Most surveys of classroom second language research (Allwright and Bailey, 1991; Chaudron, 1988; Nunan, 2005) begin with comparative methods studies of the late 1960s and 1970s, which were considered failures because they showed little difference among different teaching methods. These studies simply looked at inputs, such as materials and how language was presented, and outputs—essentially test scores—in hopes of determining a causal relationship between them. The general conclusion is that the studies failed because classrooms are too complex to be compared as unitary phenomena. This heralded a new era of classroom studies, in which the classroom itself, dubbed “the black box” by Long (1980), became the focus. This tradition of “input-output” research continues, recently with more tightly controlled studies (Lightbown et al., 2002; VanPatten and Sanz, 1995). In the past 30 years, however, researchers have also investigated what happens between input and output, that is, what actually goes on in second language classrooms, addressing many different questions, and using a variety of approaches.
Early classroom studies were primarily of two types: first, descriptive studies attempting to provide a global view of teaching orientation (Fröhlich et al., 1985; Mitchell, 1989), or documenting the presence of specific aspects of classroom input and/or interaction thought to be important in second language learning (Seliger and Long, 1983), and second, ethnographic studies of classrooms (Duff, 1995; Harklau, 1994; Watson-Gegeo, 1988) that examined classroom interaction and learning, and cultural constructions of behavior within a broader social and political context. These took a variety of theoretical perspectives, including language socialization, ethnography of communication, and critical theory.
What is Classroom Second Language Research? Language learning researchers are interested in classroom learning contexts for what they can reveal about language learning processes in general, but also for quite practical reasons. They want to know how instruction can be made more effective and more efficient. Thus, classroom second language research is located at the nexus of theoretical and practical concerns. It is research in contexts with the following characteristics:
These parameters thus exclude experimental studies outside of the classroom in which learning opportunities are created solely for the purpose of research. Classroom research highlights the role of the teacher and of inter-learner dynamics and investigates questions such as:
These questions have been investigated from a variety of theoretical perspectives, among others, ethnomethodology, ethnography of communication, communities of practice, sociocultural theory, and critical theory. The most common framework for the investigation of classroom second language learning, however, has been the Input, Interaction, Output Approach (Gass and Mackey, 2007; Long, 1996; Mackey, Abbuhl, and Gass, Chapter 1, this volume; see Block, 2003, for a critique). This approach examines the nature of input to learners, learner output, and how interaction can direct attention and lead to modifications of both input and output. Two meta-analyses have shown that interaction is indeed facilitative of acquisition (Keck et al., 2006; Mackey and Goo, 2007).
It is important to distinguish between classroom research and other similar research, which may have implications for classroom learning, for example, studies of interaction between dyads or among groups outside of the classroom (Lyster and Izquierdo, 2009; Mackey, 1999, 2002; McDonough, 2005; Nassaji, 2007, 2009). These studies may be considered classroom-oriented research rather than classroom research. Such studies outnumber those conducted in classrooms— perhaps because they are easier to conduct and control—despite the greater ecological validity of the latter. The extent to which research outside the classroom reflects what happens inside real classrooms remains an important question (Foster, 1998; Gass et al., 2005; Li, 2010; Lyster and Izquierdo, 2009; Mackey, 2002). Gass et al. (2005) showed there was little difference in interactional patterns between a laboratory and a classroom setting. Their results suggested that task, rather than setting, had the greatest impact on how learners interacted, and by implication, how and what they learned. Thus, although this chapter will be limited to classroom research, the questions that such research addresses spans a broader range of contexts. Two major categories of classroom second language research will be discussed in this chapter.
Typically in these studies, the researcher specifies tasks, participant structures, or interactional moves by the teacher. Often these are quasi-experimental studies in which the researcher is attempting to manipulate or control these variables in order to determine their contribution to learning. Many have a pre-test/post-test design as well as a control or comparison group. Although these controls make results more generalizable, such interventions inevitably move the classroom and the learners away from their natural state.
Typically, the researcher in these studies simply observes and/or records what happens in all or part of the class. These studies have greater face validity than studies in which researchers intervene, but the trade-off is that it is harder to make general claims based on the results. Participants may be asked to reflect on their thoughts or behavior, often in a stimulated recall (Nabei and Swain, 2002; Mackey et al. 2007; Zyzik and Polio, 2008), but there is no intervention during instruction. Most qualitative studies belong in this category (Canagarajah, 1993; Duff, 1995; Waring, 2009).
