Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T10:59:37.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CURRENT APPROACHES TO RESEARCHING SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNER PROCESSES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2005

Gillian Wigglesworth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Language learning is a complex set of processes that largely take place in the learner's head. The extent to which learners consciously focus on specific aspects of language, the degree to which they notice particular features of language, and how this is done has been the object of considerable debate in different theoretical approaches to second language acquisition. For researchers in second language acquisition, one dilemma is how to find out what learners notice, and how, if at all, they incorporate this into their developing linguistic knowledge. Here, I discuss three approaches to researching learner cognitive processes that can be used to identify the knowledge that learners have about their second language, and obtain some insights into the cognitive processes of learners. These approaches have the potential to contribute to our understanding of how learners learn a second language, and, therefore, how this task may be facilitated. The first approach attempts to tap directly into the learner's thought through the use of think-aloud protocols, whereas the second involves having learners engage with activities that encourage them to talk aloud, thus providing insights into their thought processes. The third approach uses planning effects on task performance to investigate how learners monitor their language.

Type
RESEARCH ON LANGUAGE LEARNING PROCESSES
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 25 , March 2005 , pp. 98 - 111
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am very grateful to Catherine Elder, Carsten Roever, and Neomy Storch for their very insightful and helpful comments, provided at very short notice, on earlier versions of this chapter.

References

Alanen R. 1995. Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. W. Schmidt (Ed.). Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 259– 302). (Tech Rep. No. 9). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i.
Al-Hejin B. 2004. Attention and awareness: Evidence from cognitive and second language acquisition research. Working paper in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 1– 19 Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
Cohen A. D. 1983. Reformulating compositions. TESOL Newsletter, 17, 1– 5.Google Scholar
Cohen A. D. 2000. Exploring strategies in test taking: Fine-tuning verbal reports from respondents. In G. Ekbatani & H. Pierson (Eds.), Learner-directed assessment in ESL (pp. 127– 150). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
DeKeyser R. 2003. Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition. London: Blackwell.
Donato R. 1994. Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33– 56). Norwood: Ablex.
Elder C., & Iwashita N. 2005. Planning for test performance: Does it make a difference? In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 219– 237). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ellis N. (Ed.). 1994. Implicit and explicit learning of languages. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ellis R. 1987. Interlanguage variability and narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 12– 20.Google Scholar
Ellis R. 2001. Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51 (Suppl. 1), 1– 46.Google Scholar
Ellis R. 2004. The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54 (2) 227– 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis R., & Yuan F. 2004. The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisitionz, 26, 59– 84.Google Scholar
Ericsson K.A., & Simon H. A. 1984/1993 Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Foster P., & Skehan P. 1996. The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299– 323.Google Scholar
Gass S., Svetics I., & Lemelin S. 2003. Differential effects of attention. Language Learning, 53, (3), 497– 545.Google Scholar
Kowal M., & Swain M. 1994. Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students' language awareness. Language Awareness, 3 (2) 73– 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen S. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Krashen S. 1985. The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Lapkin S., Swain M., & Smith M. 2002. Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 485– 498.Google Scholar
Leki I. 1991. The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203– 318.Google Scholar
Leow R. P. 2000. A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware versus unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 557– 584.Google Scholar
Leow R. P. 2001. Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2? An online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading. Hispania, 84, 496– 509.Google Scholar
Leow R., & Morgan-Short K. 2004. To think aloud or not to think aloud: The issue of reactivity in SLA research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 35– 57.Google Scholar
Loewen S. 2004. Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning 54, (1) 153– 188.Google Scholar
Mantello M. A. 1996. Selective error correction in intermediate extended French writing programs: A comparative study of reformulation and coded feedback. Unpublished master's thesis, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto
Mehnert U. 1998. The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 52– 83.Google Scholar
Norris J., & Ortega L. 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417– 528.Google Scholar
Ortega L. 1999. Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 108– 148.Google Scholar
Ohta A. 2000. Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.). Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51– 78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Qi D. S., & Lapkin S. 2001. Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277– 303.Google Scholar
Rosa E. & O'Neill M. 1999. Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: Another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511– 556.Google Scholar
Rutherford K. 2001. An investigation into the effects of planning on oral production in a second language. Unpublished dissertation. Department of Applied Language Studies and Linguistics, University of Auckland.
Sanaoui R. 1984. The use of reformulation in teaching writing to ESL students. Carleton Papers in Applied Language Studies, 1, 139– 146.Google Scholar
Sasaki T. 2004. Recipient orientation in verbal report protocols: Methodological issues in concurrent think-aloud. Hawaii Working Papers on Second Language Studies, 22, (1), 1– 55.Google Scholar
Schmidt R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, (2), 192– 196.Google Scholar
Schmidt R. 1994. Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1– 64). [Technical report no. 9.] Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
Schmidt R. 2001. Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3– 32). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Simard D., & Wong W. 2001. Alertness, orientation, and detection: The conceptualization of attentional functions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 103– 124.Google Scholar
Skehan P. 1998. A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan P., & Foster P. 1997. Task type and task processing in second language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185– 211.Google Scholar
Smagorinsky P. 2001. Rethinking protocol analysis from a cultural perspective. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 233– 245.Google Scholar
Storch N. 1997. The editing talk of adult learners. Language Awareness. 6 (4), 221– 232.Google Scholar
Storch N. 2002. Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52 (1), 119– 158.Google Scholar
Stratman J., & Hamp-Lyons L. 1994. Reactivity in concurrent think-aloud protocols. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (pp. 89– 112). London: Sage.
Swain M. 1998. Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64– 81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swain M., & Lapkin S. 1998. Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal 82 (3), 320– 337.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth G. 1997. An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14, 85– 106.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth G., & Storch N. 2004. Feedback in second language writing: Input and uptake. Unpublished paper, University of Melbourne.
Yuan F., & Ellis R, 2003. The effects of pretask planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1– 27Google Scholar
Zhang S. 1995. Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing 4, 209– 222.Google Scholar