This month we are publishing Digital Multimodal Composing by Matt Kessler. In this post, the author gives us some advice for leveraging multimodal writing activities to teach multilingual students and learners of additional languages.
With continued advancements in digital technologies, the practice of being a language teacher and a language learner has fundamentally changed. In particular, in both academic and professional settings, students are now expected to be able to produce digital genres such as social media posts, slideshow presentations, infographics, portfolios, digital posters, and more. Notably, such digital genres require the use of multiple modes beyond text, including the purposeful use of images, colors, graphs, and audio. To better prepare students to succeed in this digitized world, here are 10 tips teachers might consider for leveraging multimodal writing activities with both language learners and multilingual students:
Be aware that multimodality – which refers to the simultaneous use of multiple meaning-making resources such as text, images, sound, and gestures – is an important and common practice in today’s world.
Don’t avoid multimodal activities in your classroom by focusing only on traditional literacy skills such as reading and writing.
Recognize that pushing students to develop multiliteracy skills is not only crucial for their future success, but also for their current success.
View multimodal activities as a means of translanguaging, or the systematic use of two or more languages so that students can both understand and be understood.
Learn what your students’ needs are in terms of the digital genres that they will need to produce in the future.
Consider teaching those genres that many students will likely encounter such as slideshow presentations, infographics, and digital posters.
Take the time to train your students on how to use the tools or platforms they will need in order to successfully complete the activity.
Set clear expectations about the specific modes (e.g. text, images) that students need to use when creating their assignments.
Experiment with different activities, and consider implementing those activities in-class, out-of-class, or a combination of the two to meet your needs and the time you have available.
Help spur students’ motivation to invest in the activity and to perform well by making their final work publicly available (e.g. a blog available to the broader public).
This month we published Korean-English Bilingualism in Early Childhood by Sunny K. Park-Johnson. In this post the author explains the importance of the longitudinal nature of the study.
When studying bilingual language development in early childhood, we often rely heavily on snapshots: these data come from just a day or two of their lives. Sometimes we see children in labs for a study, and then we never hear from them again. That is why a longitudinal study is so important. Following children’s language development across time gives us a perspective that is both expansive and specific, capturing moments in development that we sometimes miss in snapshots.
This book does just that. We get to see two-and-a-half years’ worth of data, observed monthly, that provides a rich picture of four Korean-English bilingual children’s language journey. The children in this book are acquiring both Korean and English during early childhood, a rich time of language development that has many nuances, small changes, and subtle shifts. And because the data is collected in the child’s home, we’re able to capture naturalistic, spontaneous language “in the wild”.
The longitudinal study is also important because it compares children to themselves over time. We know there is much individual variation between children; by observing children’s development longitudinally, the comparisons are within the child’s own self. This inherent consistency is immensely valuable when studying the picture of children’s language development.
The book takes readers through the development of morphology and syntax of Korean and English separately, then discusses code-switching and interplay between the two languages. Then, as an epilogue of sorts, there is a chapter that reports on an interview with two of the children, who are now young adults. It is a unique experience to hear from the very same participants a decade later as they reflect back on their bilingualism and language journey.
Perhaps most importantly, as a Korean-English bilingual myself, I was welcomed into the lives of these families: not just as a researcher, but as an extended family member. Thus, the book has an insight, context, and weight that goes beyond grammar; it is imbued with the responsibility and care of an insider that understands and loves the community. The value of those relationships cannot be understated.
For more information about this book please see our website.
There is a background to the writing of any book which often goes unstated. In my blog post I’d like to take you inside the book by telling you a bit about why and how it got to be written. I will explain who the authors are, what motivated the writing of the book, what research it was based on and what I see as the uses of the book.
How did I come to work with my co-authors on this book?
The real starting point was a research study I completed more than fifteen years ago investigating the measurement of second language (L2) grammatical knowledge. This research drew the distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge of an L2 and involved the development of a set of tests designed to provide separate measures of these two types of grammatical knowledge. The results of this research project were reported in a book called Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching published by Multilingual Matters in 2009. My idea was to extend this earlier research by investigating whether it was also possible to develop tests that would provide separate measures of implicit and explicit L2 pragmatic knowledge (i.e. the knowledge we use to communicate smoothly and appropriately).
