Additionally, Professor Koda is
co-editing an invited handbook on SLA and reading with Professor Miller (Koda & Miller, forthcom-
ing). The upcoming volume considers L2 reading development across different languages, contexts
and teaching methods from various perspectives—including psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and
education—in order to synthesize current understandings of L2 literacy acquisition.
Professor Koda also addresses the reciprocity between linguistic knowledge and reading ability in her
research. Doctoral student Xiaomeng Li explores this topic in her study on the mediating influence of L2
orthographic properties on the contributions of L1 skills to L2 decoding and comprehension among L2
English learners. Meanwhile, doctoral candidate Nour Kweider explores the relationship between speak-
ing and reading skills in her dissertation concerning the effects of oral language proficiency in colloquial
and standard varieties of Arabic on literacy development among heritage learners, whereas doctoral
student Christine Shi’s work reviews factors underlying literacy acquisition in L2 Japanese.
3. Conclusion
Through the rigorous research and interdisciplinary efforts of both faculty and students in these four
key areas, along with the important contributions of graduate program coordinator Vera Lampley and
business manager Nancy Monda, the SLA program at CMU continues to move forward in its L2
research, teaching, and learning. In Fall 2020, Anne Lambright, previously Dean of Academic
Affairs and Professor of Language and Culture studies at Trinity College, succeeded Professor
Susan Polansky as the new department head. The SLA program, along with the entire Modern
Languages Department, completed its move into newly-renovated space in 2020–2021, which will pro-
vide additional room for collaboration as the program and department continue to grow. The SLA
program will also celebrate its 25th anniversary in 2022. As it approaches this significant milestone,
the program remains committed not only to ongoing research into current issues in SLA theory
and L2 instruction, but also to the development of a dynamic group of scholars who will continue
to actively push the field forward.
References
Adams, A. (2020). Cycles of expansive learning: An activity theory intervention in classroom discourse in an upper-level L2
Hispanic Studies course (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Al Masaeed, K. (2020). Translanguaging practices in L2 Arabic study abroad: Beyond monolingual ideologies in institutional
talk. Modern Language Journal, 104(1), 250–266.
Burns, K. E. (2018). Marginalization of local varieties in the L2 classroom: The case of U.S. Spanish. L2 Journal, 10(1), 20–38.
Burns, K. E., & Waugh, L. R. (2018). Mixed messages in the SHL classroom: Insights from CDA of textbooks and instructor
focus group discussions. Heritage Language Journal, 15(1), 1–24.
Dubreil, S. (2020). Using games for language learning in the age of social distancing. Foreign Language Annals, 53 (Special
Issue). doi:10.1111/flan.12465
Dubreil, S., & Thorne, S. L. (2017). Engaging the world: Social pedagogies and language learning. Boston, MA: Cengage.
Gao, Z. (2020). L2 learning of opaque Chinese compounds through elaborative encoding. Chinese as a Second Language,
55(1), 1–23.
Ke, S., Miller, R., Zhang, D., & Koda, K. (2021). Crosslinguistic Sharing of Morphological Awareness in Biliteracy Development:
A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Correlation Coefficients. Language Learning, 71(1), 8–54. doi: 10.1111/lang.12429
Koda, K., & Miller, R. (Eds.). (forthcoming). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and reading. London,
UK: Routledge.
MacWhinney, B. (2015). Multidimensional SLA. In S. Eskilde, & T. Cadierno (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second lan-
guage learning (pp. 22–45). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
MacWhinney, B. (2020). Talkbank for SLA. In N. Tracy-Ventura, & M. Paquot (Eds.), The handbook of SLA and corpora
(pp. 158–174). New York, NY: Routledge.
Malinowski, D., Maxim, H., & Dubreil, S. (Eds.). (forthcoming). Language teaching in the linguistic landscape: Mobilizing
pedagogy in public space. New York, NY: Springer.
Nassif, L., & Al Masaeed, K. (2020). Supporting the sociolinguistic repertoire of emergent diglossic speakers: Multidialectal
practices of advanced L2 Arabic learners. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development.
Qin, T., & van Compernolle, R. A. (forthcoming). Computerized dynamic assessment of implicature comprehension in L2
Chinese. Language Learning & Technology.
Sykes, J., & Dubreil, S. (2019). Pragmatics learning in digital games and virtual environments. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The
Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 387–399). London, UK: Routledge.
Ulysse, G. M., & Al Masaeed, K. (forthcoming). The influence of socio-economic status, age, gender, and level of literacy on
language attitudes: The case of Haitian Gonâviens. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages.
van Compernolle, R. A. (Ed.). (forthcoming). Concept-based language instruction: Principles and applications. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
van Compernolle, R. A. (forthcoming). Topic management and opportunities for learning in an advanced Francophone
Cultures class. Applied Pragmatics.
van Compernolle, R. A. (2019). Constructing a second language sociolinguistic repertoire: A sociocultural usage-based
approach. Applied Linguistics, 40(6), 871–893.
van Compernolle, R. A., & Ballesteros-Soria, N. (2020). Developing interactional repertoires in the classroom through
dynamic strategic interaction scenarios. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17, 141–169.
Wiener, S., & Goss, S. (2019). Second and third language learners’ sensitivity to Japanese pitch accent is additive: An
information-based model of pitch perception. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(4), 897–910.
296 Joy Maa et al.
Wiener, S., Murphy, T. K., Goel, A., Christel, M. G., & Holt, L. L. (2019). Incidental learning of non-speech auditory analogs
scaffolds second language learners’ perception and production of Mandarin lexical tones. In Proceedings of 19th
International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Melbourne, Australia 2019 (pp. 1699–1703).
Zhao, H., & MacWhinney, B. (2018). The instructed learning of form-function mappings in the English Article System.
Modern Language Journal, 102(1), 99–119.
Cite this article: Maa, J., Li, X., Ballesteros Soria, N., Gao, Z., Burns, K. E., & Wiener, S. (2021). Second language acquisition
at Carnegie Mellon University, USA. Language Teaching, 54(2), 292–296. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000045
Forthcoming in Language Teaching includes
State-of-the-Art Articles
Rachel Hayes-Harb and Shannon Barrios on The influence of orthography in second language
phonological acquisition
Research Timeline
James P. Lantolf, Lera Minakova and Jiao Xi on Sociocultural theory and concept-based language
instruction
Replication Research
Akira Hamada and Shuichi Takaki on Approximate replication of Matsuda and Gobel (2004) for
psychometric validation of the Foreign Language Reading Anxiety Scale
Kevin McManus and Yingying Liu on Using elicited imitation to measure global oral proficiency in
SLA research: A close replication study
First Person Singular

