LT 42.2

Lang. Teach.
(2009), 42:2, i
c Cambridge University Press
doi:10.1017/S0261444808005600
Call for Papers
Replication Research Studies
Language Teaching invites submissions of previously unpublished articles based on LITERAL,

APPROXIMATE OR CONSTRUCTIVE REPLICATION OF A PREVIOUS STUDY OR STUDIES of an
aspect of L2 education. In keeping with the survey characteristics of this journal, we also
encourage submissions of META-ANALYSES which attempt to combine or synthesise a series of
comparable research replications. Papers can be based on a broad range of topics, including:
language teaching
teacher training
curriculum design and materials development
language learning
language testing
teacher education
neurolinguistics
bilingualism/bilingual education
sociolinguistics
psycholinguistics
LITERAL (OR EXACT) REPLICATION is the exact duplication of a previous methodologically

sound study whereby the methods and conditions are repeated to confirm the original
findings. APPROXIMATE (OR SYSTEMATIC) REPLICATION involves the duplication of the
methods of the original study as closely as possible but altering some non-major variable.
CONSTRUCTIVE (OR CONCEPTUAL) REPLICATION means beginning with a similar problem
statement as the original study but creating a new means or design to verify the original
findings. Exact duplication of the original procedures is deliberately avoided. Thus, for
example, different, but related, measures such as observation versus self-report, or using both
quantitative and qualitative measures will help add to the body of knowledge obtained in
the original report by validating the outcomes using two different techniques. Successful
constructive replications provide stronger support for the original theory or hypothesis
since evidence is provided that the outcomes are not limited to one particular methodology
used. Authors should make it clear in their texts which kind of replication has been used,
why and how. Further information may be found in the Instructions for Contributors at
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayMoreInfo?jid=LTA&type=ifc.
Lang. Teach. (2009), 42:2, 147–180
doi:10.1017/S0261444808005612
State-of-the-Art Article
Trends in qualitative research in language teaching since 2000
Keith Richards Warwick University, UK

K.Richards@warwick.ac.uk
This paper reviews developments in qualitative research in language teaching since the year
2000, focusing on its contributions to the field and identifying issues that emerge. Its aims are
to identify those areas in language teaching where qualitative research has the greatest
potential and indicate what needs to be done to further improve the quality of its contribution.
The paper begins by highlighting current trends and debates in the general area of qualitative
research and offering a working definition of the term. At its core is an overview of
developments in the new millennium based on the analysis of papers published in 15 journals
related to the field of language teaching and a more detailed description, drawn from a range
of sources, of exemplary contributions during that period. Issues of quality are also considered,
using illustrative cases to point to aspects of published research that deserve closer attention
in future work, and key publications on qualitative research practice are reviewed.
1. Introduction
‘Qualitative research’, claimed Lazaraton (2003a) in a recent review of evaluative criteria, ‘has
come of age in applied linguistics’ (p. 1). In the thirteen years since her own groundbreaking
assessment (Lazaraton 1995) enough has changed to warrant this claim. Qualitative research
(henceforth QR) has opened dimensions of insight into the processes of language teaching and
learning that were not even discernible on the horizon twenty years ago, and developments
in the new millennium promise even richer understandings in the future. Although I shall not
advance the case for QR in this paper – its many and valuable contributions over the years
have established a rich methodological pedigree from which current research benefits – it is
nevertheless important to recognise that prejudice still exists: van de Ven’s note that he will
‘work with an interpretive epistemology, which is not always accepted in the Netherlands’
(2007: 112) reflects a familiar condition. The focus here, though, will be on the achievements
of QR since the turn of the century.
The present paper begins with a brief introduction to the field of QR, highlighting current
trends and debates in the area. This is followed by an overview of developments since 2000
based on the analysis of all papers published in 15 journals related to the field of language
teaching and a more detailed description of some exemplary contributions to the field during
that period. Attention then turns to the issue of quality in qualitative research. Following a
148 KEITH RICHARDS
review of available resources, the paper concludes with a brief comment on the prospects for
QR in language teaching. A list of online resources will be found in the appendix.
2. The field of qualitative research
2.1 What is qualitative research?
Holliday (2007: 1) notes that it is traditional to begin by distinguishing QR from quantitative