In these studies, the goal is often simply to describe: What kinds of feedback do teachers provide? How do teachers and/or learners focus on matters of form versus meaning? When do learners use their first language? Most studies have not made the leap to actual learning; rather, they focus on how learning opportunities are created and structured. In some studies, however, there is an attempt to match variables to outcomes: What kind of feedback is most likely to lead to a change in learner output? Under what circumstances do learners notice or use explicit information about language form or use? Where claims have been made about learning, they have tended to be about immediate or short-term change, rather than long-term gains in proficiency.
A wide range of tools and techniques has been used in classroom research to collect and analyze classroom data. In some cases, it is possible to separate these data collection techniques from theory. For example, audio and video-recordings have been used in studies from a variety of theoretical perspectives. However, in other instances, it is difficult to disentangle the theoretical stance of the study from its methodology. In sociocultural research and in conversational analysis, data collection methods are embedded in theory and often cannot be separated. For example, Waring (2009) uses a single case analysis, which is typical of a conversation-analytic framework. Therefore, both data collection and approaches to analysis are in some cases presented together.
Direct observation. Many studies have used direct observation as at least one form of data collection. These have ranged from audio-recording (Ellis et al., 2001a; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Ohta, 2000; Zhao and Bitchener, 2007) and video-recording (Nabei and Swain, 2002; Zyzik and Polio, 2008) to observational schemes, such as the Communicative Orientation to Language Teaching (Ammar, 2008; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Sheen, 2004), to records of computer-mediated communication (de la Fuente, 2006). The techniques used in these studies have the advantage of providing the closest approximation of what happens in classrooms when no research is being conducted.
Interaction analysis. Classroom research has included observations of both intact classes (Antón, 1999; Foster and Ohta, 2005; Loewen and Philp, 2006) and those that have been manipulated by the researcher in order to examine a specific aspect of interaction (Doughty and Varela, 1998; Kim and McDonough, 2008; Swain, 1998). The focus of these studies has included feedback moves, teacher questions and responses, form-focused episodes, and inter-learner negotiation.
Introspective methods. Introspective methods ask learners and teachers to reflect on their performance, behavior, knowledge, and beliefs. These techniques allow researchers to verify their own findings against the views of the participants in interaction. Especially relevant to classroom research are stimulated recall protocols, in which participants and researchers review the interaction together and the participants are asked to elaborate retrospectively on their interaction or perspectives (Egi, 2010; Mackey, 2002, 2006; Nabei and Swain, 2002; Zyzik and Polio, 2008). Other studies have used more informal interviews and questionnaires to gain a deeper perspective on participants’ thoughts during interaction and on their learning (Kim and McDonough, 2008; Lyster and Izquierdo, 2009; Williams, 1999; Zyzik and Polio, 2008). These usually complement other methods. Finally, in some studies, learners are asked to write down their thoughts about their learning processes using a diary or learning log (Mackey, 2006; Simard, 2004).
Ethnography/social construction and communities of practice. Studies that take an ethnographic, social constructionist, or community of practice perspective often go beyond the classroom to examine how the classroom fits into a larger social, political, or cultural context (Crago, 1992; Duff, 1995; Haneda, 2006). Ethnographies aim to provide a rich description of learners’ experiences in the classroom beyond specific interactions. Some social constructionist studies, making use of critical theory, examine power relationships in classrooms and how these reflect issues of identity and power that extend beyond the classroom (see Duff, Chapter 25, this volume). For example, Toohey (1998), in her study of English language learners in primary school, found that specific classroom practices had the effect of reinforcing these students’ marginalization and reifying community stratification.
Sociocultural analysis. Sociocultural theory posits that mental processes are mediated by cultural artifacts and activities, and perhaps above all, by language. These processes develop as a result of social interaction (Lantolf and Thorne, 2007; Lantolf, Chapter 4, this volume). Data collection therefore seeks to capture evidence of the development of these mental processes in the course of interaction. This includes investigations of assistance provided by learners to one another (Foster and Ohta, 2005; Ohta, 2000; Swain and Lapkin, 1995), or by the teacher (Antón, 1999; Waring, 2009), and of private speech, that is, learners addressing themselves in low-volume oral rehearsal (Ohta, 2001).