Michael McCarthy on Fifty-five years and counting: A half-century of getting it half-right?
Thinking Allowed
Bryan Smith and Marta González-Lloret on Technology-mediated task-based language teaching: A
research agenda
Plenary Speeches1
David Block on Emergent STEM lecturer identities: The shaping effects of EMI in action in an inter-
nationalised and Englishised HE context
ZhaoHong Han on Usage-based instruction, systems thinking, and the role of Language Mining in
second language development
1
Plenary speeches currently available online ahead of print publication can be read in First View Articles, journals.
cambridge.org/lta

Lta 54 2

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lta 54 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lta 54 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language Teaching (2021), 54, 157–189

Global Englishes and language teaching: A review of

1.1 Global Englishes: an inclusive research and teaching paradigm

1.2 Rationale for innovation in language teaching

1.3 Proposals for change: Global Englishes Language Teaching

1. Increasing WE and ELF exposure in language curricula

2.1 Frameworks for pedagogical change

2.2 Innovation processes

2.3 A need to take stock of Global Englishes innovations in practice

2.4 Research questions

1. Must contain empirical research

Articles were excluded if they were deemed to be:

1. Theoretical articles or reports on practice with no research methodology

• British Education Index

3.3 Data analysis

Table 1. Studies reporting on curriculum innovation in LTE research

Study Year Country Context Main paradigms

Love 2013 Korea In-service teachers Critical pedagogy

4.1 Studies reporting on reflections of short-term innovations

4.2 Studies reporting on longitudinal interventions

4.3 Studies reporting on frameworks for teacher education

4.4 Evaluating the research

Table 2. Methodologies of classroom-based research

Study Approach Sample size Time Main data source

Love (2013) Qualitative 10 Cross-sectional Workshop observations

Table 3. Studies reporting on curriculum innovation

Study Year Country Context Main paradigm

Marlina 2013 Australia University EIL

5.1 Studies reporting on classroom activities

5.2 Studies reporting on out-of-class learning activities

5.3 Studies reporting on teaching WE and EIL

Table 4. Methodologies of classroom-based research

Marlina (2013) Qualitative 3 CS Case study Interview,

5.4 Strengths and limitations of current research into classroom innovations

6. How has technology been used as a facilitator of curricular innovation?

6.1 Studies facilitating ELF opportunities using technology

Table 5. Studies reporting on technology in language teaching

Ke and Suzuki 2011 Japan, Taiwan 111 Classroom/online Questionnaire, online

6.2. Studies challenging EIL student perceptions using technology

7. Setting a future research agenda

1. Relative advantage: is research demonstrating a perceived benefit of a Global Englishes approach

7.1 What areas need to be explored?

7.2 What contexts and populations need to be explored?

Table 6. Location of studies

Region Country Number of studies

EAST ASIA Japan 10

7.3 What methodological approaches are needed?

7.4 Looking forward

FIRST PERSON SINGULAR

A short history of SLA: Where have we come from and

Table 1. Making a start

Area of interest Period Key studies Key findings Theoretical influences

What aspects of L2 acquisition has SLA addressed?

Table 2. The expansion period

Area of interest Period Key studies Key findings Theoretical influences

Table 3. Cognitive phase

Consciousness and Late 1990s Schmidt (1990), Conscious attention to Cognitive