research, an ‘unadventurous’ if necessary approach since this is how most people see it. This
is certainly true and well worth bearing in mind as this section situates QR in its broader
conceptual and historical context before concluding with a working definition.
In fact, the distinction between quality and quantity is just one of many convenient
but rather crude alternatives such as words/numbers, subjective/objective or specific/
generalisable (for a longer list see Freebody 2003: 3). These distinctions derive from much
deeper beliefs about the nature of research itself and the world it seeks to understand, reflected
in different PARADIGMS (see Richards 2003: 32–40 for a discussion of relevant concepts).
Although the terminology varies, there is general agreement on the nature of the three
dominant paradigms. Research was for a long time dominated by the first of these, (POST-)
POSITIVISM, based on the assumption that we can test our hypotheses about the nature of
the world through a process of carefully constructed experimentation or measurement. This
came to be challenged by CONSTRUCTIVISM, which rejected the objectification of knowledge
and sought instead to understand, through locally situated investigation, participants’ social
construction of reality. A third paradigm associated with CRITICAL THEORY demanded an
analysis of participant perspectives based on the recognition that these reflected power
asymmetries produced by social and historical forces.
The emergence of new paradigms and their challenge to the hegemonic position of
post-positivism led to what became known as the ‘paradigm wars’ of the 1970s and the
1980s in which rival claims were played out in various ways. The long debate was valuable
in directing attention to important conceptual and methodological issues, but now to a
large extent ‘peace can be regarded as having broken out’ (Bryman 2006: 113; for further
discussion of this, see the special issue of International Journal of Qualitative Education on paradigm
proliferation in educational research (vol. 19.1, 2006), which includes a useful discussion by
Donmoyer (2006) of differing views on the concept of a paradigm shift). An important
contributor to this development was an attack on the sort of simplistic contrast exemplified
by the quantitative/qualitative distinction (e.g. Hammersley 1992; Bryman 2004). Writers
in our own field have adopted a range of responses to this, such as offering a more
nuanced comparison with a stronger focus on practical concerns (e.g. Holliday 2007) or
reconfiguring traditional typologies (Brown & Rogers 2002, for example, use ‘qualitative’,
‘survey’ and ‘statistical’ as labels), though some characterisations are more contentious. Perry’s
(2005) suggestion, for example, that all research can be placed on a quantitative–qualitative
continuum offers a useful heuristic, but one that he applies by drawing on traditional
divisions.
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN LANGUAGE TEACHING 149
This dissatisfaction with oppositional stances produced in the new millennium a shift
towards more pragmatic approaches to QR, focusing on practical issues rather than
conceptual debates. This ‘pragmatist alternative’ accepts ‘a multiplicity of positions’ (Seale
et al. 2007b: 3) and refuses to impose a single version of what counts as QR. Instead,
it places the quality of research practice centre stage, emphasising the centrality of the
research question (Teddlie & Tashakkori 2003) and the importance of contextual factors
in decision-making (Brannen 2007). In our own field, Dörnyei (2007: 29–30) offers a useful
characterisation in terms of ‘purist’, ‘situationalist’ and ‘pragmatic’ perspectives on traditional
debates.
This shift towards more practical and contextual research issues, while not downplaying
the conceptual dimension in research (see Sealey & Carter 2004), has rendered more abstract
debates redundant and directed attention to ways in which quantitative and qualitative
approaches can be integrated. This presents its own challenges (for a revealing discussion
based on interviews with researchers using mixed methods, see Bryman 2007) and does not in
itself resolve postmodernist doubts about the stability of core constructs or remove continuing
positivist prejudices (see St.Pierre & Roulston 2006 for a valuable introduction to some of the
relevant issues here), but it nevertheless opens up fresh avenues of exploration.
An adequate definition of QR, then, must be more than merely contrastive and must seek
to capture the essential characteristics of a very broad and still contested field. The definition
which seems to me to come closest to achieving this is that provided by Denzin & Lincoln
(2000: 4–5):
Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of
interpretive, material practices that make the world visible. These practices transform the world. They
turn the world into a series of representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs,
recordings, and memos to the self. . . . This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural
settings, attempting to make sense of or to interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring
to them.
Working from this definition, I have therefore included in this review research that is:
• locally situated (it studies human participants in natural settings and conditions, eschewing
artificially constructed situations);
• participant-oriented (it is sensitive to, and seeks to understand, participants’ perspectives
on their world);
• holistic (it is context sensitive and does not study isolated aspects independently of the
situation in which they occur);
• inductive (it depends on a process of interpretation that involves immersion in the data
and draws on different perspectives).
This fairly open list does not exclude an element of quantification (though it is clear that
an essentially quantitative study would not meet these criteria) and neither does it insist on
an exclusively insider perspective, but it establishes a sense of the boundaries that apply to
QR. The need for this becomes clear when the landscape of QR is considered.
150 KEITH RICHARDS
2.2 The landscape of qualitative research
In 1994, Denzin & Lincoln remarked, in a positive vein, that there had never been ‘so many
paradigms, strategies of inquiry, or methods of analysis to draw upon and utilize’ (p. 11),
though a less optimistic note had been struck two years earlier by Miller & Crabtree (1992),
who likened the ‘quest for a useful organizational map of qualitative methods’ to ‘the quest
for the holy grail’ (p. 13). Although the rise of pragmatism has rendered the desire for a clear
overview less urgent, differences in terminology and categorisation can still make the field
daunting for new researchers.
Terminologically, the status of paradigms is no longer problematic, given the shift away
from debates in this area and a general consensus that they represent fundamental belief
systems about the nature of research. Neither is there a problem about what constitutes a
METHOD, such as observation or the interview, though the term TECHNIQUE is sometimes used
instead. The challenge lies more in deciding what counts as a core TRADITION, STRATEGY OF
INQUIRY, ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK, or APPROACH, all terms that are used to label the different
territories within QR. The fact that Creswell uses the first of these in his 1998 book on QR
and the last in its second edition (2007) highlights the danger of assuming fixed points in this
shifting world, while lists of traditions ranging from four items (Nunan 1992; Perry 2005)
to twenty-seven (Tesch 1990) testify to the impossibility of definitive mapping. Nevertheless,
Prasad (2005) does provide a reasonably comprehensive sketch with excellent brief overviews.
An analysis of standard introductions to QR in our field since 2000 (Brown & Rogers 2002;
Holliday 2002a, 2007; Richards 2003; Perry 2005; Dörnyei 2007) produces only case study –
a potentially catch-all category – as common to all, though ethnography and conversation
analysis (ethnomethodology) have solitary exceptions, and action research, grounded theory,
introspective methods and phenomenology also feature in more than one source. However,
while phenomenology and grounded theory feature in QR generally, they do not loom large
in research in language teaching and introspective methods are as likely to be quantitative as
qualitative (the same might apply to case studies and even action research). Only Richards
includes life history, though there is evidence of valuable work in this tradition in our field
(see section 4.3 below).
To attempt a synthesis of these different categorisations would probably be futile and
from a practical perspective would certainly be unproductive, but it helps to have a sense
of the approaches a writer is using. In the analysis that follows I draw on the following
broad categories, without claiming that the list is in any way exhaustive or exemplary:
ethnographies (including linguistic ethnographies), case studies, interactional studies (and
conversation analysis), introspective methods (including diary studies), life history/narrative
research (and in-depth interview studies) and action research (including exploratory practice).
Anyone interested in exploring relationships between these can attempt to follow the branches
of Wolcott’s (1992) tree, embracing twenty different traditions.
3. Review of trends in qualitative research since 2000
This section provides a (crudely) quantitative overview of QR trends since 2000 based on
an analysis of leading journals in the field of language teaching. This is followed in the next
section by a more developed discussion of areas of research that have received particular
attention during the period.
It is worth noting at the outset that this is not the first time such an overview has been
attempted. Lazaraton (2000) analysed all data-based articles in four core journals (TESOL
Quarterly, Language Learning, The Modern Language Journal and Studies in Second Language Acquisition)
over a seven-year period from 1992–1997 and found only 10% were qualitative (with a further
2% ‘partially qualitative’). Yihong, Lichun & Jun (2001) also compare China and the west
in terms of trends in research methods in applied linguistics, covering the years 1978–1997.
Reviewing four ‘western’ journals (Applied Linguistics, TESOL Quarterly, The Modern Language
Journal and International Review of Applied Linguistics), they note ‘a shift toward the qualitative
direction’ and claim that ‘from the mid-1990s, the percentage of qualitative studies has
been approaching that of quantitative studies’ (Yihong et al. 2001: 7). The review here
covers a wider range of journals, but if the ten years following the period of their study
(1998–2007) are examined for the four journals they select, this trend does not seem to have
continued.
Even allowing some latitude in what counts as QR, the facts are stark: TESOL Quarterly, a
journal clearly sympathetic to QR, dedicated less than a third of its space to these articles (47
out of 178), while in Applied Linguistics (31 out of 196) and The Modern Language Journal (39 out
of 218) they amounted to less than a fifth of the total, and IRAL included only 10 (including
two mixed methods papers) in its total of 128 papers. Not all the remaining papers were
quantitative, but a representation of less than 18% of the total does not suggest a narrowing
of the gap between qualitative and quantitative studies. The period covered by Yihong et al.
(2001) was an important one in terms of the development of QR in language teaching and
the shift they remark on was notable at the time, but the following analysis of trends in the
new millennium suggests that things have settled into a situation where QR has a solid –
though minority – presence in leading journals.
Any choice of ‘representative’ journals is bound to be contentious, but the overview that
follows draws on 15 international publications, all with a research dimension and all of which
at least have a reasonable claim to importance. In fact, the list includes all but one of the
journals featuring in Egbert’s (2007) quality analysis, Studies in Second Language Acquisition being
surveyed but excluded because of the predictable absence of qualitative studies (though the
case is less clear-cut, I excluded Language Testing for the same reason). Some of the journals
have a more local geographical relevance than others (though journals related to a specific
country were not included), while some have a specialist focus, and they range from those
with a heavy research focus to others with a more practical orientation. They also differ to
some extent in terms of length of article, but the only journal excluded on this basis is Language
Learning Journal because with an article length of around 4–6 pages it allows sufficient space
only for reports on research and excludes an important methodological dimension. The full
list is as follows: TESOL Quarterly, The Modern Language Journal, RELC Journal, JALT Journal,
Prospect, Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, System, ELT Journal, Language Teaching Research,
Language Learning, Journal of Second Language Writing, International Journal of Bilingual Education
& Bilingualism, Applied Linguistics, English for Specific Purposes and International Review of Applied
Linguistics (IRAL).
In surveying these journals I have included all papers, excluding editorials, introductions,
forums, comment papers, reviews, etc. This means that when QR papers are removed what
152 KEITH RICHARDS
remain are not necessarily just quantitative studies, but since my aim here is to present a
picture of QR representation in general rather than to compare quantitative and qualitative
studies, this seems legitimate. The analysis itself makes no judgement on the quality of the
contributions and is based on the broad definition of QR provided in the introduction.
This seems to work straightforwardly in most cases, though the term itself cannot always be
relied on. Takahashi’s (2005) title, for example, promises a ‘qualitative analysis’ but this belies
the experimental study that follows. Where the analysis depends entirely on the analysis of
discourse, I have made decisions on the basis of whether the interest is primarily in aspects
of the discourse itself (i.e. essentially linguistic), in which case I have excluded it, or on the
individual or social dimension, in which case it has been included. Mixed methods approaches
are included where the qualitative aspect predominates, though they do not seem to have yet
made a significant impact in language teaching research despite their potential, exemplified
in Basturkmen, Loewen & Ellis’s (2004) study of the relationship between the beliefs and
classroom practices of three teachers.
If anything emerges clearly from a study of papers published in these journals between
2000 and 2007 it is that, with a couple of notable exceptions, they have remained remarkably
consistent in terms of the extent to which they feature papers involving QR. In terms of
representation, the journals fall very roughly into two equal groups: those where QR papers
take up less than 10% of the total (International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism,
IRAL, Language Learning, RELC Journal, English for Specific Purposes, ELT Journal, Journal of Second
Language Writing and System), and those in which either roughly one in five of the papers (The
Modern Language Journal, Applied Linguistics, Prospect and JALT Journal) or around a quarter of
the papers involve QR (TESOL Quarterly, Asian Journal of English Language Teaching and Language
Teaching Research). It is perhaps not surprising – and quite encouraging – that most of the
journals with more ‘general’ coverage fall into the second category.
There are other encouraging signs. Both Prospect and ELT Journal, for example, show signs of
increasing the proportion of QR papers over the last couple of years, and while questionnaire
surveys have always featured very prominently in JALT Journal there has been a noticeable
increase in QR contributions over the last few years, rising from about one in ten papers up
to the end of 2004 to over one in three after that. One of the most interesting developments
is to be found in the Journal of Second Language Writing, where more QR papers were published
in 2006 and 2007 than in the previous six years combined, with the emergence of individual
case study particularly prominent.
Case studies are widely represented and feature most prominently in the Journal of Second
Language Writing, but other approaches are also particularly associated with specific journals.
For example, The Modern Language Journal seems to favour discourse-based papers, which
represent around two-thirds of the total QR papers in the journal. These also feature strongly
in Applied Linguistics, where papers based on introspective methods are rare, in contrast to the
generous provision in ELT Journal and Prospect. Intriguingly, action research and exploratory
practice do not seem to be well represented generally, with a significant presence in only
Language Teaching Research, where exploratory practice is allotted its own separate section. The
same might be said of ethnographic projects, which feature in nearly all the journals but far
from prominently. TESOL Quarterly, where a quarter of the QR papers fall into this category,
is a notable exception.
The qualitative landscape seen through the lens of journal readers, then, might seem fairly
bland: QR is reasonably well represented across a range of traditions, with none emerging as
predominant and no evidence of a trend in any particular direction. However, a more careful
examination of the sort of work being published in QR, in these journals and in other forms
of output, reveals that new territory has been opened up through this form of inquiry. When
compared with QR published in other fields, for example, it becomes immediately apparent
that the use of teacher and student journals as a data source is a distinctive feature of research
in language teaching, and the development of introspective approaches represents a notable
contribution made by our field. The next section will highlight areas of research in language
teaching (including language support in L1 situations where appropriate) that have benefited
particularly from the strengths of QR. It is necessarily selective and based on what seems
to me to be most interesting in terms of QR, and I have deliberately tried not to describe
territory already mapped by other articles in this journal.
4. Qualitative research contributions to research since 2000
4.1 Approaches to teaching
Researchers have continued to build on QR’s important contribution to our understanding of