I decided therefore to put in an application for a Discovery Research Grant from the Australian Research Council, drawing on my experience of the earlier project. My own expertise lay in second language acquisition research but I recognized that I also needed expertise in L2 pragmatics. I approached Carsten Roever, who had published widely in L2 pragmatics, to see if he would be interested in joining in the project. Carsten was an ideal co-researcher because he also had experience in language assessment. Together we developed a research proposal, which was successful. We now had the funds we needed for the project.
Our original aim was to investigate different populations of L2 learners – both EFL and ESL. After designing a battery of tests, we started by collecting data from L2 university learners in China and Japan. To help in this we were joined by two other researchers – Yan Zhu, a professor at Fudan University in Shanghai, and Natsuko Shintani, a professor at Kansai University in Osaka. Unfortunately restrictions arising from the Covid epidemic in Australia made it impossible to continue by collecting data from ESL learners.
The research team, then, comprised myself, Carsten, Yan Zhu and Natsuko. This team has remained with the project throughout and many of the chapters in the book involved all four authors.
Why was it important for us to take a psycholinguistic perspective?
By ‘psycholinguistic perspective’ I mean an approach that is founded on the psychological underpinning of linguistic rules and processes. In the case of language testing, this involves considering the mental processes involved when completing tests. While there are a number of different psycholinguistic perspectives, the one we drew on was based on the implicit/ explicit distinction. From this theoretical perspective, when learners complete a test they can draw on their implicit knowledge (i.e. knowledge that they have no conscious awareness of and can be accessed automatically) or their explicit knowledge (i.e. knowledge they are conscious of and that is only accessible slowly after reflection). The implicit/explicit distinction is a fundamental distinction in current thinking theorizing about an L2 but, surprisingly, it has not figured in research on the testing of L2 pragmatic competence. In fact, many of the popular ways of testing L2 pragmatics really only measure explicit processing and thus tell us nothing about learners’ ability to process their pragmatic knowledge implicitly even though, arguably, it is implicit abilities that are essential in everyday communicative situations.
All research needs to focus on how it can build on and extend existing research. By adopting a psycholinguistic perspective, we hoped to fill a gap in current research on the measurement of pragmatic competence.
How did we develop the tests that featured in the book?
The development of any test requires making decisions about what to test and how to test it. Our starting point was to decide what aspects of pragmatics to measure. A study of the L2 pragmatics literature led us to identify three aspects: metapragmatic awareness, implicature, and conversational structure. In deciding how to assess these aspects, we tried to design tests that would tap either learners’ implicit pragmatic processing abilities (i.e. responses made rapidly and without time for reflection) or explicit processing abilities (i.e. responses made without time pressure and that favoured reflection). We ended up with two tests involving explicit processing, two tests more likely to favour implicit processing, and a test of the ability to comprehend irony where we were unsure of the kind of processing it would most likely elicit. These tests also differed in terms of whether they involve comprehension/perception or production.
The initial tests were designed by myself and Carsten Roever, piloted on a small group of ESL learners, revised, and then administered with the help of Yan Zhu and Natsuko Shintani in China and Japan respectively. One of our aims was to carry out a careful evaluation of the tests and there are chapters in the book that report the results of the evaluation of each test. Not unexpectedly, we did not find that all the tests worked as well as we had hoped! Subsequently, we redesigned some of the tests and used them in a final study where we investigated the effects of instruction on the development of the two types of knowledge.
What do we hope readers will take away from the book?
We envisage that the main readers of our book will be second language acquisition researchers interested in pragmatics. An abiding issue in SLA research is how learning is measured and we hoped that the tests we developed would help in designing studies that investigate how different conditions of learning impact on the kind of the learning that results. Two chapters in our book illustrate how the tests can be used in this way. In one chapter, we report a comparative study of L2 learners who completed a one-year study abroad and learners who received language instruction while staying in their home country. In another study, we used the tests to investigate the effects of different kinds of instruction on the acquisition of implicit and explicit L2 pragmatic knowledge.
We did not write the book for teachers. But the perspective that informs the book is one that teachers need to consider. Any time teachers set their students a test they need to consider what kind of knowledge the test is measuring.
What are we working on next?
The tests provide the tools we need to investigate the pragmatic competence of L2 learners and how learning conditions shape the kind of learning that take place. We are already embarking on two other studies investigating this. In one study (involving myself and Scott Aubrey), we are comparing the pragmatic competence of students in Hong Kong and Shanghai universities to see if there are differences in these groups of learners. In the other study with Natsuko Shintani, we are investigating how the interactive experiences of Japanese students on a study abroad shape the kind of pragmatic abilities they develop.