Conversation analysis/micro-analysis. Conversation analysis offers a micro-analytic moment-by-moment orientation to talk in interaction. It examines how conversation is managed, how participants orient themselves to conversation, and how they co-construct their roles in those conversations as well as opportunities for learning. It requires painstaking transcription of utterances, including suprasegmental features, turn sequences, overlaps, interruptions, and in some studies, even gesture (Mori, 2004; Waring, 2009). The main claim of conversation analysis is that these very close transcriptions allow us to see second language learning as it unfolds. Analysis is limited to what is found in these data; the approach does not permit speculation about processes or contexts beyond the conversation.
Feedback. Perhaps the most widely researched topic in classroom second language research is feedback (Loewen, Chapter 2, this volume). Early studies focused on patterns of feedback, including what teachers respond to. In general, the trigger for teacher feedback is a real or perceived error of content or form. Later studies began to address the range of feedback that teachers give in response to learner error, as well as its effectiveness. A variety of terms have been used, but there are two broad categories of feedback on error: (1) moves in which the teacher revises the non-target-like utterance in a target-like form, providing positive evidence (as well as implicit negative evidence), and (2) moves in which learners are given more explicit negative evidence and prompted to use their own resources to formulate a more target-like utterance. The first are generally called recasts or reformulations and the second, prompts or elicitations. Recasts vary in the degree to which they inform the learner of their error, that is, in the explicitness of negative evidence they provide. Prompts may also vary, specifically, in the amount and type of guidance they provide regarding the target form.
The final topic addressed by these studies is the effect of feedback. An immediate learner response to a feedback move is usually referred to as uptake. This response may contain an attempt at repair, an acknowledgment, or simply a repetition of the feedback move. Alternatively, the learner may appear to ignore the feedback. Several studies have addressed factors that influence uptake, repair, and/or signals of noticing. These factors include the focus of feedback, pedagogical approach, learner proficiency, working memory, and anxiety (Ammar and Spada, 2006; Ellis, 2007; Lyster and Mori, 2006; Sheen, 2004, 2006, 2008). In addition, a few classroom studies have looked beyond the post-feedback turn and have sought to determine if there is any long-term impact on acquisition of various types of feedback, as well as the factors that might influence this (Ammar, 2008; Ellis et al., 2006; Loewen and Phlip, 2006; Lyster and Izquierdo, 2009; Sheen, 2007, 2008).
Many studies of feedback are largely descriptive. They show when and how teachers respond to error. Most studies across a variety of classroom contexts and learners (foreign language, second language, immersion, children, adults) have demonstrated that recasts are the dominant form of feedback (Ellis et al., 2001b; Loewen and Philp, 2006; Lyster and Mori, 2006; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Nassaji, 2007; Panova and Lyster, 2002; Sheen, 2004). One reason for this is that recasts are the least intrusive; they allow interaction to continue unimpeded. Indeed, proponents of recasts claim this as their fundamental advantage—consistency with an overall communicative orientation to teaching and learning. In addition, several studies suggest that teachers are more likely to provide feedback on grammatical errors than other types of errors.
Learners may respond to feedback in a variety of ways. In order to repair their errors, they must perceive the teacher's move as corrective. It has been argued that that prompts are more likely to be clearly perceived as corrective than are recasts (Ammar, 2008; Lyster, 1998b; Nassaji, 2007). However, this conclusion hinges on the measure of noticing, which is generally uptake. Yet this spot is not always available for repair (Oliver, 1995; Zhao and Bitchener, 2007). The teacher may recast a learner's utterance and continue, not offering any opportunity for repair. It is possible that the impact is only evident in a later turn (Mackey and Philp, 1998). Indeed, research outside of classrooms has demonstrated that a simple analysis of subsequent turns offers a skewed picture of the impact of feedback (McDonough and Mackey, 2006).
When no uptake occurs, other evidence may show that learners have noticed the feedback, a step that could lead to further processing. Mackey demonstrates that learners do notice even implicit feedback, such as recasts, although these results differ depending on the type of form being recast. Mackey's use of learner logs and stimulated recalls provides evidence that learner noticing does take place even in the absence of overt evidence (2006; Mackey et al., 2007).
Conflicting evidence of the relative effectiveness of these kinds of feedback in the classroom and the variation in definitions of terms such as recast have led researchers to examine teachers’ and learners’ language and interactional moves in more detail. The feedback moves themselves have come under the closest scrutiny, with a focus on the following factors: (1) explicitness of the corrective nature of the move, (2) the length and complexity of the move, and (3) whether the feedback is extensive or intensive, that is, whether just one form (or very few forms) are the focus of feedback or if the teacher simply responds to whatever errors emerge.
