Editorial

The focus of this special issue is instructed second language acquisition (ISLA). It is to explore some of the most recent developments in this area of SLA research and its implications for classroom instruction. Drawing on some current definitions (Leow, 2015; Loewen, 2015; Nassaji, 2015; Nassaji & Fotos, 2010), ISLA is defined as an area of SLA that investigates not only the effects but also the processes and mechanisms involved in any form-focused intervention (explicit or implicit) with the aim of facilitating language learning and development. Instructed SLA differs from naturalistic SLA, which refers to second language (L2) acquisition taking place through exposure to language in naturalistic language learning settings with no formal intervention (Doughty, 2003). It is also different from classroom instruction with no focus on form. Furthermore, although instructed SLA is often taken to refer to what is learned inside the classroom, instructed SLA can also take place outside the classroom through, for xample, various instructional strategies (such as feedback, tasks, or explanation) that are often associated with instruction. Of course, this does not mean that the processes involved in SLA in and outside the classroom are exactly the same. Although there might be commonalities in learning processes, the classroom context has its unique features that might have an impact on learning. For example, in classroom learning a group of learners come together in a particular place to learn the language jointly during a given period of time. This might have an impact on learning opportunities in terms of the nature of the discourse created, learners’ participation, interaction, and engagement with language. As Allwright (1984, p. 156) pointed out, language interaction in the classroom setting is collectively constructed by all learners and “the importance of interaction in classroom learning is precisely that it entails this joint management of learning.

The development of spelling and orthographic knowledge in English as an L2: A longitudinal case study

This longitudinal case study investigated the development of spelling and orthographic knowledge in a child ESL learner from Grade 1 through Grade 4. Misspelling data from the learner’s free writings were examined for overall patterns of spelling development and the word-specific changes in the spelling of individual words. The aim was to track the developmental changes taking place in his spelling behaviour and also examine whether any stage like pattern of development could be identified in his spelling performance.Analysis of data showed that although the child’s overall developmental path was progressive in that he produced increasingly more complex orthographic spellings over time, there was a high degree of variability in the learner’s misspelling behaviour. Thus, overall, the spelling performance of this ESL learner can be best explained by a spelling model that views the path of spelling development as strategic, overlapping and wave-like rather than truly stage-like.Cette étude de cas longitudinale examine le développement des connaissances en orthographe chez un enfant apprenant d’anglais langue seconde, de la 1ère à la 4ème année. On a étudié les fautes d’orthographe dans les productions écrites libres de l’apprenant pour y rechercher des patrons globaux de développement de l’orthographe et des changements spécifiques dans l’orthographe des mots isolés. Le but était d’analyser les changements développementaux dans le comportement orthographique et de vérifier la présence de stades. L’analyse des données a démontré que bien que la trajectoire du développement de l’enfant soit progressive, au sens où avec le temps, sa production orthographique est de plus en plus complexe, il existe une grande variabilité dans les fautes d’orthographe de l’apprenant. Par conséquent, dans l’ensemble, un modèle qui considère le cheminement de l’orthographe comme stratégique et progressant par des chevauchements et des vagues plutôt que par de véritables stades est celui qui rendrait le mieux compte de la performance en orthographe de cet apprenant d’anglais langue seconde

First language transfer in second language writing: An examination of current research

First language (L1) transfer has been a key issue in the field of applied linguistics, second language acquisition (SLA), and language pedagogy for almost a century. Its importance, however, has been re-evaluated several times within the last few decades. The aim of this paper is to examine current research that has investigated the role of L1 transfer in second language (L2) writing. The paper begins by discussing the different views of L1 transfer and how they have changed over time and then reviews some of the major studies that have examined the role of L1 transfer both as a learning tool and as a communicative strategy in L2 writing. The paper concludes with a number of suggestions for L2 writing instruction and future research

The role of extensive recasts in error detection and correction by adult ESL students

Most of the laboratory studies on recasts have examined the role of intensive recasts provided repeatedly on the same target structure. This is different from the original definition of recasts as the reformulation of learner errors as they occur naturally and spontaneously in the course of communicative interaction. Using a within-group research design and a new testing methodology (video-based stimulated correction posttest), this laboratory study examined whether extensive and spontaneous recasts provided during small-group work were beneficial to adult L2 learners. Participants were 26 ESL learners, who were divided into seven small groups (3-5 students per group), and each group participated in an oral activity with a teacher. During the activity, the students received incidental and extensive recasts to half of their errors; the other half of their errors received no feedback. Students’ ability to detect and correct their errors in the three types of episodes was assessed using two types of tests: a stimulated correction test (a video-based computer test) and a written test. Students’ reaction time on the error detection portion of the stimulated correction task was also measured. The results showed that students were able to detect more errors in error+recast (error followed by the provision of a recast) episodes than in error-recast (error and no recast provided) episodes (though this difference did not reach statistical significance). They were also able to successfully and partially successfully correct more errors in error+recast episodes than in error-recast episodes, and this difference was statistically significant on the written test. The reaction time results also point towards a benefit from recasts, as students were able to complete the task (slightly) more quickly for error+recast episodes than for error-recast episodes

Corrective feedback, learner uptake, and feedback perception in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom

The role of corrective feedback in second language classrooms has received considerable research attention in the past few decades. However, most of this research has been conducted in English-teaching settings, either ESL or EFL. This study examined teacher feedback, learner uptake as well as learner and teacher perception of feedback in an adult Chinese as a foreign language classroom. Ten hours of classroom interactions were videotaped, transcribed and coded for analysis. Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) coding system involving six types of feedback was initially used to identify feedback frequency and learner uptake. However, the teacher was found to use a number of additional feedback types. Altogether, 12 types of feedback were identified: recasts, delayed recasts, clarification requests, translation, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, explicit correction, asking a direct question, repetition, directing question to other students, re-asks, and using L1-English. Differences were noted in the frequency of some of the feedback types as well as learner uptake compared to what had been reported in some previous ESL and EFL studies. With respect to the new feedback types, some led to noticeable uptake. As for the students’ and teacher’s perceptions, they did not match and both the teacher and the students were generally not accurate in perceiving the frequency of each feedback type. The findings are discussed in terms of the role of context in affecting the provision and effectiveness of feedback and its relationship to student and teacher perception of feedback

Com integrar un focus en la gramàtica a les classes comunicatives de llengua

Hi ha un ampli suport teòric i empíric en el camp de l'adquisició de segones llengües (L2) per a les estratègies d'instrucció que dirigeixen l'atenció de l?aprenent cap a les formes gramaticals durant les activitats centrades en el significat. Aquest tipus d'instrucció s?ha anomenat «instrucció de focus en la forma» i s?ha distingit dels enfocaments tradicionals basats en la gramàtica que ensenyen formes lingüístiques de manera aïllada i descontextualitzada, que s?ha anomenat «instrucció de focus en les formes». Aquest article comença amb una breu descripció de la noció de focus en la forma i els seus fonaments teòrics i empírics. A continuació, es presenten una sèrie d'opcions d'instrucció per a la integració d'un enfocament en la gramàtica en l'ensenyament comunicatiu de llengües. Es descriu cada opció, se'n repassen les bases teòriques i empíriques i es donen exemples de com es poden utilitzar a l'aula

How to integrate a focus on grammar into communicative language classrooms

There is ample theoretical and empirical support in the field of second language (L2) acquisition for instructional strategies that direct learners’ attention to grammatical forms during meaning-focused activities. This kind of instruction has been referred to as «focus on form instruction», and has been distinguished from the traditional grammar-based approaches that teach linguistic forms in an isolated and decontextualized manner, or what has been called «focus on forms instruction». In this article, I will begin with a brief overview of the notion of focus on form and its theoretical and empirical underpinnings. I will then discuss a number of instructional options for integrating a focus on grammar into communicative language teaching. I will describe each option, review its theoretical and empirical basis, and provide examples of how they can be used in the classroom

Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus nonnegotiated feedback

A substantial number of studies have examined the effects of grammar correction on second language (L2) written errors. However, most of the existing research has involved unidirectional written feedback. This classroom-based study examined the effects of oral negotiation in addressing L2 written errors. Data were collected in two intermediate adult English as a second language classes. Three types of feedback were compared: nonnegotiated direct reformulation, feedback with limited negotiation (i.e., prompt + reformulation) and feedback with negotiation. The linguistic targets chosen were the two most common grammatical errors in English: articles and prepositions. The effects of feedback were measured by means of learner-specific error identification/correction tasks administered three days, and again ten days, after the treatment. The results showed an overall advantage for feedback that involved negotiation. However, a comparison of data per error types showed that the differential effects of feedback types were mainly apparent for article errors rather than preposition errors. These results suggest that while negotiated feedback may play an important role in addressing L2 written errors, the degree of its effects may differ for different linguistic targets

The Amount and Usefulness of Written Corrective Feedback Across Different Educational Contexts and Levels

Abstract This study examined and compared different written corrective feedback techniques used by English as a second language (ESL) teachers in three different educational contexts and levels (primary, secondary, and college) in Quebec, Canada. In particular, it examined whether there were any differences in the types of errors made, the kind and degree of feedback provided, as well as the students’ ability to incorporate the feedback while revising their texts. Data were collected at the three aforementioned contexts from six ESL teachers in their intact classes when they corrected their students’ (N = 128) written essays (drafts and revisions). Results revealed an important difference across the three levels in terms of students’ errors, teachers’ feedback, and students’ revisions. They showed that (a) while grammatical errors were made more frequently by primary students, lexical errors were made more frequently by college students; (b) primary and secondary students received more direct than indirect feedback, while college students received more indirect feedback; (c) the secondary and college students were more successful in incorporating the feedback into their revisions than primary students. Résumé La présente étude a examiné et comparé plusieurs techniques de rétroactions correctives écrites utilisées par des enseignants d’anglais langue seconde (ALS) dans trois contextes et niveaux d’éducation différents (primaire, secondaire et collégial) au Québec, au Canada. En particulier, elle a examiné s’il existait des différences dans les types d’erreurs qui étaient faites, quelle sorte et quel niveau de rétroaction étaient fournis ainsi que la capacité des élèves à intégrer la rétroaction lorsqu’ils révisaient leurs textes. On a recueilli des données dans les trois contextes susmentionnés auprès de six enseignants d’ALS dans leurs classes intactes lorsqu’ils corrigeaient les rédactions (brouillons et révisions) de leurs élèves (N = 128). Les résultats ont révélé une différenc importante dans les trois niveaux en ce qui concerne les erreurs des élèves, la rétroaction des enseignants et les révisions des élèves. Les résultats ont montré que (a), alors que les élèves de primaire faisaient plus d’erreurs grammaticales, les élèves de collège faisaient plus d’erreurs lexicales; (b) les élèves de primaire et de secondaire recevaient plus de rétroaction directe qu’indirecte, alors que les élèves de collège recevaient plus de rétroaction indirecte; (c) les élèves de secondaire et de collège réussissaient mieux à incorporer la rétroaction dans leurs révisions que les élèves de primaire