Rod Ellis
For more information about this book please see our website.
If you found this interesting you might also like Assessing Speaking in Context edited by M. Rafael Salaberry and Alfred Rue Burch.
When we published the first edition of our book, Teaching Languages to Students with Specific Learning Differences, in 2012, there was limited awareness among language teachers, teacher educators, material designers, language testers and researchers regarding how students with specific learning differences (SpLDs) acquire additional languages and how to support their success as language learners. Over the past decade, there has been a growing interest and increased effort to design and implement inclusive language teaching programs that cater to the diverse needs of students. In a wide range of contexts, it is now mandated at the policy level that language learners with disabilities should be provided with equitable opportunities to acquire additional languages. There has also been a remarkable shift away from medicalizing and viewing disabilities from a deficiency perspective, instead recognizing them as part of the inherent diversity of human existence and experience, highlighting the importance of removing socially constructed barriers in all aspects of life.
The new edition of our book has been fully revised to reflect these changing conceptualizations of specific learning differences and places emphasis on barriers to participation, inclusive language teaching, and assessment practices in all its chapters. Accordingly, the first updated chapter includes a detailed discussion of discourses and conceptualizations of neurodiversity and draws attention to the fact that individual learners may have different types of intersecting disabilities and disadvantages simultaneously. The chapters on the general principles and specific techniques of inclusive language teaching have also been thoroughly revised to incorporate recent advances in research and practices related to accessibility and universal design.
Since the original publication of our book, a considerable amount of research has been conducted, not only on the potential challenges that students with SpLDs might face in language learning but also on how various instructional approaches and methods can support second language learners with diverse cognitive profiles. While many recommendations for teaching language learners with SpLDs were previously based on teachers’ intuition and prior experience, there is now substantial evidence from the field of second language acquisition research showing that these recommended approaches, such as multi-modal teaching techniques, benefit all language learners, not just those with SpLDs. The updated chapter on language teaching techniques has also been expanded to include detailed recommendations from first language literacy research that can assist in the development of reading and writing skills for second language learners with SpLDs. Not only has the number of studies investigating the language learning processes of students with SpLDs grown in the past decade, but there has also been an increased effort to make assessments fair and equitable for test-takers with SpLDs. The updated chapter on assessing students with SpLDs includes these latest developments and the studies supporting current inclusive assessment designs.
The field of inclusive language teaching and the study of disabilities in language learning are likely to continue expanding and branching into new directions in the future. Our book provides a current and comprehensive overview of how students with SpLDs learn additional languages, the barriers they might face, and how their language acquisition experiences can be enhanced. We hope that it will serve as a valuable resource for teachers, teacher educators, language testers, and academics, and that it will inspire future research and initiatives to make multilingual language education accessible to all.
For more information about this book please see our website.
In September we will be publishing Promoting Reflection on Language Learning edited by Neil Curry, Phoebe Lyon and Jo Mynard. In this post the editors give their five top tips for promoting reflection on language learning.
Who are we?
This book’s editors and contributing authors are experienced language educators, and the context is a small, private university in Japan specialising in foreign languages. Some of us are learning advisors who have worked in the university’s large self-access learning centre (SALC), and others are language instructors who have taught at the English Language Institute (ELI).
What motivated us to write this book?
We have been collaborating for several years on a project promoting language learner autonomy inside and outside the classroom. As part of this project, we have been developing and trialling materials that encourage reflection on language learning and conducting research to evaluate the effectiveness of the process for our learners.
What is reflection on language learning?
On page 4, we define reflection on language learning as “the process of thinking deeply about one’s language learning to understand the processes to take informed and self-regulated action towards language outcomes.”
Why is reflection important?
Throughout the book, we argue that reflection is essential to language learning. Learners who engage in regular, systematic reflection are more aware of themselves and how they best learn. They are better equipped to take charge of the learning process and sustain motivation for learning.
What can educators do to promote reflection?
Each of the chapters disseminates research and practical applications to answer this question. In the conclusions, we summarise some of the key findings from the studies. Based on this, here are our five top tips for promoting reflection:
Written prompts facilitate reflection.