what happens in language classrooms, and studies of teachers’ perceptions of communicative
language teaching and their approaches to it continue to proliferate (e.g. Miller & Aldred
2000; Mangubhai et al. 2004, 2005; Nazari 2007). The contradictory results of research on
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and teacher stereotypes are thought-provoking.
For example, while Wu & Fang’s (2002) study of teachers in China found that their
perception of teaching as one-way transmission of knowledge inhibited their approach to CLT,
Xinmin & Adamson’s (2003) in-depth study of a single Chinese teacher directly challenged
this stereotype, exposing a dynamic interplay of experience, beliefs and practice, findings
supported by research in Vietnam (Ha 2004) and Korea (Mitchell & Lee 2003). This is an
area which would repay further research.
Research on student writing and feedback on this has benefited from QR’s focus
on processes and relationships from the perspectives of those involved (for a review of
ethnographic research in L2 writing, see Ramanathan & Atkinson 1999). There is evidence,
for example, of a developing interest in the influence of learning biography (Leibowitz 2005),
beliefs and previous writing experience (Yasuda 2005) on the process of composition. In-depth
interviews feature prominently in data collection here, while between-method triangulation
is particularly rich in feedback studies. In their study of the relationship between novice tutors
and ESL tutees, for example, Weigle & Nelson (2004) used online discussions from the course,
videotapes of tutoring sessions, retrospective interviews with tutors and tutees, and the tutor’s
final reflective papers for the course. Hyland’s (2000) study of autonomy in feedback provides
a useful illustration of how an impressively wide range of methods (questionnaires, interviews,
think-aloud protocols, classroom observation and documents) can be applied over the length
of a three-month course, while Hamp-Lyons’ (2006) presentation of drafts, lesson exchanges
and interview data in her case study is exemplary. Also methodologically interesting are
154 KEITH RICHARDS
Asaoka & Usui’s (2003) use of student journals and interviews to provide insights into the
problems with writing; Zhu’s (2004) combination of genre analysis and focus group interviews
to explore professional perspectives on the writing of business faxes by Chinese students; and
Li’s (2007) exploration of the first draft of a chemistry student’s paper based on the student’s
process logs, his developing text, his bulletin board exchanges and post-hoc interviews.
Conversation analysis has established a major presence in the area of speaking (but for a
broader overview see McCarthy & O’Keeffe 2004) and has been comprehensively reviewed
by Seedhouse in this journal (2005). The literature is marked by differences of emphasis and
debates on the precise nature of its contribution continue (Kurhila 2006; Hall 2007a, b; Hua &
Seedhouse 2007; Seedhouse 2007; Hellermann 2008). Research has extended into different
language environments (e.g. Buckwalter 2001 for Spanish; Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain 2003
for German) and is opening up new aspects of interaction such as humour (Bell 2005) and
laughter (Reutzel 2003).
Multiple methods have also been used to explore aspects of classroom interaction.
Ohta & Nakaone (2004), for example, use recordings of over 30 hours of classroom talk,
observation and documentary evidence to open up student questioning, while Tan (2007)
revealed problems with teachers’ questioning behaviour through lesson observation, semi-
structured interviews and focus group discussions. This seems to be an area with considerable
scope for further exploration, but even more exciting is the recent growth of developmental
studies. Hellermann (2006), for example, used longitudinal microethnography to trace a shift
from peripheral to engaged participation in classroom literacy events and, in Hellermann
2007, followed six successful learners over a period of 18–27 months to identify the
development of conversational practices in student dyads. Along similar lines, Cekaite (2007)
used microanalytic and ethnographic methods to trace a child’s emergent L2 interactional
competence during the first year in a Swedish immersion classroom. The findings of these
papers suggest that there are significant benefits to be gained from further QR of this kind.
Although reading and listening have been less well-served by QR, the range of approaches
used by research on the former suggests that it has been under-exploited. Kamhi-Stein (2003),
for example, brings together think-aloud protocols, open-ended interviews, self-assessment
inventories and reading comprehension measures to explore the relationship between L1
and L2 reading strategies, revealing how attitudes to home language influenced reading
behaviour, while Miller, Mitchell & Brown (2005) develop a powerful picture of the literacy
development of African refugees in Australia, relating this to social backgrounds. Martin’s
(2003) microethnographic study of reading practices in an up-river school in Brunei describes
the way in which members of three different ethnic groups position themselves and accomplish
literacy events, providing an excellent illustration of how close analysis of a single lesson can
generate valuable insights.
Think-aloud methods dominate QR on listening, though treatments vary considerably.
Vandergrift’s (2003) study of the listening strategies of grade seven students of French, for
example, begins with quantitative analysis but goes on to provide a convincing justification
for the inclusion of qualitative analysis and a rich sample of responses which provide model
support for this. Goh (2002) does not include the same element of quantification in her study
of Chinese ESL learners’ listening strategies and tactics, but her categorisation of different
tactics is supported by samples and comments, while Farrell & Mallard (2006) provide
extracts from the classroom with briefer summaries of student comments. This concentration
on think-aloud approaches is undoubtedly effective, but research on reading suggests that
other approaches also have much to offer and it would be unfortunate if the neglect of these
in listening research is allowed to continue.
Qualitative approaches have also opened windows onto aspects of the classroom
community (e.g. Creese 2002; Duff 2002) and contributed to an improved understanding
of pedagogic practice (e.g. Walsh 2002, 2006b; Carless 2004; Dufficy 2005; Hammond &
Gibbons 2005; Lacorte 2005; Gibbons 2006; Richards 2006a; Pinter 2007; Sakui 2007).
Gieve & Miller (2006) provide a discussion of relevant issues and Chavez’s (2006) study
of experienced teachers of German illustrates how narrow but very rich data sets can be
exploited to excellent effect.
Useful work has been done on teacher collaboration, where the combination of interviews
and the analysis of classroom extracts has proved particularly effective. In a methodologically
exemplary study, Creese (2005, 2006) offers revealing insights into the relationship between
subject and language teachers in UK schools. Researchers such as Perry & Stewart (2005),
Aline & Hosada (2006) and Carless (2006) have also advanced the understanding of team
teaching in countries such as Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong, as well as contributing to
the development of good practice. However, a more negative picture emerges from Sato &
Kleinsasser’s (2004) study of Japanese high school EFL teachers, which found that teacher
collaboration served only to reinforce existing practices, eroding teachers’ motivation.
Extending beyond the classroom, an area that would repay further investigation is the
relationship between home and school. Xuesong (2006) has used biographical interviews
to explore Chinese parents’ involvement in their children’s language development, while
Neville-Barton (2002) used questionnaires and interviews to study the impact of family lives
on language learning of eight immigrant students from China, Korea and Japan. These
are areas where greater understanding might make a significant contribution to maximising
language learning potential, as Wallace’s (2005) research on bilingual learners at both home
and school indicates.
4.2 Identity and socialisation
One of the major themes to emerge since 2000 is that of identity, and QR has made a
significant contribution to our understanding of different aspects of the language learning
experience. Major studies and collections have explored L2 and multilingual contexts,
focusing on learners of different ages and backgrounds in different contexts (e.g. Norton
2000; Toohey 2000; Day 2002; Miller 2003; Pavlenko & Blackledge 2004; Block 2007), and
there is every indication that this interest will continue to grow. Observation and interviews,
sometimes combined with discourse analysis, have also been used to study the process of
classroom socialisation in a variety of settings and levels including a kindergarten in the
US (Hawkins 2005), a bilingual school in Italy (Mickan 2006) and a university in Germany
(Chavez 2007), while the influence of cultural and educational background on performance
and classroom behaviour has also proved a fruitful area for qualitative researchers (e.g. Gao,
Li & Li 2002; Connor & Rozycki 2006). Rampton’s (2006) exploration of the use of German
156 KEITH RICHARDS
both inside and outside the classroom opens new avenues of investigation and his concept of
‘crossing’ (Rampton 1995) has already influenced later studies (e.g. Stroud & Wee 2007).
QR has also opened a revealing window on the world of the immigrant or sojourner. The
focus has typically been on particular groups (e.g. Gordon 2004; Menard-Warwick 2005) or
educational settings (e.g. Morita 2004; Vickers 2007), but Gordon’s (2006) study of strains
on the lives and careers of teachers in Japan who work with marginalised youth throws light
on an area that would repay further research. Study abroad has also emerged as an area
of interest, producing work on identity construction (Pellegrino 2005), engagement with the
host culture (Wilkinson 2002; DuFon 2006; Iino 2006), and cultural adjustment (Bacon 2002;
Gu & Schweisfurth 2007), among other areas (see DuFon & Churchill 2006 for examples).
Research on teacher identity has thrown up interesting perspectives, including professional
identity formation (Alsup 2005), racialised identities (e.g. Hammond 2006; Motha 2006),
religious beliefs (Varghese & Johnston 2007) and relationship to place (Elbaz-Luwisch
2004). Non-native-speaker teachers have received particular attention: dimensions such as
cultural knowledge (Lazaraton 2003b), ‘legitimacy’ (Golombek & Jordan 2005; Tsui 2007)
and relations with native-speaker teachers (Park 2007) have all been explored. Kurihara &
Samimy’s (2007) study of the impact of an American teacher training programme on the
beliefs and practices of eight Japanese teachers on their return to Japan is also worth noting
(for complementary perspectives, see McKay 2000; Lamie 2001).
Methodologically, one of the most encouraging features of research on identity and
socialisation has been the appearance of longitudinal studies, from two or three years (e.g.
Maguire & Graves 2001; Gordon 2004; Golombek & Jordan 2005) up to five or six years
(Caldas & Caron-Caldas 2002; DuFon 2006). Ortega & Iberri-Shea’s (2005) critical review
of longitudinal studies published in 2002 and 2003 shows that work is being done along these
lines, but there is still a pressing need for more longitudinal qualitative studies.
4.3 Narrative/Lives
Although this tradition seems to have been largely ignored in introductions to QR in language
teaching, it has produced some interesting studies. In a two-year longitudinal case study of
a Chinese student’s language learning, Gao (2007) makes an eloquent case for the value of
seeking to understand the learning experience from a biographical perspective (see also
Menard-Warwick 2005), and teacher biographies have thrown light on relationships to
cultural and educational contexts (e.g. Doecke 2004; Tsui 2007). The role of narrative
inquiry as a tool in language teacher development has also been explored (Golombek &
Johnson 2004), while Cowie’s (2006) inclusion of an element of autoethnography as an
English teacher and Japanese learner opens up fascinating possibilities.
Despite some useful discussions of theoretical and methodological issues (e.g. Bell 2002;
Pavlenko 2002, 2007), approaches to life history are very varied, as a comparison of
papers by Simon-Maeda (2004), Cheung (2005) and Hayes (2005) reveals. In fact they
seem to have little in common beyond the length of interviews (roughly 2–3 hours) and the
inclusion of interviewee profiles. Cheung’s approach to understanding phases and changes
in teacher careers is characterised by summaries (often tabular) and discussion of her
findings but relatively limited direct representation of teachers’ voices. However, she provides
methodological details that are missing from Simon-Maeda. The latter’s use of quotation is
extensive and teacher voices emerge clearly, but the result is conceptually thin for a paper
that claims to contribute to a ‘theoretically informed debate’ (Simon-Maeda 2004: 431).
Only Hayes addresses fundamental methodological issues such as trustworthiness and the
researcher’s place, describing data collection procedures fully though not extending this to
analytical decisions. His analysis is arranged thematically, with a blend of summary and
quotation that captures teachers’ voices more fully than Cheung but less richly than Simon-
Maeda.
4.4 Other developments
This necessarily selective overview has omitted two aspects of QR which are becoming
increasingly prominent. The first, teacher beliefs, has already been reviewed in this journal
(Borg 2003a) so a briefer overview here would be redundant. The growth of research using
introspective methods also needs to be noted, but in the space available it would be impossible
to do justice to the complex relationship between quantitative and qualitative approaches
here. Diary studies are less problematic and have a history dating back to Bailey’s pioneering
work (1983, 1990). Most focus on learner strategies (e.g. Halbach 2000; Hart 2002; Huang
2005) or teacher reflection and learning (e.g. Marefat 2002; Towndrow 2004; Lee 2007),
though they have also been used to explore aspects such as time management (Ho 2003)
and differences between teacher and learner agendas (Zhanjiang 2006). What seems to be
lacking, though, is an extended and rigorous treatment of relevant methodological issues.
An exciting development in QR in this period has been the emergence of linguistic
ethnography, focusing on the relationship between language and social life. There seem to
me to be at least three reasons why this should be welcomed by researchers in our field: at
the heart of the tradition is an attempt to bring together linguistics and ethnography; the
process of emergence brings to the surface fundamental issues relating to the nature of QR;
and the quality of core work in the tradition so far is exemplary. The relationship at the core
of the tradition between ‘tying ethnography down’ and ‘opening linguistics up’ is examined
in a seminal discussion paper (Rampton et al. 2004: 4) and the debate on this is taken up in a
special issue of the Journal of Sociolinguistics where, for example, Sealey (2007) and Blommaert
(2007) engage on issues of theory.
Theoretical and methodological issues are brought to the fore in three key studies in this
tradition. The first of these, Creese (2005), has already been discussed, though it is worth
underlining here the effectiveness of the way data from interviews, classroom exchanges and
fieldnotes are presented. One of the strengths of Rampton’s (2006) study of teenagers in an
inner-city school is its richness of detail in terms of both data presentation and analysis. The
‘methodological reflections’ in chapter 10 not only offer insights into the author’s decision-
making but also take the reader into Rampton’s confidence in matters of methodological
choice. It serves as a model for the sort of methodological transparency that is often demanded
but rarely delivered. Maybin’s (2006) exploration of children’s verbal practices inside and
outside the classroom raises useful questions about analytical positioning and the extent to
158 KEITH RICHARDS
which researchers need to fashion individual approaches to suit their interpretive needs.
Drawing on linguistic ethnography and poststructuralist theory for her analytical framework,
Maybin is able to develop her own analytical style, revealingly exploratory in earlier chapters
but increasingly confident and persuasive as the book develops. Methodologically as well
as analytically, these three books are important resources for researchers in all qualitative
traditions, making productive use of the greater space available in book-length studies when
compared with research articles.
5. Quality in qualitative research
5.1 Checklists and standards
In spite of the shift away from paradigm wars and towards the more pragmatic perspective
described in the first section of this paper, St.Pierre & Roulston (2006) note in their
introduction to a special issue of the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education
on the state of qualitative inquiry that the politics of educational research are such that
researchers ‘are encouraged to develop a “culture of science” and that science does not seem
to be qualitative’ (p. 679). In this section I consider how QR has responded to this challenge,
beginning with an introduction to guidelines for conducting research, moving on to consider
examples of published research which illustrate core quality issues, and finally considering
lines of response to current challenges.
In matters of guidance on good research practice, language teaching is perhaps uniquely
well-served in having guidelines provided by TESOL Quarterly (2003) which focus specifically
on case studies, conversation analysis and critical ethnography. The American Educational
Research Association’s ‘Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA
publications’ (AERA 2006) are more wide-ranging and are helpfully structured, while Long &
Godfrey (2004) provide a briefer ‘evaluation tool’. As resources these guidelines are admirable,
but the strength deriving from their precision is at the same time a source of potential
concern. QR is a heterogeneous field resistant to categorical specification and perhaps best
approached from the more general perspective of ‘common notions’ (Freeman et al. 2007), a
point eloquently made by Shohamy (2004) in her discussion of boundaries and structure as
part of her response to the TESOL guidelines.
Holliday’s (2004a) response to the same guidelines reflects pragmatic developments in QR,
making a fundamentally important point: the research activities featuring in the case study
guidelines ‘should be ever expandable to do what researchers need it to do to answer their
research questions’ (p. 732). His association of this with the need for THICK DESCRIPTION (for
an illuminating brief discussion of this concept, see Ponterotto 2006) and transparency cuts
to the heart of validity issues in QR, and his illustrative case brings out an often neglected
dimension in the research process: the relationship between flexibility, responsiveness and
transparency of representation.
Checklists or guidelines are not in themselves guarantees of quality in QR and ‘technical
fixes’ in general (Barbour 2001) are no substitutes for systematic, sensitive and careful analysis.
As Atkinson & Delamont note (2006: 750), ‘[a] few interviews, a handful of focus groups
or a period of autobiographical navel-gazing can never generate faithful renderings of the

