Deconstructing the I and SLA in ISLA: One curricular approach

Abstract

Instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) has been referenced in the larger field of the SLA literature for over two and a half decades. Currently, there are several theoretical underpinnings accounting for processes assumed to play a role in ISLA and quite an impressive number of studies have empirically addressed some aspect(s) of ISLA. Recently, a lengthy and relatively cohesive treatise of this substrand of SLA research in relation to both theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical perspectives has been published in two books (cf. Leow, 2015a;Loewen, 2015), and a new model of the L2 learning process in ISLA has been proposed (Leow, 2015a). These publications are timely and important given that the concept of ISLA not only needs to be clearly defined but also situated contextually. To this end, this article (a) revisits current definitions of ISLA in the SLA literature with the aim of identifying specific features of ISLA that underlie such definitions, (b) deconstructs ISLA by probing deeper into what comprises the terms instructed and SLA in ISLA, (c) provides a brief summary of the cognitive processes and variables postulated by the theoretical underpinnings of ISLA and pertinent empirical research, (d) recommends that ISLA be observed from one curricular approach together with its empirical and pedagogical ramifications, and (e) provides some measure of direction future ISLA research may follow.

How Deeply Do Second Language Learners Process Written Corrective Feedback? Insights Gained From Think‐Alouds

“… For a curricular approach to instructed second language acquisition research, see Leow and Cerezo () and Leow (). …”

Salience in the noticing and production of L2 arabic forms

“…However, some SLA researchers have argued that attention and subsequent learning may not necessarily involve conscious awareness (e.g., N. C. Ellis, 2005;Leung & Williams, 2012, 2014Tomlin & Villa, 1994;Truscott & Sharwood Smith, 2011;Truscott, 1998Truscott, , 2015. This view represents a stance within another current debate in SLA on whether L2 learning occurs implicitly (i.e., without awareness) or explicitly (with awareness), as upheld by other researchers (e.g., DeKeyser, 2003(e.g., DeKeyser, , 2007Leow & Cerezo, 2016;Robinson, 1995). These questions remain up for debate in SLA, and no definitive conclusions have been reached as to the scope, mechanisms, and measurement of implicit learning, especially considering methodological issues when tapping into implicit learning processes (see, e.g., DeKeyser, 2003;Leow, 2015;Rebuschat, 2013;Rebuschat & Williams, 2011).…”

VocaBura

“…Incidental L2 vocabulary learning can be described by the perspectives in Krashen's Monitor Model [19][20][21]. Firstly, incidental vocabulary acquisition process is subconscious.…”

“…Next, since VocaBura users will be focusing on an unrelated task (i.e., walking along a route), we want to know whether and to what extent vocabulary learning with our proposed method might occur by accident. That is, to what extent are learners aware of L2 vocabulary acquisition having occurred with our proposed method [19][20][21]. Hence, we asked the following research question:…”

“…According to Krashen's Monitor Model, incidental L2 vocabulary learning is subconscious [19][20][21]. That is, L2 learners may learn new words by accident when watching a TV show or overhearing a conversation while having no awareness of acquiring the new vocabulary [31].…”