Studies have also shown the conflicting findings regarding the relative effectiveness of recasts and prompts when the measures of effectiveness are uptake and repair. As noted, part of the reason for this disparity is how results are counted. A count of subsequent turns is likely to favor feedback that allows or requires the learner to take the next turn. Studies that have used this method of counting have generally found prompts to be more effective (Lyster, 1998a; Lyster and Mori, 2006; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Panova and Lyster, 2002). However, when repair rates are compared only on the basis of available turns, the rate of repair following recasts is much closer to that of prompts (Sheen, 2004). It should also be noted that since prompts, unlike recasts, do not provide any positive evidence about the target form, their success depends on the learners’ current knowledge of the form being corrected. Thus, Lyster and Izquierdo (2009) explain their results by concluding that learners who received recasts benefited from the positive evidence they received whereas learners who received prompts benefited from the clearer negative evidence they contain. Within sociocultural theory, the move that follows a recast is an important transition point. Even if the uptake is simply an imitation, this may still represent learning. This transition from feedback to uptake occurs in the learner's zone of proximal development, a site of collaborative activity where imitation can spur development. This feedback-imitation sequence helps learners to internalize the new knowledge (Lantolf, Chapter 4, this volume).
Nicholas et al. (2001), in their review of recast studies, conclude that the most effective recasts are narrow and explicit. In other words, the feedback addresses a single form and is clearly corrective. This claim has generally been substantiated by both classroom and classroom-oriented research. Both Nassaji (2007, 2009) and Sheen (2006) found that more explicit recasts were more likely to lead to uptake and repair. Mackey et al. (2007) demonstrated that learners were more likely to perceive more explicitly corrective feedback. However, Li (2010), in a meta-analysis of corrective feedback, found the impact of implicit feedback is more likely to endure than that of explicit feedback. Ellis and Sheen (2006) argue that the picture is more complicated, in that explicit and implicit knowledge may develop separately, even as they may influence each other. They suggest that explicit forms of feedback are more likely to affect explicit knowledge, but that they may also affect implicit knowledge indirectly.
The use of uptake and repair as evidence of acquisition has been the subject of some debate. As a result, several researchers have chosen to use other assessments, principally pre-test/post-test designs of various types, including measures of developmental stage and tests of implicit and explicit knowledge (Norris and Ortega, Chapter 35, this volume). As in the studies that used uptake and repair as a measure of noticing or learning, these studies generally found that more explicit feedback was more effective. Specifically, prompts were generally found to be more effective than recasts (Ammar and Spada, 2006; Lyster, 2004; Lyster and Saito, 2010; Russell and Spada, 2006; Yang and Lyster, 2010, although see Mackey and Goo, 2007). Ellis et al. (2006) and Sheen (2007) go even further, showing that metalinguistic information (e.g., “you need to use past tense”) was particularly effective in developing explicit knowledge, but also indirectly, implicit knowledge. In those studies where recasts were found to be effective using measures beyond immediate uptake or repair, the recasts generally included negative evidence, that is, some clear signal to the learner that an error had been made, such as stress or rising intonation (Doughty and Varela, 1998; Loewen and Philp, 2006).
Beyond feedback moves and responses to them, classroom characteristics may play an important role in determining the effectiveness of various types of feedback. Several studies suggest that feedback choices should be made in concert with the overall pedagogical orientation of the classroom (Ellis and Sheen, 2006; Lyster, 1998b, 2007; Lyster and Izquierdo, 2009; Lyster and Mori, 2006; Mackey et al., 2007; Panova and Lyster, 2002). In meaning-oriented classrooms, form-oriented feedback may be most appropriate because it clearly calls learner attention to form. In contrast, in form-oriented settings, even somewhat more implicit feedback, such as recasts, may be an adequate form of negative evidence. In the end, much will depend on what aspects of the feedback are perceived by the learner.