complexity of social life and its multiple forms of social action’. Hammersley (2006: 6)
associates briefer time spent in the field with a move away from an older anthropological
model of ethnography, a point also made by Holliday (2004b) in his appeal for more creative
forms of data management. We need to be sensitive to this, especially in the case of micro-
ethnography, where attention to micro-analysis of action can distract attention from the
bigger picture. This challenge is particularly salient in our field, where the bedrock exerts
a magnetic pull towards linguistic analysis. While the TESOL guidelines rightly respond
to Lazaraton’s (2003a) criticisms of an earlier failure to accommodate conversation-analytic
perspectives, her fundamental point about the need for greater sensitivity to standards of
judgement in evaluating the validity of qualitative accounts remains pertinent.
Issues of quality are of course wide-ranging (Borg 2004 provides a succinct introduction to
key topics), but the challenge identified by St.Pierre & Roulston requires that our evaluative
antennae remain tuned to issues of RIGOUR and VALIDITY, however conceived. The first
phase of standards in QR was necessarily a general one and has produced sound guidelines;
the next is likely to involve deeper engagement with theoretical and procedural issues. The
remainder of this paper will indicate where current fault lines are to be found and what steps
are being taken to respond to them.
5.2 Issues of quality in published work
Since terms such as VALIDITY and RELIABILITY remain contested in QR, this section will
discuss quality issues in terms of Lincoln & Guba’s (1985: 289–331) alternatives, CREDIBILITY,
TRANSFERABILITY, DEPENDABILITY and CONFIRMABILITY, which feature in discussions of the
topic in applied linguistics (see Brown 2004: 494–495 for a useful brief characterisation). The
issue of TRANSPARENCY will also be considered.
DEPENDABILITY in QR involves an interrogation of the context and the methods used to
derive data. Methodological positioning cannot be separated from the way in which data
are presented and the nature of the claims made, and unsurprisingly practices vary widely.
Perpignan’s (2003) paper on written feedback, for example, demonstrates that it is not enough
merely to collect data using a wide range of methods if details of how they are combined and
analysed are not provided. By contrast, in a necessarily brief discussion of methodology as
part of a much shorter paper, Tardy & Snyder (2004) relate their methodological decisions
to the nature of the claims they wish to make, providing useful additional detail in brief
appendices and allowing the participants’ voices to emerge clearly in their analysis, thus
supporting their methodological positioning. Hall’s (2008) reflections on his diary study come
towards the end of his paper and are made explicit in the section heading: ‘Did my research
methodology affect the data?’. These examples of good practice are not isolated but it is
probably fair to say that methodological interrogation could be more widespread.
One area in need of particular attention in this respect is that of interviewing. Interviews
feature prominently in QR in language teaching, but there are as yet few signs that researchers
have taken note of developments in the wider field, Pavlenko’s (2007) excellent discussion
of autobiographic narratives as data and Talmy’s (2008) AAAL (American Association for
160 KEITH RICHARDS
Applied Linguistics) colloquium being notable exceptions. There is a growing literature on the
importance of treating interviews as interactionally co-constructed events in which participant
identity and positioning have significant analytical implications (Baker 1997, 2002; Nijhof
1997; Rapley 2001; Cassell 2005; Roulston 2006; Wooffitt & Widdicombe 2006), while
problems of memory (Gardner 2001) and misrepresentation (Sikes 2000) represent particular
challenges. Yet analysis of interviews in our field still tends to treat them as reports rather
than accounts, relying on unproblematised thematic analysis.
There is no shortage of illustrative examples of this tendency, but I choose Palfreyman
(2005) because it is a valuable interview-based study from a leading journal in our field.
Although it explicitly refers to issues of representation and recognises the relevance of personal
relationships, these aspects are not examined in terms of the interviews themselves. Neither
is any indication given of how analysis was approached, even though in other respects (e.g.
data presentation) the paper is exemplary.
CONFIRMABILITY in QR depends on making the data available to the reader, and this in turn
depends on transparency of representation. An impressionistic assessment, based on the fairly
extensive reading involved in this review, is that there is a trend towards richer representation,
with participants’ voices and perspectives emerging clearly, though in ethnographic studies
word limits may restrict the extent to which relationships can be fully represented. Of course,
even shorter papers can provide excellent coverage (see, for example, the range in Borg
2001a), while extended accounts can integrate different data sources to powerful effect (e.g.
Creese 2002). Exceptions are typically justified in terms of the aims of the research. Huang’s
(2003) ethnographic study, for example, provides no examples from fieldnotes and only one
extract of classroom interaction, though its detailed descriptions of the pedagogic context
and procedures, and its focus on materials and the language produced as a result, properly
reflect the aim of the paper.
TRANSPARENCY has been described as ‘fundamental to good research practice’ (Dale 2006:
79), but it is perhaps the most difficult aspect for a researcher to manage and an outsider to
judge, not least because of the complex issues which may underlie representational decisions.
With no access to the decision-making processes of other researchers, I illustrate this with
an insider’s perspective on two research outputs, focusing on what would seem to be on the
surface one of the most straightforward issues: researcher representation in the data.
In their paper on justifying outcomes in QR, Edge & Richards claim that AUTHENTICATION
‘involves making available an appropriate selection of the records of the research process’
(1998: 351), leaving open the issue of what counts as appropriate. In his book on identity
in professional interaction, Richards (2006b) appears in two of the three groups featured, in
one as himself and in the other under a pseudonym. His justification for the latter is that he
is a member of the group whose exchanges were originally recorded by another researcher.
Nevertheless, this effectively produces three voices in the book, which the reader may not
easily identify: author, author-as-researcher, and group member. In a paper on computer-
mediated cooperative development published in the same year, Edge (2006) assigns individual
names to four different participants but does not identify himself as representing two of these.
The justification for this would seem to be that, since the discourse roles in these exchanges
are fixed, personal idiosyncrasies are not relevant to the analysis and would be distracting.
Nevertheless, the decision produces a confusing picture in terms of the number of participants
involved and commits the analyst to creating an artificial distance between himself and his
pseudonymic representations.
It should be stressed that in neither of these cases does the use of a pseudonym influence
the analysis or affect the results, but the issue of transparency remains awkwardly present and
essentially unresolved. The broader issue of the relationship between the researcher’s voice
and those of other participants is succinctly discussed by Holliday (2002b), who is careful to
reflect the complexity of the dilemmas involved rather than suggesting comfortable solutions.
Transparency is closely related to the requirement for researchers to establish the
CREDIBILITY of their interpretation, and though it seems excessive to insist that ‘every
ethnography be accompanied by a research biography’ (Ball 1990: 170), it is reasonable to
expect evidence that alternative interpretations of the data have been considered. Constant
comparison within the data set (looking for new relationships, categories, etc.), the search
for negative evidence and the use of member validation are important steps in this process,
so it is disappointing that reference to these procedures is rare. Ha (2004) offers a welcome
exception, giving transcripts of interviews to participants, while Guerrero (2003) refers to
member validation and demonstrates in his analysis that he is sensitive to the discrepant case
(p. 661). These, though, are exceptions rather than the rule, and even book-length studies
often fail to provide details of the author’s engagement with methodological and analytical
issues.
To meet the demands of TRANSFERABILITY, the research needs to provide a sufficiently rich
description of the project for readers to assess how far it might apply in their own context,
and here the picture is a much happier one. Though few accounts are as detailed as that
of Duff (2002), the level of local contextualisation is generally high. Van Lier (1996) offers a
particularly engaging and revealing account of a research project in Peru, shot through with
a tension between the demands of research and a commitment to pedagogic action. The
quality of the author’s descriptions of the context (derived from fieldnotes), the feeling for
place and the honesty of his reflections convey a sense of constant interrogation of method
and circumstance that contrasts powerfully with more neatly packaged representations.
5.3 Lines of response to quality issues
One of the trends identified in section 4.2 was an increase in longitudinal studies, and in their
review Ortega & Iberri-Shea (2005) note that ‘studies adopting a case study or ethnographic
approach end up reporting on only a small subset of the richer longitudinal data’ (p. 36).
While this might, as the authors imply, reflect a failure of proper focus, it is conceivable that
journal word limits make fuller descriptions problematic.
Since it is unreasonable to expect journals to expand in size or reduce the number of papers
they publish in order to accommodate longer studies, other responses are needed. One option
would be to allow space for a longer paper in one or two issues each year, which would reduce
the impact on the number of papers published. Another would be to provide links to online
data sets (journals such as this one and Applied Linguistics already have associated websites) or
exploit the potential for electronic publishing. Markee & Stansell (2007), for example, make
a convincing case for the electronic publishing of conversation analytic research.
162 KEITH RICHARDS
Researcher training also makes an important contribution to improving quality, and the
expansion of research methods literature, courses and workshops suggests that this aspect
