Process and Product in ISLA Research: Courage, Commitment, and Tolerance for Ambiguity

Abstract

Stern (1983) reminds us of the ethical reasons for doing second language (L2) research. That is, given the considerable human and financial investments that go into language education, the practical activities of teaching "should not exclusively rely on tradition, opinion, or trial-and-error but should be able to draw on rational enquiry, systematic investigation, and, if possible, controlled experiment" (p. 57). Elsewhere Stern argues for the use of interdisciplinary teams to carry out such research. The studies in this special issue illustrate the aptness of Stern's advice. These articles present findings from a large-scale classroom research project that compared a deductive approach to teaching Spanish grammar to guided induction using the PACE model. The multidisciplinary team made use of different types of data, which were examined through different theoretical lenses. This discussion article considers the implications of these studies for L2 research, educational practice, teacher education, and the relationship between theory and practice.

Introduction: Investigating Explicit L2 Grammar Instruction Through Multiple Theoretical and Methodological Lenses

“…Then, in the article that follows the theoretical articles, Toth and Gil-Berrio (2022) offer intersubjectivity negotiation episodes as a novel conceptual tool for documenting learner deliberations over discursive plans as an essential context for negotiating over L2 form-meaning mappings. Finally, Ranta's (2022) article concludes the issue with a synthesis of salient implications for L2 classroom teaching and research.…”

What Does Explicit Knowledge Look Like? An Analysis of Information Structure in Rule Formation by L2 Learners and Its Relationship With Guided Inductive Learning

“…When considered together, the results leave us with a nebulous understanding of what rules “look like,” how (or if) they are systematically structured, whether they are a result of previous knowledge or induced by GI instruction, and who (among the learners) does (not) possess metalinguistic awareness of a given form–meaning connection. In her synthesis of the aforementioned research, Ranta (2022) noted the varying theoretical and analytic approaches across the studies and concluded that “further theorizing about the learning process and outcomes of guided induction seems to be needed” (p. 12), with particular attention given to the role between grammatical metalanguage and the learning process. The present study extends that assertion; it posits that sociocognitive, sociocultural, and interactionist approaches have not examined rule formation on an individual learner basis and thus do not reveal a relationship between explicit knowledge, language processing, and the effects of GI instruction.…”

“…When reviewing the findings of recent GI research, various methodological and theoretical complications arise as we try to summarize the full effects of the approach on rule formation and processing, due to different methodologies and theoretical frameworks (Ranta, 2022). In the present study, we consider rule formation from a cognitive approach, in which we analyze individual learners’ purposefully constructed declarative rules regarding a novel structure.…”