Focus on form. Another major topic that has been extensively investigated in classroom research is Focus on Form. This topic overlaps with feedback but includes other aspects of classroom interaction as well. Researchers have sought to answer the following questions:
One difficulty in reporting on focus-on-form research is the variation in terms and definitions used in the literature. All definitions share the notion that a form-focused episode (in some studies called an language-related episode) is one in which, for a relatively brief time, participants focus on language as object, but the overall focus is on the communication of meaning. Where they differ is: (1) whether the episode can be preemptive rather than in response to a learner's problem and (2) how explicit a move can be in order to still qualify as focus on form (that is, still part of an interaction that is largely focused on meaning.
Classroom research shows that both teachers and learners do sometimes focus on form during otherwise meaning-focused interaction. However, findings vary widely as to how much, from a study by Pica (2002), which showed focus on form to be a relatively rare feature of a content-based ESL class, to classes in which a form-focused episode occurs every few minutes (Basturkmen et al., 2002; Loewen, 2003). Leeser (2004) and Williams (1999, 2001) found the number of form-focused episodes, particularly those initiated by learners, to be related to language proficiency, with more advanced learners choosing to focus on form more frequently. Williams (2001), Loewen (2003), and Zhao and Bitchener (2007) all found the majority of such episodes had a lexical focus whereas Leeser (2004) found this to be an effect of proficiency, with lower proficiency learners more frequently choosing a lexical focus and higher proficiency learners, a grammatical focus. Kim and McDonough (2008) found more grammatically than lexically focused episodes across all proficiency levels but a rise in lexical episodes with increasing proficiency. The considerable variation in these findings may well be related to varying task demands.
A smaller number of classroom studies have addressed the effects of form-focused episodes. Most have examined how the variables in these episodes—their initiator, resolution, length, and focus—affect uptake and learning. Uptake shows how a learner responds to the form-focused episode, as in this example from Basturkmen et al. (2002, p. 6):
Student 1: PREdiction
Student 2: I think the second syllable is stressed.
Student 1: PreDICTion ←uptake
It is easier to assess this impact if the focus of the episode is known in advance, as in the case of intensive recasts and some preemptive focus on form. However, several studies have also examined reactive and/or extensive focus on form, using tailor-made tests to determine its impact (e.g., Ellis et al., 2006; Sheen, 2007; Swain, 1998; Williams, 2001). Most of these studies have addressed the narrower issue of teacher feedback. Only a few have also looked at student-initiated form-focused episodes, but one study (Zhao and Bitchener, 2007) suggests that the level of successful uptake in teacher-learner and learner-learner episodes is very similar.
Basturkmen et al. (2002) distinguished between reactive form-focused episodes, which include error correction and other kinds of feedback, and pre-emptive episodes, in which participants initiate a focus on form in the absence of an error or overt problem in communication. In particular, they were interested in the use of metalinguistic language in these exchanges. They found that students frequently used metalanguage in pre-emptive form-focused episodes and that this was significantly related to uptake. This was not the case with reactive form-focused episodes, where, metalanguage was rarely employed. Several other studies have also found that the impact is greater, as measured by uptake (Ellis et al., 2001a, 2001b) and post-tests (Loewen, 2005; Williams, 2001), when learners, rather than the teacher, initiate a form-focused episode.
Negotiation. Feedback is a frequent feature of form-focused episodes, but it is possible for learners to focus on form in the absence of feedback on error, usually in response to a problem in communication. Research on interaction has posited a major role for learner negotiation in promoting noticing and by extension, in facilitating acquisition both in and outside of the classroom (Keck et al., 2006; Mackey and Goo, 2007). Learner participation in such negotiated interaction is thought to facilitate comprehension, but also to highlight what learners do not know and increase the salience of novel or problematic elements in the input. The facilitating effect of negotiation on noticing or recognition of novel input is particularly likely with lexical items (Kuiken and Vedder, 2005; Swain, 1998; Williams, 2001). Similar findings regarding the benefits of negotiation on noticing have emerged from studies of computer-mediated communication (Lai and Zhao, 2006; Shekary and Tahririan, 2006; Smith, 2004). In spite of these positive findings on the connection between negotiation and noticing, some classroom research suggests noticing of forms during negotiation does not always lead to acquisition (Kuiken and Vedder, 2005).
Even if the direct connection between negotiation and acquisition still needs more empirical verification, negotiation has been shown to have an effect on modification of output by classroom learners. Modification of output has been claimed to promote metalinguistic reflection and deeper linguistic processing (Lyster and Izquierdo, 2009; Swain, 1998). Following a breakdown in communication, learners may strive to bring their production closer to the target.