is being addressed. A gatekeeping encounter that faces all seriously committed researchers
sooner or later is the doctoral research proposal, and Kilbourn’s (2006) discussion of the
qualitative proposal provides an outstanding introduction to this (a significantly briefer
account can be found in the ‘top ten tips’ provided by Patton 2002: 33–35). More neglected,
but arguably even more important, is the researcher’s journal/log, for which Borg (2001b)
develops a compelling case.
Although good practice may be disseminated on a local level, there is probably a need for
a more global perspective, covering publications across a range of specialities. For example,
Hanke’s (2000) use of drawing completion as a data source when researching young children
is likely to interest researchers outside the field of reading, though its source makes it unlikely
that they would happen upon it. Finally, we need more first-hand accounts from researchers
of their engagement with the research process, not only experiences with different elements
in the research process of the sort collected by Darlington & Scott (2002), but also accounts
from novices (e.g. O’Toole 2002) and developmental descriptions such as Giske & Artinian’s
(2007) on using grounded theory.
It is also essential to maintain healthy debate on broader research issues. The relationship
between research and practice, for example, is a fundamental topic which takes many forms.
These include the relevance of research to practice (Hammersley 2005), the nature of research
collaboration and the teacher-as-researcher (e.g. Hawkins & Legler 2004; O’Connor &
Sharkey 2004; Stewart 2006), the place of research in teacher education (Jones 2004),
challenges to teacher research (Borg 2003b, 2006, 2007; Allison & Carey 2007) and
reconceptualisations of practitioner research (Allwright 2003).
6. Researcher resources
Researcher resources for QR continue to proliferate and this section is designed as a guide
to some of the most useful. It focuses on books on QR methodology but also includes a brief
note on journals. Comments are necessarily brief and coverage is selective.
6.1 Research in general
Not too long ago researchers in our field had to rely on general treatments, some of which are
still widely used (e.g. Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2007), but the appearance of books directed
towards research in language teaching (e.g. Nunan 1992; McDonough & McDonough 1997)
changed this situation and it is now possible to refer to specialist texts. The challenge here is
to provide wide coverage without sacrificing depth of engagement and in this respect Dörnyei
(2007) is particularly welcome. The structure of the book, moving from a consideration of
key issues, through data collection and analysis to reporting, provides a solid framework in
which quantitative and qualitative approaches receive balanced treatment, with a judicious
mix of practical summaries, clear advice and insights from personal experience. Bulleted
lists are particularly well-used, ranging from descriptive summaries to evaluative responses to
key questions, and the range of perspectives is impressive. A useful complement to Dörnyei
is Brown & Rodgers (2002), which includes helpful exercises (and answers). If there is a
primer of research in our field, this is it. More substantially, Hinkel (2005) is an essential
resource, a wide-ranging collection of key papers judiciously selected to provide in-depth
coverage of research in our field. Research methods take up less than 10% of the book, but
the contextualisation provided by other sections is invaluable.
Perry (2005) writes for those who wish to make use of research in applied linguistics. The
target audience is novice researchers at Master’s level, but it has wider application and would
appeal to teachers who wish to explore the ever-expanding research literature in our area.
Though more attention is given to quantitative than to qualitative research, its chapters on
locating research and reading research articles are particularly useful. The discussion in the
chapter on understanding research design, taken together with the brief opening chapter,
would be very useful in helping novice researchers to understand some of the conceptual
issues that bedevil those new to the field. The brief guides to terminology are useful additions
and the table of journals in the field provides an invaluable overview, though the index is
disappointingly thin.
6.2 Qualitative research in general
The choice of general books ranges from authoritative collections designed for experienced
researchers (e.g. Denzin & Lincoln 2005) to more user-friendly approaches (e.g. Mason
2002; Patton 2002), while the qualitative dimension in some more general treatments
also makes them worthy of consideration (e.g. Bryman 2004). Seale et al. (2007a) offers
a useful compromise that combines the practical orientation that a single author can provide
with the range of expertise that a collection can assemble. This is a weighty collection
priced for individual use and is an excellent resource for tutors. New research students
will find Silverman’s (2004) introduction to QR particularly valuable while more advanced
students might prefer his more narrowly focused guide to the research process (Silverman
2006).
Qualitative research in language teaching is directly addressed in two books. Richards
(2003) offers three levels of access, from novice to (post-)doctoral, and is designed to be read
either across a single level or developmentally from level to level. Its core chapters provide
detailed advice on observation, interviewing and using recorded data, and the book is well-
served in terms of illustrative cases. Judged by its title, Holliday (2007) may seem to be a
more general text, but the author writes ‘as an applied linguist’ (p. xii) and this is apparent
throughout. Central to the book is the integration of writing samples, from undergraduate to
post-doctoral, with a genuinely international range. The voices of researchers emerge clearly
and there is also a strong sense of the author as researcher. The book is attractively written
and is particularly impressive in the way it addresses core problems for novice researchers.
The chapter on what counts as data addresses a fundamental but often neglected issue in a
very accessible way and there is a strong sense of the visual throughout the book, both features
that are missing from Richards. Holliday describes getting from data to the written product
164 KEITH RICHARDS
as ‘traumatic’ and his book responds very effectively to the complexities of this challenge.
The very different approaches adopted in these two books produce a complementary pair
with virtually no overlap – a reflection of the breadth of QR.
6.3 Ethnography and fieldwork
The standard work here (Atkinson et al. 2007) is really only for the serious ethnographer,
but it is nevertheless an essential collection. A more accessible resource for the novice
researcher, methodologically informative, engagingly written and with entertaining examples,
is Hammersley & Atkinson (2007). O’Reilly (2004) is also methodologically focused and
makes good use of student work. Emerson, Fretz & Shaw (2001) provide an excellent brief
introduction to participant observation and Delamont (2002) is also worth reading for its
educational focus. Bowern’s (2007) useful addition to fieldwork literature is aimed very much
at linguists rather than language teachers, but it includes plenty of practical advice and would
be an essential resource for anyone interested in researching aspects of language (phonology,
syntax, etc.) in the field.
6.4 Interviewing
The standard work here is Gubrium & Holstein (2002), but it is not designed for the novice
researcher. The most straightforward introduction is probably Gillham (2005), which is very
accessible and covers a range of issues as well as a wide selection of interview types. However,
it is essentially introductory and Kvale (2008) or Arksey & Knight (1999) provide deeper
treatments. Wengraf (2001) offers a comprehensive guide to life history interviewing, though
the book is rather hard going; Siedman’s (2006) phenomenological perspective is more
accessible. Finally, for anyone wanting a sense of the experience of qualitative interviewing,
Rubin & Rubin’s (1995) personal recollections make entertaining reading.
6.5 Data analysis
This area is relatively under-represented. Miles & Huberman (1994) is in some respects a
useful sourcebook and Coffey & Atkinson (1996) provide a readable discussion of relevant
issues, but neither book serves as a practical guide. Grbich (2007) offers good breadth of
coverage and has helpful further reading sections, but the level of discussion is necessarily
introductory. As a practical guide, Richards (2005) has much to offer. Part of the reason for
the dearth of practical guides may be the growing popularity of computer software. Both
Gibbs (2002) and Bazeley (2007), for example, provide excellent guides to the use of the
qualitative analysis programme, NVivo, though in purely practical terms the spiral binding
of the former make it much easier to use when working at a computer.
6.6 Ethics
The importance and complexities of this aspect of research are now properly appreciated,
and Oliver (2003) provides an excellent introduction. The book’s division into two parts,
stages in the research process and themes, enables the reader to select an appropriate starting
point and work from there. De Laine’s (2000) treatment is more uneven, but the coverage is
good and the writing is clear. A useful supplement to these would be Mauther et al. (2002),
which offers a stimulating collection of papers engaging with the practical complexities of the
field.
6.7 Classroom research
The association between classroom research and QR has always been close and a number
of earlier resources are still relevant (e.g. Allwright 1988; van Lier 1988; Allwright & Bailey
1991). The most wide-ranging of current treatments is probably McKay (2005), which would
be a useful starting point for teachers interested in exploring options in classroom research,
Hall & Verplaetse (2000) making an excellent accompaniment. Anyone wishing to investigate
classroom discourse will find Walsh (2006a) very useful, not least because of the classroom
extracts it contains. This also applies to Seedhouse’s (2004) book on the architecture of the
language classroom. Even though it is not primarily intended as a research guide, its treatment
of conversation analysis from the perspective of the classroom and the quality of its analysis
make it essential reading for anyone working in this area. For an action research perspective,
the best introduction for language teachers is still Burns (1999), directly addressing the
interested professional and containing excellent advice. Carr & Kemmis (1986) remains
a standard work on critical action research, while McNiff & Whitehead (2005) provide
a useful general guide, Reason & Bradbury (2007) a sourcebook and Edge (2001) a key