Prompts help learners think differently, organise their thoughts and express their ideas. After a while, learners can even write their own prompts or ask each other reflective questions. Still, initially, they need the structure of prompts and reflective questions. Provide reflective questions to help learners to look back, look inwards, look forward and take action, for example:
How did that activity go? What went well? What didn’t go so well?
What did you learn from the activity? How did you feel as you did it?
What would you change next time?
What action will you take from today?
Reflection can be done in written form, spoken form, and using visual or technological tools.
Experiment with different forms of reflection and ask students which ones they prefer. Have students keep records (e.g. logs, diaries, charts) of what they have learned to help them become more aware of their learning progress. Visual tools can help students express themselves deeply and creatively, even if they lack the language. Use technology tools creatively to help students keep track of their learning progress, write reflections, and interact with classmates and teachers/learning advisors.
Students need training on why reflection is important and how to reflect.
To get started, give students some metalanguage, examples and a structure for expressing themselves and discussing their thoughts, goals and learning progress. Allocate time in class for longer (e.g. 30-minute) reflective activities to emphasise the importance of reflection and to encourage peer sharing. However, do not ‘overdo’ it. We recommend that these activities come at the end of a unit or every few weeks.
Reflection is not ‘one-way’ but more effective if it is part of a dialogue.
Reflective dialogue helps students to organise their thoughts and think more deeply. If possible, talk to students one-to-one about their learning. Alternatively, respond to students’ written reflections to create a dialogue. Keep an open mind, and don’t judge or correct students’ reflections. Have students discuss their reflections with their classmates. Students value sharing their reflections with peers and giving and receiving encouragement and advice. Engaging in regular dialogues helps students stay motivated, connect with their teachers and classmates, and not feel so alone when learning a language.
Reflection should be an integrated part of ongoing learning (i.e. not a ‘one-off’ activity).
Regularly embed short reflection questions into classroom tasks or have students keep a short reflective journal outside of class time so that it becomes a natural part of language learning. Encourage students to try to do the reflection tasks in the target language so they can express themselves while learning a language. However, do not correct any mistakes and allow students to express themselves in their L1 if they prefer. Ask students to keep their previous reflections for later discussion and comparison. Looking back at previous reflections helps learners to see how far they have come on their metacognitive journeys.
Jo Mynard, Neil Curry and Phoebe Lyon
For more information about this book please see our website.
If you found this interesting, you might also like Teacher Reflection edited by Zia Tajeddin and Atsuko Watanabe.
We recently published Second Language Literacy Pedagogy by Kimberly Buescher Urbanski. In this post the author explains what led her to write the book.
The seeds of this book began when I was a high school French student. As an avid first language reader and a dedicated second language learner, I found it difficult to use my first language reading ability and my knowledge of French to read authentic French texts. Once I later became a high school and college level French teacher, I found it equally difficult to help my students to do the same. I wanted to find a way to better understand the second language literacy development process and how we can help students. My research as a scholar began during my Master’s after reading Michael Cole’s (1996) work with struggling L1 readers and his solution using Sociocultural Theory. Through many iterations and investigations during my PhD and after, as well as much reading and thinking, I continued to develop my own understanding of how to best help second language learners develop their literacy abilities. In general, my research focuses on needs that are present in pedagogical contexts, draws on theory to inform and guide my efforts to improve the practice of teaching-learning, and returns to test the theory through my research-teaching.
In this book, for my research-teaching, I used Concept-Based Language Instruction from Sociocultural Theory (e.g., Lantolf & Poehner, 2014; Vygotsky, 2012) and a Division-of-Labor Pedagogy (Buescher, 2015). This unique combination allowed me to help students develop their understanding and use of the concepts of literacy such as Foundation, Organization, and Genre while reading authentic French narratives collectively. Each concept had four roles, which were prepared, shared, and then rotated among the students so that at the start, they each had responsibility for one portion of the intricate task of reading, yet gained the full understanding of the text through their collectivity. In addition, they were mediated individually and collectively through the researcher-teacher’s real time attuned mediation. The aim was to address the well-documented curricular gap (e.g. Byrnes et al., 2010) in second language teaching between the introductory courses, focusing mainly on language, and the advanced courses, focusing mainly on reading literature by working with learners aiming to bridge this gap.
If you are interested in learning more about second language literacy development or to learn more about Vygotskian Sociocultural Theory as applied in both small group and full classroom settings, I hope that you will find the detailed pedagogy and results of that pedagogy as helpful guides for your own teaching and researching.