At the same time, the role of negotiation remains problematic for classroom research. Most studies of the effect of negotiation have been carried out in experimental settings outside of the classroom (McDonough, 2005; Muranoi, 2000). This may be because negotiation is not frequent in second language classrooms (Foster, 1998; Foster and Ohta, 2005; Pica, 1997, 2002; Williams, 1999). Pica (1997) notes that, in particular, learners rarely negotiate morphosyntactic features. She suggests that this is because most classroom tasks do not require it. As a result, there has been considerable effort to discover what sorts of tasks maximize the need for learners to negotiate formal aspects of language (Loschky and Bley-Vroman, 1993; Pica et al., 1993; Kuiken and Vedder, Chapter 22, this volume) and further, to integrate such tasks naturally in the classroom.
This assumed positive—either direct or indirect—role for negotiation in the classroom has spurred investigation into negotiation beyond the design of interactive tasks. Several studies have specifically examined the nature of collaborative interaction, focusing on the characteristics of interaction and interactants that lead to successful task and learning outcomes. Within theoretical perspectives that see language acquisition as a primarily social process, such as sociocultural theory, these investigations are particularly significant. It may be the collaborative aspect of such interaction, rather than its potential to direct learner attention to form, that is most important. Several classroom studies have demonstrated that when learners collaborate, they can create new knowledge that none of the interactants holds individually (Ohta, 2001; Swain, 1998; Swain and Lapkin, 2002).
This is especially clear in comparison studies of the same participants working alone and in collaboration with other learners, in which the collaborative pairs were more successful (Kim, 2008). Not all collaboration is equally useful, however; success depends on a variety of factors. Leeser (2004) and Williams (1999) both found the higher-proficiency learners were more likely to engage in negotiation during form-focused episodes. They also found, along with Kim and McDonough (2008), that such negotiations were more likely to lead to a successful resolution of the episode with more advanced learners.
Storch (2002a, 2002b) investigated the dynamics of interaction in collaborative tasks. She examined participants’ interaction along two dimensions: mutuality and equality. Equality refers to the degree of control over the direction and content of the interaction, and mutuality refers to the level of engagement, as seen in responses and sharing moves. She found that the pairs demonstrating a high level of mutuality were the most successful in task completion. Closer examination of the interaction showed active problem solving and co-construction of knowledge among these pairs.
From a sociocultural perspective, collaboration is far broader than the limited negotiation triggered by miscommunication or lack of comprehension (Lantolf, Chapter 4, this volume). Learners may assist one another to create and internalize new knowledge in a variety of other ways. Foster and Ohta (2005) showed that negotiation of meaning was just one of the many features of collaborative interaction, and in fact, not a particularly frequent one. Learners were able to assist one another and co-construct knowledge in the course of interaction by using prompts, repairing their own utterances and those of their classmates, as well as showing interest and offering encouragement.
These three areas of investigation: corrective feedback, focus on form, and negotiation have been at heart of classroom second language research in the last two decades. All three have been found to be facilitative of acquisition.
In early classroom research, the reference point for classroom interaction tended to be conversation and other naturally occurring speech events. The overarching pedagogical goal was to make the second language classrooms more like the real world, with rich input and opportunities for interaction and output. Classroom studies were replete with criticisms of classrooms that focused too much on the formal aspects of language with little regard to learners’ communicative needs. The past 25 years of research has substantiated the importance of the role of interaction. However, recent research has also raised doubts about pedagogical approaches that focus exclusively on communication.
Probably the most substantial criticism of such approaches has revolved around the development of accuracy. Such criticisms led to the current trend in research related to linguistic accuracy. This renewed focus on form has resulted in more finely grained investigations of feedback practices and of instruction that focuses on language as object in the context of communicative language teaching, and finally, in the perhaps inevitable swing of the pendulum, a reexamination of explicit knowledge and its role in second language development (DeKeyser, 2003; Hulstijn and Ellis, 2005). These issues have been pursued mostly in experimental studies and will now need to be investigated more thoroughly in classrooms settings, but they suggest that teachers are justified in maintaining a focus on form in their instruction. In a recent meta-analysis, Spada and Tomita (2010) concluded that explicit instruction had an advantage over more implicit instruction both in the short and long term. Their results indicate that this advantage goes beyond the development of explicit knowledge and simple rules; it extends to the complex forms as well. Even the role of metalinguistic knowledge and processing, long shunned in many communicative classrooms, has once again come into focus (Basturkmen et al., 2002; Ellis, 2007; Ellis et al., 2006; Sheen, 2007; Simard, 2004), with findings generally pointing to a positive instructional role for such knowledge.