collection of practitioner accounts. For a more detailed review of the literature, see Burns
(2005).
6.8 Other methods
One of the most notable developments in QR since 2000 has been the growth of introspective
approaches, and here Gass & Mackey (2000) provide a standard introduction, including a
useful table summarising relevant research. At the core of the book is a strong methodology
chapter with useful advice and illustrations, though it is fair to say that the dominant
orientation is towards quantitative analysis, with QR seen as having a supportive role –
an important corrective to the assumption that introspective approaches can comfortably
be categorised as qualitative. The authors’ later book (Gass & Mackey 2007) on elicitation
methods is more broadly based and is particularly strong in terms of the number of boxed
summaries of research papers it includes. The emphasis, though, is on elicitation rather than
analysis and readers interested in gaining an insight into the research process should find the
166 KEITH RICHARDS
discussion in Johnson (2002) informative. Gass & Mackey (2007) include brief sections on
diary studies in two of their chapters, but anyone wishing to pursue this line should consult
Alaszewski (2006), which includes a very useful chapter on analysis.
Case studies also feature prominently in language teaching research and Duff (2008)
provides a welcome introduction to work in applied linguistics. The book includes a
particularly good discussion of the nature of case studies and a justification for them, as
well as a helpful overview of research using this approach, though the book’s illustrations are
disappointing. From a methodological perspective, it would be useful to supplement this with
Yin (2003), while Gomm, Hammersley & Foster (2000) covers some of the more general and
theoretical issues. Narrative research is less well served, but Johnson & Golombek’s (2002)
collection of language teacher narratives demonstrates what this method can offer in terms
of personal investment and insight. However, the book is not designed as a guide to the
method, so it is best read in conjunction with Clandinin & Connelly (2000), which though
less engaging does provide theoretical and methodological perspectives.
6.9 Other aspects
The rise of visual methods (the use of photographs, film, etc.) in QR has not yet made a
significant impact in research in language teaching, though Holliday (2007) may signal the
beginning of a change. The same applies to internet research methods, and here Hewson
et al. (2003) is useful. It is accessible to the uninitiated and would need to be used selectively,
but as far as I can judge (I have not conducted research using this method) its advice seems
well-informed and practical. The case studies at the end include useful critical evaluations.
Those interested in different aspects of language teaching and learning will also find some
publications that combine field specificity with research sensitivity. Hall’s (2003) introduction
to researching language and culture provides an outstanding example of this, its three chapters
on research issues providing an ideal springboard for further exploration. The two chapters on
interpretivist procedures and analysis that Lynch (2003) includes in his book on evaluation and
language assessment also make a valuable contribution to the field. Finally, for experienced
researchers wishing to explore a new perspective on the research process, ten Have’s (2004)
ethnomethodological approach to research methods is refreshing and thought-provoking.
6.10 Journals
The core journal for QR methods is Qualitative Research, which is very accessible and manages
to avoid technical and theoretical extremes. Anyone interested in more radical and varied
approaches could try Qualitative Inquiry, though papers of practical value to our field are
relatively rare. Closer to home, the most convenient source is probably TESOL Quarterly’s
‘Forum’, where brief contributions allow for a genuine sense of debate. A list of links to online
journals, along with details of useful websites and lists, is in the appendix to this paper.
7. Conclusion: prospects and challenges
From a language teaching perspective, the first seven years of the new millennium have been
a period of valuable consolidation in QR but with signs of new avenues opening up. In this
concluding section I summarise some key outcomes of this review and indicate what these
presage for the next seven years.
The broader field of QR has been characterised by a less confrontational orientation,
with attention shifting to practical issues and away from more theoretical debates. This is a
welcome development in our field, where novice researchers still become easily enmeshed in
paradigmatic conundrums, and it would be reassuring to see a pragmatic approach gaining
ground. If this produces more emphasis on research practice combined with greater tolerance
of alternative positions, the seemingly intractable problem of defining different research
traditions will be less pressing.
The most significant movement to emerge from QR generally is a shift towards mixed
methods research (see Tashakkori & Teddlie 1998 for a useful introduction). The publication
of a new journal, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, in 2007 reflects its growing importance, and
research of this kind is bound to feature much more prominently in our field in the future.
This review has revealed no evidence of a continuing expansion of QR papers published
in leading journals in our field, but the new millennium has seen consolidation to a point
where its position seems secure. There are signs of growth in some journals, though this may
now be reaching its peak. More interesting are the areas where QR is making significant
contributions or opening up new territory. For example, research on CLT (Communicative
Language Teaching) still features prominently and is producing interesting but contradictory
local studies of how this is being applied, suggesting that this will remain an attractive area
for some time to come. It is also likely that the excellent work being done in the area of
writing will continue, though research in the areas of reading and especially listening is
disappointing by comparison. There is surely scope here and more generally for exploring
what mixed methods research has to offer, and there is a pressing need for more longitudinal
studies.
Inevitably, research in language teaching has reflected wider developments, so traditions
such as conversation analysis have gathered strength and topics such as identity have
emerged into relative prominence. The latter is opening up new territory, generating a
greater understanding of both teacher and student identity and throwing new light on the
experiences of immigrants and sojourners. This has exposed unexplored features of the
language teaching landscape which should attract researchers using narrative and life history
methods. Linguistic ethnography is also likely to be a significant contributor to what was
once seen as the hinterland of language teaching. This approach has already produced
illuminating studies of the relationship between classroom and community and offers an
energising reconfiguration of practical and conceptual orientations.
Mindful of the way that conversation analysis established its place in the field of L2
acquisition studies in the face of initial opposition, to the point where debates about its
legitimacy are now redundant, we need to be sensitive to other emergent areas. The
sociocultural dimension of engagements with language has developed immeasurably since
2000 and the prospects for deepening this knowledge are exciting.
168 KEITH RICHARDS
The most encouraging development since 2000 has surely been the contribution that
leading researchers in our field have made to the development of quality in QR, with the
emergence of clear guidelines on standards and books designed to help the novice researcher
respond to the methodological and representational demands of good research. However, on
the evidence of papers reviewed here, there is still work to be done to encourage yet deeper
engagement with methodological issues, especially where interviews are concerned. We need
to have more details of methodological and especially analytical matters in published papers,
and it would be satisfying to see the demise of summaries amounting to no more than a
couple of sentences or a short paragraph.
Developments here will depend at least in part on how the Internet is exploited. The
growth of online journals, tutorials, lectures, etc. will doubtless continue, but publishers could
be encouraged to provide links to authors’ data that will allow greater transparency. Data
extracts presented in published papers can then be regarded not as windows looking out at
selected features of the landscape but as doorways inviting exploration. This should encourage
the sort of creative use of data that Holliday (2004b) has called for, which will be realised in
richer forms of representation, perhaps leading to linked data sets evolving over time, so that
new forms of longitudinal studies evolve.
That said, I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out conceptual and
practical problems associated with this. For example, since QR does not treat data as
autonomous or ‘objective’, their appropriation by a third party who may analyse them using
a different theoretical framework raises fundamental issues about the nature of research
and its representation. More seriously, if we are to share data in this way, we have an
ethical responsibility to our participants to ensure that they are fully informed about – and
understand – the implications of this. Neither of these problems is insurmountable, but they
are potent reminders of the intellectual and ethical demands that QR makes.
Whatever the developments on this and other fronts, the relationship between teaching
and research will always remain problematic, and so it should: the issues are too
important to be dismissed with pat solutions. The emergence of exploratory practice as
an alternative approach to action research, for example, raises interesting questions about
the methodological boundaries between research and exploration. In a field where most
researchers begin as teachers, the place of such ‘alternatives’ needs to be debated.
However the future unfolds, a review of this sort should conclude with a reminder of what
is at the very heart of our enterprise, a poignant elision of teaching and research summed up
in Freeman et al.’s (2007: 30) ‘guiding question’: ‘How can we best listen to, work with, and
represent the people our work is intended to serve?’
Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to the anonymous reviewers of this paper for their close reading of a long
text and their valuable comments and suggestions. Their critically supportive responses were
a powerful reflection of the collegial spirit that has driven qualitative research forward so
productively.
Appendix: Online resources

