Abstract:Translating current principles of language learning into effective classroom practice requires a nuanced understanding of the cognitive and social factors that shape how learners engage in instructional activity. In this paper, we identify four principles that represent a current theoretical consensus in the field, which we hope will guide practitioners as they assess their work: (1) All language use is purposeful, but not all language use is meaningful; (2) we learn by doing; (3) metalinguistic knowledge (sti… Show more
“…More than just a change in Martin's response actions during lessons, our findings thus suggest that Martin's implementation of DA engaged his theoretical thinking, leading to a transformation of his theoretical stance from a view of teaching as instruction to teaching as assistance through mediation and student public involvement in learning. Other AT studies have also documented how teachers’ decision making during teaching is coupled with an increasing conceptual understanding of their actions (Feryok, ; Smagorinsky, Cook, & Johnson, ; Smagorinsky, Rhym, & Moore, ), meeting recent calls for making the understanding of key principles or concepts, rather than the mastery of methods, the core of professional development activity (Schleppegrell, ; Toth & Moranski, ).…”
Because scaffolded feedback is a key component of dynamic assessment (DA) and is present in some forms of corrective feedback (CF), it can be unclear how the 2 frameworks differ. Further complicating the distinction, many second language (L2) DA studies have focused on how a teacher provides mediation as a series of prompts, usually in reaction to a learner's error, and what that implies for L2 development. To investigate distinctions between DA and CF from an empirical stance rather than solely a theoretical one, this study utilized activity theory (AT) to analyze the changes that an English‐as‐a‐foreign‐language teacher experienced in how he responded to learners’ inaccurate utterances as he endeavored to use classroom DA as part of professional development. Findings revealed key distinctions between CF and DA by showing how the discursive tools of mediation were but 1 aspect of change in the teacher's responses, and that other components of the activity system such as subject orientation, division of labor, tools beyond discourse, community, and the outcomes of the responses played a fundamental role in understanding such change. More broadly, findings also revealed how the learning of DA led to a transformation in the teacher's theoretical perspective.
“…More than just a change in Martin's response actions during lessons, our findings thus suggest that Martin's implementation of DA engaged his theoretical thinking, leading to a transformation of his theoretical stance from a view of teaching as instruction to teaching as assistance through mediation and student public involvement in learning. Other AT studies have also documented how teachers’ decision making during teaching is coupled with an increasing conceptual understanding of their actions (Feryok, ; Smagorinsky, Cook, & Johnson, ; Smagorinsky, Rhym, & Moore, ), meeting recent calls for making the understanding of key principles or concepts, rather than the mastery of methods, the core of professional development activity (Schleppegrell, ; Toth & Moranski, ).…”
Because scaffolded feedback is a key component of dynamic assessment (DA) and is present in some forms of corrective feedback (CF), it can be unclear how the 2 frameworks differ. Further complicating the distinction, many second language (L2) DA studies have focused on how a teacher provides mediation as a series of prompts, usually in reaction to a learner's error, and what that implies for L2 development. To investigate distinctions between DA and CF from an empirical stance rather than solely a theoretical one, this study utilized activity theory (AT) to analyze the changes that an English‐as‐a‐foreign‐language teacher experienced in how he responded to learners’ inaccurate utterances as he endeavored to use classroom DA as part of professional development. Findings revealed key distinctions between CF and DA by showing how the discursive tools of mediation were but 1 aspect of change in the teacher's responses, and that other components of the activity system such as subject orientation, division of labor, tools beyond discourse, community, and the outcomes of the responses played a fundamental role in understanding such change. More broadly, findings also revealed how the learning of DA led to a transformation in the teacher's theoretical perspective.
“…For example, practitioners seeking to implement recommendations from these meta‐analyses in their classrooms may find that the suggested instructional methodologies do not have the same effect as evidenced in the research. Toth and Moranski (2018) have proposed this as the “sociocognitive filter,” which depicts: the cognitive and social local spaces where learning occurs, … [and] highlights the nuanced reality that practitioners face while incorporating contemporary pedagogical recommendations into their practices: They must navigate learner needs, task and environmental parameters, and institutional norms. As researchers and theorists develop principles from which such [pedagogical] recommendations are derived, practitioners must account for the sociocognitive reality of their classroom while translating them to practice.…”
Section: Illustrative Msr Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Single‐site research can also limit external validity in relation to translational research (i.e., focusing on improving outcomes), given that participants recruited from a single site, usually a single university, are often homogeneous in terms of key demographic variables such as age, cultural background, or socioeconomic status 2 . Practitioners seeking to implement empirically supported pedagogical proposals among learners whose demographics are not represented in research often face frustration when these methods produce different learning outcomes in their classrooms (Toth & Moranski, 2018). Put simply, “the more specialized the sample, the less likely will it be that the results are highly generalizable to other individuals, situations, and time periods” (American Psychological Association, 2018).…”
Multisite research (MSR) offers the key advantages of greater statistical power and external validity via larger and more diverse participant pools. In second language acquisition (SLA) research, recent developments in meta‐analysis have created a robust foundation for MSR. Although logistical and financial obstacles can complicate expansion beyond a single site, we show that MSR's benefits can justify the investment of resources. We begin by outlining how developments in meta‐analytic research, replication, and access to data and materials have created an especially opportune moment for MSR. Next, we discuss the methodology for a classroom study on metacognitive instruction as an illustrative case, outlining the major elements of its design and implementation. Finally, we review how four issues critical to MSRs (funding, compliance, logistics, and analysis) were addressed in our example study, including a discussion on multilevel modeling. We conclude with a discussion of how the field can build upon existing research to advance multisite work.
“…While social and contextual factors shape the learning environment (e.g. Toth and Moranski, 2018), SLA researchers attribute the differences in the rates and outcomes of learning to the impact of various learner factors (e.g. Baker-Smemoe and Haslam, 2013;Gonet, 2006;Muñoz, 2014;Saito and Hanzawa, 2016).…”
Section: The Process Of L2 Pronunciation Learningmentioning
Adult second language (L2) learning often exhibits great variability in its rate and outcome. Although research shows that learning trajectories are partly shaped by social and contextual factors (e.g. Larson-Hall, 2008), certain learner factors play an important role in enhancing L2 pronunciation learning by helping L2 learners notice and process input efficiently, whereas certain learner factors may impede L2 pronunciation learning by impairing attention control or slowing down L2 input processing. Therefore, in order for language teachers to provide effective instruction and help their students improve their L2 pronunciation proficiency, it is beneficial for them to understand the differential impact of learner characteristics on L2 learning and adapt such understanding to their instruction and learning activities. The aim of the current article is to provide a review of existing studies that have explored individual differences (IDs) in relation to L2 pronunciation acquisition and to present implications for effective L2 pronunciation teaching. The article begins with an introduction of the paradigm shift in L2 pronunciation research and the conceptual framework of ID proposed by Dörnyei (2009). This is followed by a summary of the processes involved in L2 pronunciation learning. The third section focuses on the characteristics of four IDs that have been found to influence the development of L2 pronunciation. Those IDs include foreign language learning aptitude (e.g. Saito and Hanzawa, 2016), musical aptitude (e.g. Milovanov et al., 2010), L2 learning motivation (e.g. Moyer, 1999) and anxiety (e.g. Baran-Łucarz, 2016). Based on the discussion in the third section, the last section will offer various applications of IDs research findings to L2 pronunciation instruction (e.g. instructional approaches, feedback, and pronunciation syllabi) for successful L2 pronunciation teaching.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