A final important trend in classroom second language research has been the inclusion of broader social aspects of the classroom interaction and the social context of learning. This review has focused on the more cognitive aspects of classroom research, but like so much of second language research (Atkinson, 2011; Block, 2003; Duff, Chapter 25, this volume; Firth and Wagner, 2007; Swain and Deters, 2007, Lantolf, Chapter 4, this volume), investigations of classrooms have also recently taken a social turn. This area of research will help teachers to consider the broader context of language learning and to understand how meaning is interactionally achieved in the classroom.
Future research in classroom second language research is likely to pursue both the cognitive and social aspects of language learning in a more unified way (Zuengler and Miller, 2006). This will involve movement away from single variable-driven cause-and-effect research, that is, investigations of the impact of a controlled variable (e.g., type of recast) on another (e.g., uptake). Because classrooms are complex and dynamic systems, current approaches may prove to be overly simplistic (Larsen-Freeman, Chapter 5, this volume). Research designs will increase in complexity and become more interdisciplinary.
The learning sciences offer possible avenues for future classroom research. The learning sciences combine the cognitive tradition of quantitative, variable-driven, experimental research with more qualitative approaches that draw on a variety of traditions, including ethnography and sociocultural theory. In part, this approach is in the response to one drawback of traditional approaches for studying classroom interaction, namely, that it is almost impossible to control rigorously all the variables in a learning environment. The learning sciences take a broader view of the learning environment, of how the myriad factors in the environment contribute to learning, and how these factors might be changed to improve learning. It shares much with complexity theory (Larsen-Freeman, Chapter 5, this volume) in that classrooms and language learning are complex systems whose properties emerge from the interaction of multiple variables, not all of which can be predicted, still less, controlled.
A major advantage of such an approach is that it attempts to break down the division between research and pedagogy, between researchers and teachers, and between experimental rigor and ecological validity. One strand of the learning sciences, design-based research, may be of particular interest to second language classroom researchers, in that it focuses recursively on learning processes and learning environments rather than exclusively on learning outcomes. The goal is not to test a specific theory. Rather, design and theory are developed simultaneously and revised continuously through the research process. This approach, more widely used in science and mathematics education, “simultaneously pursues the goals of developing effective learning environments and using such environments as natural laboratories to study learning and teaching” (Sandoval and Bell, 2004, p. 200; for a more detailed description, see A Peer Tutorial for Design-Based Research, 2006).
Finally, there will be a need for longer-term investigations of classroom learners. Because classrooms are dynamic systems and language learning is a complex and non-linear process, short-term studies can offer only a limited perspective on the process and the impact that we, as researchers and teachers, can have on this process. Some studies have already shown important differences between short and long term impact of classroom activities and instruction (Li, 2010; Lyster and Saito, 2010; Mackey and Goo, 2007). Only with more longitudinal studies of classrooms and classroom learners will we be able to deepen and elaborate our knowledge.
A Peer Tutorial For Design-Based Research. University of Georgia. http://projects.coe.uga.edu/dbr/tutorial.htm. Retrieved July 24, 2010.
Allwright, R. and Bailey, K. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12, 183–210.
Ammar, A. and Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.
Antón, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner-centered classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 308–318.
Atkinson, D. (Ed.). (2011). Alternative approaches to second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., and Ellis, R. (2002). Metalanguage in focus on form in the communicative classroom. Language Awareness, 11, 1–13.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Canagarajah, S. (1993). Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom: Ambiguities in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 601–626.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crago, M. (1992). Communicative interaction and second language acquisition: An Inuit example. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 487–505.
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty and M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language learning (pp. 313–348). Oxford: Blackwell.
de la Fuente, M. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: Investigating the role of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction. Language Teaching Research, 10, 263–295.
Doughty, C. and Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duff, P. (1995). An ethnography of communication in immersion classrooms in Hungary. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 505–537.
Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 1–21.
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., and Loewen, S. (2001a). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 407–432.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., and Loewen, S. (2001b). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., and Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.
Ellis, R. and Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575–600.
Firth, A. and Wagner, J. (2007). On discourse, communication and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 757–772.
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–23.
Foster, P. and Ohta, A. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26, 402–430.