ONLINE JOURNALS
Asian EFL Journal

http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/index.php
A good range of papers, some of them qualitative in orientation, but discussion of research
methodology does not feature strongly.
Educational Research and Reviews

http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR/Archive.htm
Wide coverage and only one QR paper on language teaching so far, but good for local
educational contexts.
Education-line
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/
So far, very little in this area, but access to conference papers and work-in-progress makes it
a potentially very valuable resource.
Educational Researcher
http://www.aera.net/publications/?id=317
Some useful papers on general issues in research. More likely to be of interest to the teacher
of qualitative research methods than students.
English Teaching Practice and Critique

http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/journal/index.php?id=1
This focuses predominantly on L1 contexts and literacy issues, but there are some useful
papers relating to the research process, for example the December 2000 issue on what counts
as research on English/literacy issues.
Forum: Qualitative Social Research

http://qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm
A key website for the qualitative researcher.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/index
This goes back only as far as January 2007 but has already published some papers that are
likely to be very valuable to the teacher of qualitative methods. Practitioners’ accounts are
particularly revealing.)
Journal of Research Practice
http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/index
This started in 2005 and already includes some useful papers on aspects of QR.
Prospect
http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/resources/prospect
A leading journal in the field and included in list of journals analysed in the state-of-the-art
paper.
170 KEITH RICHARDS
The Qualitative Report

