L2 Developmental Measures from a Dynamic Perspective

Complex Dynamic Systems Theory in Language Learning

“…The limitations we reviewed in this article are therefore a natural part of its growth and more mainstream acceptance of this meta-theory. Yet, as is also apparent, methodological advances and applications now exist that point the way forward for the field—particularly those allowing researchers to tap into the system of within-person dynamics and draw inferences about the underlying patterns of language development (e.g., Kliesch & Pfenninger, 2021; Murakami, 2016, 2020; Pfenninger, 2020; Verspoor et al, 2021). We acknowledge that the insights and guidelines CDST offers can be overwhelming, and this can slow the progress of the field.…”

“…The main goal of these CDST-inspired studies is to develop multifactorial, nonlinear, and probabilistic models that are a better fit for such complex and dynamic language learner data than those currently available. For instance, a number of recent studies informed by CDST (e.g., Kliesch & Pfenninger, 2021; Murakami, 2016, 2020; Pfenninger, 2020; Verspoor et al, 2021) use generalized additive (mixed) modeling (GAMM) to (a) tease apart spatially distributed between- and within-learner variation, (b) disentangle mechanisms that have differing inherent time-courses (e.g., what aspects have the strongest impact on ongoing L2 writing development and over what timescale? ), and (c) examine a system’s interconnected structure as well as its dynamic behavior (e.g., what interactions occur between various cognitive and noncognitive ID variables across time).…”

The complexity epistemology and ontology in second language acquisition: A critical review

“…The methodological novelty of the study granted, questions at the conceptual level can still be raised, not the least of which is: were the regression results valid at the individual level? For sure, CDST-inspired studies are exhibiting a trend of methodological expansion and diversification (see, e.g., Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2020;MacIntyre et al, 2017;Verspoor et al, 2021b;Verspoor & de Bot, 2021). The earlier dominance of longitudinal, individual-oriented case study appears to be giving way to longitudinal mixed methods, group-based studies (see, e.g., Lowie et al, 2020).…”

“…The earlier dominance of longitudinal, individual-oriented case study appears to be giving way to longitudinal mixed methods, group-based studies (see, e.g., Lowie et al, 2020). The case study approach made much sense in the early days and has continued to hold sway in CDST studies to this date, guided not only by the conception of the individual nature of development but also by the ergodicity concern, the concern that group results do not extrapolate to individual learners (Lowie & Verspoor, 2019;Molenaar, 2008;Verspoor et al, 2021b). By the same token, concerns have surfaced about generalizability, the lack of which is generally associated with the case study or the idiodynamic approach.…”

学習者コーパス研究におけるマルチレベル順序ロジットモデルの活用

“…1. はじめに 定量的な言語習得研究において，学習者の発達を客観的に予測するための指標は， 1970 年代から現在にいたるまで大きな関心を集め続けている (e.g., Kobayashi et al, 2022;Verspoor et al, 2021) ルチレベル分析の使用が推奨されており (e.g., Gries, 2015bSchäfer, 2020)，活 用事例も徐々に増えている (e.g., Gries & Deshors, 2015;Kyle et al, 2021;Murakami, 2016;Paquot et al, 2021) > library(textreg)…”