Fröhlich, M., Spada, N., and Allen, P. (1985). Differences in the communicative orientation of classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 27–56.
Gass, S. and Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 175–199). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S., Mackey, A., and Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55, 575–611.
Haneda, M. (2006). Classrooms as communities of practice: A reevaluation. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 807–817.
Harklau, L. (1994). ESL and mainstream classes: Contrasting second language learning contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 241–272.
Hulstijn, J. and Ellis, R. (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2).
Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., and Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In J. Norris, and L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 114–130.
Kim, Y. and McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12, 211–234.
Kuiken, F. and Vedder, I. (2005). Noticing and the role of interaction in promoting language learning. In A. Housen and M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 353–381). Berlin: Mouton.
Lai, C. and Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning and Technology, 10, 102–120.
Lantolf, J. and Thorne, S. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 201–224). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Leeser, M. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.
Lightbown, P., Halter, R., White, J., and Horst, M. (2002). Comprehension-based learning. The limits of “do-it-yourself.” The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 427–464.
Loewen, S. (2003). Variation in the frequency and characteristics if incidental focus on form. Language Teaching Research, 7, 315–345.
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361–386.
Loewen, S. and Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in adult English L2 classrooms: Characteristics, explicitness and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–555.
Long, M. (1980). Inside the “black box”: Methodological issues in classroom research on language learning. Language Learning, 30, 1–42.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.
Loschky, L. and Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes and S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning (pp. 123–167). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lyster, R. (1998a). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183–218.
Lyster, R. (1998b). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–80.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lyster, R. and Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59, 453–498.
Lyster, R. and Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300.
Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
Lyster, R. and Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-Analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.
Mackey, A. (2002). Beyond production: Learners’ perceptions about interactional processes. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 379–394.
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405–430. Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Ham, M., Logan-Terry, A., and Nakatsukasa, K. (2007). Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 129–152.
Mackey, A. and Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A. and Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learner responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.
McDonough, K. and Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts, repetitions, primed production and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–72.
Mitchell, R. (1989). Second language learning: Investigating the classroom. System, 17, 192–210.
Mori, J. (2004). Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities: A case from a Japanese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 536–550.
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 617–673.
Nabei, T. and Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student's second language learning. Language Awareness, 11, 43–63.
Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation, reformulation and their relationship to learner repair in student-teacher dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57, 511–548.
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59, 411–452.
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., and Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–758.
Nunan, D. (2005). Classroom research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook in second language teaching and research (pp. 225–240). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ohta, A. (2000). Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom. In J. K. Hall and L. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 47–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459–481.
Panova, I. and Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in the adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573–595.
Pica, T. (1997). Second language teaching and research relationships: A North American view. Language Teaching Research, 1, 48–72.
Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? The Modern Language Journal, 86, 1–19.
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., and Faludon, J. (1993). Choosing and using communicative tasks for second language research and instruction. In S. Gass and G. Crookes (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Russell, J., and Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris and L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sandoval, W. and Bell, P. (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context: Introduction. Educational Psychologist, 39, 199–201.
Seliger, H. and Long, M. (1983). Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361–392.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, anxiety, modified output and L2 listening. Language Learning, 58, 835–874.
Shekary, M. and Tahririan, M. (2006). Negotiation of meaning and noticing in text-based online chat. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 557–573.
Simard, D. (2004). Using diaries to promote metalinguistic reflection among elementary school students. System, 13, 34–48.
Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 365–398.
Spada, N. and Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.
Storch, N. (2002a). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158.
Storch, N. (2002b). Relationships formed in dyadic interaction and opportunity for learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 305–322.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. and Deters, P. (2007). “New” mainstream theory: Expanded and enriched. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 820–836.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step toward second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion students’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 3/4, 285–304.
Toohey, K. (1998). “Breaking them up, taking them away”: ESL students in grade 1. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 61–84.
VanPatten, B. and Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. W. Lee, J. Mileham, and R. Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 169–185). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Waring, H. Z. (2009). Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback): A single case analysis. Language Learning, 59, 796–824.
Watson-Gegeo, K. (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 575–592.
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583–625.
Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29, 325–340.
Yang, Y. and Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235–263.
Zhao, S. and Bitchener, J. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher-learner and learner-learner interactions. System, 35, 431–447.
Zuengler, J. and Miller, E. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40, 35–58.
Zyzik, E. and Polio, C. (2008). Incidental focus on form in university Spanish literature courses. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 53–70.