Kimberly (Buescher) Urbanski Pronouns: she, her Associate Professor Department of Applied Linguistics University of Massachusetts – Boston kimberly.urbanski@umb.edu
For more information about this book please see our website.
This month we published Grammar in ELT and ELT Materials by Graham Burton. In this post the author explains what inspired him to write the book and what he hopes readers will take away from it.
What motivated you to write this book?
It was a combination of things. I started my career in ELT as a teacher but as my background was in linguistics, I always had a somewhat analytical eye with respect to teaching content and was often far more interested in the ‘what’ of teaching rather than the ‘how’. I also worked for years in ELT publishing as an editor and author and saw first hand how decisions on content selection are made. As I gradually moved from teaching and publishing into academia, I found that – particularly in the field of SLA – the focus was far more on questions of how language should be taught and how it can be learned, but the question of which content was appropriate and useful for learners was largely taken for granted. The latter is more commonly addressed in the fields of corpus linguistics, syllabus design and materials analysis, but it seemed that nobody had brought these things together, particularly in the context of ELT grammar. This seemed to make it ripe for an investigation.
Your book is both about the past and present of grammar teaching in ELT. What made you want to focus on the past?
There’s a well-known adage – perhaps a little trite – that says we can’t understand the present without knowing the past. In all kinds of professions and walks of life we come across ‘best practice’ – established ways of doing things that are accepted as being optimal in some way. We tend to be inducted into these ways of working when we enter into a profession, including language teaching, and there’s often not much space for people to question the assumptions underlying them. To understand ELT grammar now, we need to understand better where pedagogical accounts of English grammar come from. Were they ever planned out? Who came up with the familiar list of grammar points, such as relative clauses, tenses, reported speech and so on, which are ubiquitous in teaching materials and classrooms around the world? Who decided at which levels these areas of grammar are typically taught at? And while we’re at it, who decided on the level system generally used in ELT and other languages (ELT generally uses six levels, like the CEFR, but why six?). To address questions like this superficially is to do a disservice to the past, so the research reported on in the book includes an analysis of older coursebooks and grammars in order to track how accounts of English grammar evolved, and also interviews with some of the people who were involved in fixing the current consensus on grammar. I also investigated the views of ‘historical’ figures whose work was critical in the evolution of accounts of English grammar over the last several hundred years. While my intention in the book isn’t primarily to present a historical account, I hope to provide the reader a fuller understanding of the present by situating it in its historical context.
What do you hope people will take away from your book?
While there is both implicit and explicit criticism in the book of the grammar that is used in ELT, I hope that readers will also come away with a sense that the people who were involved in creating the familiar accounts of ELT grammar were highly capable and in many ways did a great job in creating rules and explanations that are understandable to learners and usable in the classroom. This is no mean feat and takes skill and experience. Equally, I hope that the book can contribute to reducing the ‘demonisation of the past’ in linguistics and language teaching, and the assumption that we simply ‘know better’ today. That said, there are all kinds of ways in which current pedagogical grammar accounts can be improved; I focus heavily on how data from learner corpora might be of use, but this is just one possible source of renewal. As most people realise, it’s not easy to effect change within the ELT profession because people are used to the status quo, and to the tried-and-tested approaches they’re familiar with; but I do hope we can start to focus a little more again in applied linguistics on pedagogical grammar and syllabus design. I think it’s clear that the explicit study of grammar in language teaching is – in one form or another – not going away, so we need to be sure that what we teach is appropriate, just as much as how we teach it.
For more information about this book please see our website.
We recently held an online event to highlight a couple of books in our Psychology of Language Learning and Teaching series, in which authors Gary Barkhuizen and Chika Takahashi discussed their research with series editors Sarah Mercer and Stephen Ryan. In the second half of the event we opened the discussion up for audience questions and we received so many that we decided to answer those we didn’t have time for in a blog post. The recording of the event is available to watch on our YouTube channel.
A long time ago, as an undergraduate student, I was a participant in a study to measure L2 French development after study abroad. I remember being asked about romantic relationships in the return interview. At the time I thought it was very personal – is it an element in participants’ experience?
The short answer is ‘yes’. The chapter by Mitchell and Tracy-Ventura, for example, looks at careers after study abroad and gives examples of how participants often return to the host countries to continuing living with (and marrying) people they met while studying abroad. ‘Relationships’ is a very important theme running through all the chapters, and these include not only professional but also romantic relationships.
