This article comprises two parts. The first part is a critique of R. Ellis's (2005) psychometric study, which attempted to use an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to establish operationalizations of the constructs of explicit and implicit knowledge. I argue that the choice of an EFA in this endeavor is misguided and that a confirmatory factor analysis should have been employed. Additionally, the specific execution of the EFA is criticized on a number of fronts. The major claim of the critique is that R. Ellis's study does not successfully demonstrate that his operationalizations are reducible to the two factors of implicit and explicit knowledge. The second part of this article goes on to make some methodological recommendations for future research in this area. Finally, the potential of structural equation modeling is pointed out as a response to Hulstijn's (2005) warning concerning the pitfalls of extreme rationalism and extreme empiricism within the future research trajectory of explicit and implicit knowledge.

Following a literature review on the area of learning styles, and cross-cultural perceptual learning styles in particular, this article reports the results for a survey of perceptual learning styles of Korean students (n=710). The study is a replication of two earlier studies in the area, and results are comprehensively analyzed in terms of the previous findings of these studies. Preferences for different perceptual learning styles as well as the preference for individual and group learning are examined in terms of a range of variables, including age, gender, year of study, major field, time spent overseas, and attendance at private language institutes. Findings, while supporting some of the previous research in the area, also contradict some of the previous results. Some criticisms are made concerning the manner in which results from previous studies have been compared with each other. Areas for future research are also discussed.

This study examined the factor structure of a Korean version of the Perceptual Learning Styles Preference Questionnaire. The instrument was developed to measure the learning-style preferences of students of English as a second language and English as a foreign language and has gained wide currency as a classroom diagnostic tool and survey instrument for research on second-language acquisition. Reliability estimates (Cronbach's α) for scores on the six scales hypothesized by Reid were generally not good and corroborated results in the limited number of previous studies. A confirmatory factor analysis led to the rejection of the hypothesized model, and an exploratory factor analysis suggested a three-factor model as more appropriate. It is argued that the results of this study indicate that the instrument is flawed and that the results of previous research based on it are questionable. It is also argued that the continued use of the instrument within the research trajectory of second-language acquisition be suspended until the instrument has been revised.

he digital humanities is frequently and casually associated with supradisciplinarity; either as multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity or transdisciplinarity. This paper endeavors to put digital humanities into a more rigorous and critical conversation with the three forms. Two broad approaches to distinguishing the three supradisciplinary forms are represented, namely, the definitional and theoretical approaches; with the latter emphasized as providing more analytical traction for a critical conversation with the digital humanities. In this regard, the Nicolescuian and Zurich schools of thought on supradisciplinary practice are elaborated with an emphasis on transdisciplinarity, and are identified with a priori and a posteriori theorization, respectively. Digital humanities and its ancestor, humanities computing, are analytically distinguished because the shift in name represents something substantive and consequential for the conversation. Overall, transdisciplinarity is amplified as of particular value for situating and theorizing the activities associated with the digital humanities as part of a new knowledge condition.

In this critical review, I argue that the usefulness of perceptual learning styles constructs within applied linguistics is very limited. Researchers within applied linguistics have neglected to engage with objections to these constructs which date back to the 1970s within general educational research. Problems of poor instrumentation are considerable and predictive power has not sufficiently been demonstrated. It is argued that these constructs present a special case for measurement because they are not easily operationalized through statements on self-report questionnaires. The review discusses implications for practitioners and research, and argues for greater editorial oversight in preventing poor instruments from entering the literature in the future. Some specific recommendations which may assist with such prevention are discussed. These include a more critical approach to the use of Cronbach’s alpha, the use of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) as one powerful tool to demonstrate unidimensionality, and the avoidance of paraphrased items. 本論文は、応用言語学で用いられる知覚学習スタイルの構成概念が有用性に欠けることを指摘する。一般的な教育学研究の分野で1970年代から批判されてきたこれら構成概念について、応用言語学研究者たちはその対応法の検討を十分には行なっていない。知覚学習スタイルの測定方法には問題が多く、その妥当性も明確になっていない。さらに、アンケートのような自己報告を用いた測定方法では、このような構成概念は適切に定義づけることが難しいことも指摘されている。外国語教育実践と応用言語学研究のためにも、不十分な測定方法が将来的に研究に入り込まないようにする必要があり、そのためには学術誌等の編集者によるさらなるチェック体制の強化が不可欠である。具体的方法として、クロンバックα係数の使用に関する注意喚起や、１次元性を確認するのに有用な確証的因子分析(CFA)の活用を提案する。