Individual Differences and the Ergodicity Problem

Traditional research into individual differences (ID) in second language (L2) learning is based on group studies with the implicit assumption that findings can be generalized to the individual. In this article, we challenge this view. We argue that L2 learners do not form ergodic ensembles and that language learning data lack stability. The data from our experiment show that even highly similar learners in terms of ID show clearly different learning trajectories over time; however, we did find that those who showed the greatest degree of variability gained the most in proficiency. Such findings lead to the view that group studies and individual case studies are complementary. Group studies give us valuable information about the relative weight of individual factors that may play a role in L2 development, but longitudinal case studies are needed to understand the process of individual learners’ development

Coordination of linguistic subsystems as a sign of automatization?

This study explored retrodictively differences in developmental patterns between a learner who makes some progress and one that does not. Their twelve successive writings were analyzed on holistically scored measures of complexity, accuracy, fluency, idiomaticity, and coherence (CAFIC) and on two analytical measures to operationalize syntactic and lexical complexity. Their developmental trajectories were explored with visual graphs (LOESS curves), Monte Carlo analyses, and correlational analyses. The stronger learner showed rather synchronous development in most measures and a significant jump in lexical complexity (operationalized as average word length), suggesting a level of coordination of subsystems and therefore automaticity of the system as a whole. The weaker learner, on the other hand, showed more competitive or random patterns in the measures

Which turn to take? Teachers’ Use of Translanguaging in Foreign Language Classrooms

Pedagogical translanguaging, the planned, deliberate, and flexible use of two or more languages in the same lesson, is a highly recommended practice in the foreign language (L2) classroom, but thus far there are no quantitative empirical studies supporting translanguaging behavior. To analyze the use of translanguaging, the present study analyzed L2 classroom interaction in 39 lessons in 2594 pairs of teacher questions and student answers, zooming in on the trade-off between (a) getting an answer and (b) getting an answer in the L2. A cluster analysis identified four types of lessons: (1) mainly L2 - low L2 response, (2) mainly L2 - high L2 response, (3) mainly L1 - low L2 response and (4) L2-L1 translanguagers – moderately high L2 response. Comparing cluster (1) in which teachers spoke English exclusively and students gave minimal responses in the L2 to cluster (2) in which teacher also used English exclusively but obtained high levels of L2 response from the learners, reveals mixed outcomes when teachers adopt a monolingual stance (L2 only as the language of instruction). Lessons in cluster 4, the “translanguagers,” reveal a significantly higher level of student responsiveness. This implies that teachers who ask many questions in the L2, but receive few answers, may increase students’ active classroom participation by adopting pedagogical translanguaging. A possible interpretation of the outcomes of this study is that using the foreign language as the language of instruction and pedagogical translanguaging are complementary, rather than competing, strategies in a language teacher’s repertoire.   Keywords: interaction, translanguaging, time-series analyses, teaching-learning process, heuristic