Is there a system that would allow those going on study abroad programs to meet up with others who have already been? Sharing experience could help acclimatization, perhaps.
This kind of ‘meeting up’ is often arranged by the organizers of study abroad programs, usually within institutions. A number of chapters in the book give examples of this type of connection, and how useful it is for both those going abroad (to learn from those who have already been) and those who have returned (to reflect on their past experience). Sometimes the meeting up takes place online.
Does your book include anything about teachers studying while working abroad?
Actually, it’s more like working while studying abroad. And the work might be internships, short-term placements in schools, doing a practicum, volunteering, etc. I can’t think of examples of studying while working abroad – is that still a kind of study abroad? A good question.
How do you see study abroad driving brain drain, intellectual capital exodus? This is very serious in a range of countries. Students go abroad and later settle abroad, markedly so in the case of Bulgaria, where I am.
It depends on the nature of the study abroad. For example, a semester abroad as part of a degree program requires the participant (a pre-service teacher probably) to return to the home country to complete the teacher education program. Many study abroad programs are a few weeks’ long only, in the form of an exchange for example, and so participants always return. This question may be referring to independent study, of a first degree, or a postgraduate qualification. Here there are easier options for staying abroad after study (and some host countries actually encourage this), but even so there may be immigration visa constraints about staying and often scholarship requirements forcing return.
These sound like exceptional learners – did you have certain criteria when selecting participants or did you start out with a larger group?
Yes, I agree that they are rather atypical learners. Indeed, I started out with a larger group: I first interviewed 13 students who responded to the questionnaire in my dissertation, which was administered before the interviews, and who volunteered to be individually interviewed. I noticed that these two learners were contrasting and unique in their own ways even at the very first interviews. Half a year later, I did another round of interviews with five out of the 13, including these two, and they are the two I focused on after this round of interviews and the two who never declined my invitation. I can only thank them for the perseverance.
Was your study informed by a particular motivation model or theory?
Yes, I focused on the L2 motivational self system as well as intrinsic motivation in self-determination theory. At the same time, some themes not covered by these theoretical frameworks emerged from the interview data, and I tried to be particularly careful not to overlook these themes. I believe this is one of the strengths of this type of small-scale, in-depth studies.
I’m very pleased to hear that your languages other than English (LOTE) learners really enjoy language learning itself, not just as an instrument. How were your participants motivated to learn English?
They were of course aware of the aspect of English as a global language and were motivated to learn English to be able to communicate with people around the world. At the same time, particularly one of them considered that in order to understand people of other languages he needed to learn their languages. In this sense, English was not enough and was only “one of the languages” he learned; he never mentioned the aspect of, for example, learning English to gain a competitive edge in the job market.
With online language learning, is the lack of natural human interaction not one of the main reasons for loss of motivation?
That may be the case, as many of us are realizing that doing something online vs face-to-face indeed involve certain differences. At the same time, when you are learning through various media, you may get a sense of “interacting” with those in the programs online, on the radio etc., i.e., with those in the community (whatever that community may be) that one day you hope to be a part of. I think this aspect may be particularly relevant to ideal L2 self, as it involves the aspect of imagination. This aspect may be particularly relevant with the radio, which my interviewees used for their English self-instruction. This is because not having visual information may actually stimulate their imagination.
I work as an English teacher at a Japanese elementary school and I’m struggling with dealing with students who have low engagement during the class, due to lack of concentration. In this situation, how is it possible for me to improve their engagement？
Your question reminds me of my kids! I’ve never taught at elementary school, so my comment is based more on my experience as a mother, but I’d say it’s difficult for them to concentrate, first of all, for a long time (maybe 15 minutes or so? That’s probably one of the reasons why self-instructional radio materials are short), and on a topic they don’t find interesting or relevant. Also, the other day I was trying to teach some basic pronunciation of English to my daughter, who’s a 6th grader, which she found quite boring. So instead of teaching her some random sounds of English, I re-started with the explanations of basic sound systems of a language, sort of like a little linguistics class. This she found interesting and was able to understand. So even within an elementary school what one finds interesting depends on the grade, right? Of course, these are all well-discussed topics related to motivation, I think, but the issues of class organization, interest, relevance, and age all come into play.
Thank you to everyone who joined us for the event and asked so many interesting questions! For those who missed it live, you can watch the recording below.
We recently published Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms edited by Li Yang and Laura Valentín-Rivera. In this post the editors introduce the book and explain why they chose to focus their research on writing Chinese as a second language.
Introduction to the book
Our edited volume is focused exclusively on writing Chinese as a second language (L2). It provides readers with cutting-edge empirical research and insightful teaching methods and strategies for effectively developing L2 writing competence in L2 Chinese classroom contexts. In particular, each chapter in the volume offers practical, detailed and insightful pedagogical recommendations to (1) assist language teachers, educators, graduate students and research scholars in making well-informed decisions on how to efficiently provide writing instruction in L2 Chinese and (2) facilitate the implementation of writing-focused activities to promote the construction of meaning, as opposed to reducing writing to the mere practice of specific vocabulary and grammar points.
Focusing on “writing” as the theme
The reasoning of focusing our edited collection on writing was our surprise caused by the fact that writing as a skill is not prioritized when being taught in the L2 classroom, especially considering that writing is a productive skill that should be as prioritized as orality. We consider that this is a pedagogical deficiency that compromises the holistic linguistic growth of L2 learners. Therefore, we aspire that our work provides pedagogical guidance that allows language instructors and academics to further their learners’ abilities as writers, that is, who can independently and collaboratively construct messages that convey complex meanings.
Targeting “Chinese” as the language:
Originally, we had anticipated focusing on Chinese and Spanish, not only because these two represent our respective languages of research specialty, but also since both languages represent codes that are widely spoken and learned as second languages globally. However, we realized that we could make a greater contribution to the field by dedicating a single collection to one language at a time. Given the limited work available on Chinese settings, we decided to dedicate our time to said language, aspiring to make a greater contribution to the SLA field.
For more information about this book please see our website.
As second language acquisition (SLA) researchers and educators have likewise expressed, there is a significant gap between research in SLA and its application by teachers, educators, and curriculum developers. This gap not only exists in terms of the amount of communication and knowledge transmission between researchers and educators, but also how research should be used to inform pedagogical choices. This book is an attempt to remedy some of those issues by making direct connections between the lab and classroom, the researcher and educator, and broad spectrum of psycholinguistic research into language learning and the complex learning environment in which the language learner takes part.
Taking a psycholinguistic approach, this book explores the connections between SLA research and instructed second language acquisition (ISLA). Some of the questions I answer for colleagues at multiple levels of research an instruction include: What is the role of consciousness in second language (L2) learning? What are the underlying psycholinguistic mechanisms that support L2 learning? How can an understanding of these processes impact the way we teach languages, from early L2 learners through post-secondary students? And how can cutting-edge research in psycholinguistics and SLA inform the way we design learning over the course of a curriculum?
In writing this book, I hoped it might find a home not only with fellow SLA researchers, but also with educators at multiple levels; from those teaching in immersion programs in kindergartens and elementary schools, to those teaching at the post-secondary level. And also, that the knowledge contained and presented in this book would be useful for teachers from the first day of a new language class, all the way through the most advanced levels of instruction.
For teachers, it provides clear connections between psycholinguistic research and its implications for the language learning classroom, with straightforward methods and recommendations to support student language learning and development. It can function as an important tool for pedagogues, especially those entrusted with training future teachers and providing professional development to current teachers, who can see how the different activities, with which they already engage inside their classes, apply to the psycholinguistic development of their students.
And finally, I hope this book also impacts the field of (I)SLA in general. First, it could act as a catalyst for more teacher/scholars to make explicit connections between theory, findings, and practice in the space of second language learning. And secondly, and maybe more importantly, for researchers and educators to find places to connect, to bring about a deeper discussion at the personal and professional level, about how those who may lean more towards theory or towards praxis can come together to build a deeper understanding of our applied field of ISLA.
For more information about this book please see our website.
With continued advancements in digital technologies, the practice of being a language teacher and a language learner has fundamentally changed. In particular, in both academic and professional settings, students are now expected to be able to produce digital genres such as social media posts, slideshow presentations, infographics, portfolios, digital posters, and more. Notably, such digital genres require the use of multiple modes beyond text, including the purposeful use of images, colors, graphs, and audio. To better prepare students to succeed in this digitized world, here are 10 tips teachers might consider for leveraging multimodal writing activities with both language learners and multilingual students:
Channel View Publications and Multilingual Matters 