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/index.html
Another key website with useful articles and excellent links. Some useful discussion of the
thinking behind it is found at http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR12–1/chenail.pdf and
would be useful to anyone contemplating setting up an online journal.
Qualitative Research Journal
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/aqr/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=
41
The latest issue is not available but archived issues are and contain useful papers on aspects
of QR methodology. However, you have to download the complete issue (around 3MB) if
you wish to read a paper offline.
TESL-EJ
http://tesl-ej.org/ej41/toc.html
This is a good source of qualitative studies, many with useful discussions of methodological
issues. Issues appearing over the last four years are more productive in this respect than earlier
ones.
WEBSITES
Association for Qualitative Research (Australia)

http://www.latrobe.edu.au/aqr/
Useful links to conferences and the online journal, though at the time of writing the resource
page was still under construction.
The Grounded Theory Forum
http://www.groundedtheory.com/
Relatively limited resources for non-members, but some useful references.
Social Research Update
http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/
A list of excellent brief introductions to aspects of research.
ESRC National Centre for Research Methods
http://www.ncrm.ac.uk/research/outputs/publications/
Excellent resource with very useful methodology papers available online.
Qualiti – QR Methods in the Social Sciences: Innovation, Integration and Impact
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/qualiti/
A good source of information and access to working papers and ‘Qualitative Researcher’
National Science Foundation Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences
http://www.nsf.gov/dir/index.jsp?dir=SBE
This covers a lot of territory and includes useful publications.
British Educational Research Association
http://www.bera.ac.uk/publications/index.php
Links to some useful publications (for purchase), useful ethical guidelines and a brief guide to
good practice in research writing.
LISTS
BIOG-METHODS@mailbase.ac.uk
Message to: mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk:
Message: Join BIOG-METHODS
(Focuses on biographical methods)
Ethnography-in-education@mailbase.ac.uk
Message to: mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk
Message: join ethnography-in-education [firstname lastname]
Ethnomethodology/conversation analysis
Message to: comserve@cios.org
Message: join ethno
METHODS@cios.org
Message to: comserve@cios.org
Message: join methods
(Designed for methods tutors)
QSR-Forum@qsr.com.au
Message to: mailing-list-request@qsr.com.au
Message: SUBSCRIBE QSR-FORUM
(Designed for users of NUD∗ IST and Nvivo qualitative analysis software)
QUAL-L@scu.edu.au
Message to: listproc@scu.edu.au
Message: subscribe QUAL-L [firstname lastname]
(Qualitative research list)
Qualitative Research for the Human Sciences.
Message to: listserv@uga.cc.uga.edu.
Message: subscribe QUALRS-L.
References
AERA (American Educational Research Association) (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical
social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher 35.6, 33–40. http://www.aera.
net/uploadedFiles/Publications/Journals/Educational_Researcher/3506/12ERv35n6_Standard4
Report%20.pdf.
Alaszewski, A. M. (2006). Using diaries for social research. London: Sage.
Aline, D. & Y. Hosada (2006). Team teaching participation patterns of homeroom teachers in English
activities classes in Japanese public elementary schools. JALT Journal 28.1, 5–21.
Allison, D. & J. Carey (2007). What do university language teachers say about language teaching
research? TESL Canada Journal 24.2, 61–86.
Allwright, D. (1988). Observation in the language classroom. London: Longman.
172 KEITH RICHARDS
Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory Practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching.

Language Teaching Research 7.2, 113–141.
Allwright, D. & K. M. Bailey (1991). Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Alsup, J. (2005). Teacher identity discourses: Negotiating personal and professional spaces. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Arksey, H. & P. Knight (1999). Interviewing for social scientists. London: Sage.
Asaoka, C. & Y. Usui (2003). Students’ perceived problems in an EAP writing course. JALT Journal
25.2, 143–172.
Atkinson, P. [A.] & S. Delamont (2006). In the rolling smoke: Qualitative inquiry and contested fields.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 19.6, 747–755.
Atkinson P. A., S. Delamont, A. J. Coffey, J. Lofland & L. H. Lofland (eds.) (2007). Handbook of ethnography.
London: Sage.
Bacon, S. (2002). Learning the rules: Language development and cultural adjustment during study
abroad. Foreign Language Annals 35, 637–646.
Bailey, K. M. (1983). Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language learning: Looking at and
through the diary studies. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (eds.), Classroom oriented research in second
language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 67–103.
Bailey, K. M. (1990). The use of diary studies in teacher education program. In J. C. Richards &
D. Nunan (eds.), Second language teacher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 215–226.
Baker, C. D. (1997). Membership categorization and interview accounts. In D. Silverman (ed.),
Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice. London: Sage, 130–143.
Baker, C. D. (2002). Ethnomethodological analyses of interviews. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein
(eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 777–795.
Ball, S. J. (1990). Self-doubt and soft data: Social and technical trajectories in ethnographic fieldwork.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 3.2, 157–171.
Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging
the dog. BMJ (British Medical Journal) 322, 1115–1117.
Basturkmen, H., S. Loewen & R. Ellis (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focus on form
and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics 25.2, 243–272.
Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London: Sage.
Bell, J. S. (2002). Narrative inquiry: More than just telling stories. TESOL Quarterly 36.2, 207–213.
Bell, N. D. (2005). Exploring L2 language play as an aid to SLL: A case study of humour in NS–NNS
interaction. Applied Linguistics 26.2, 192–218.
Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London: Continuum.
Blommaert, J. (2007). On scope and depth in linguistic ethnography. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11.5
(special issue – Linguistic ethnography: Links, problems and possibilities), 682–688.
Borg, S. (2001a). Self-perception and practice in teaching grammar. ELT Journal 55.1, 21–29.
Borg, S. (2001b). The research journal: A tool for promoting and understanding researcher
development. Language Teaching Research 5.2, 156–177.
Borg, S. (2003a). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language
teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching 36.2, 81–109.
Borg, S. (2003b). Teachers’ involvement in TESOL research. TESOL Matters 13.2, 1–3.
Borg, S. (2004). Quality in TESOL Research. Presented at QuiTE annual seminar, Quality
in TESOL Teacher Education, 18 November 2004. http://www.quality-tesol-ed.org.uk/
downloads/Borg_Quality_in_TESOL_Research.pdf.
Borg, S. (2006). Conditions for teacher research. English Teaching Forum 44.4, 22–27.
Borg, S. (2007). Research engagement in English Language Teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education
23.5, 731–747.
Bowern, C. L. (2007). Linguistic fieldwork: A practical guide. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brannen, J. (2007). Working qualitatively and quantitatively. In Seale et al. (eds.), 282–296.
Brown, J. D. (2004). Research methods for applied linguistics: Scope, characteristics, and standards. In
A. Davies & C. Elder (eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 476–500.
Brown, J. D. & T. S. Rogers (2002). Doing second language research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bryman, A. (2006). Paradigm peace and the implications for quality. International Journal of Social Research
Methodology 9.2, 111–126.
Bryman, A. (2007). The research question in social research: What is its role? International Journal of
Social Research Methodology 10.1, 5–20.
Buckwalter, P. (2001). Repair sequences in Spanish L2 dyadic discourse: A descriptive study. The Modern
Language Journal 85.3, 380–397.
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Burns, A. (2005). Action research: An evolving paradigm? Language Teaching 38.2, 57–74.
Caldas, S. J. & S. Caron-Caldas (2002). A sociolinguistic analysis of the language preferences of
adolescent bilinguals: Shifting allegiances and developing identities. Applied Linguistics 23.4, 490–
514.
Carless, D. [R.] (2004). Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary
schools. TESOL Quarterly 38.4, 639–662.
Carless, D. R. (2006). Good practices in team teaching in Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong. System
34.3, 341–351.
Carr, W. & S. Kemmis (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Routledge.
Cassell, C. (2005). Creating the interviewer: Identity work in the management research process.
Qualitative Research 5.2, 167–79.
Cekaite, A. (2007). A child’s development of interactional competence in a Swedish L2 classroom. The
Modern Language Journal 91.1, 45–62.
Chavez, M. [M.] (2006). Classroom-language use in teacher-led instruction and teachers’ self-perceived
roles. IRAL (International Review of Applied Linguistics) 44.1, 49–102.
Chavez, M. M. (2007). The orientation of learner language use in peer work: Teacher role, learner
role and individual identity. Language Teaching Research 11.2, 161–188.
Cheung, E. (2005). Hong Kong secondary schoolteachers’ understanding of their careers. Teachers and
Teaching: Theory and Practice 11.2, 127–149.
Clandinin, D. J. & F. M. Connelly (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Coates, J. & J. Thornborrow (1999). Myths, lies and audiotapes: Some thoughts on data transcripts.
Discourse and Society 10.4, 594–597.
Coffey, A. & P. Atkinson (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cohen, L., L. Manion & K. Morrison (2007). Research methods in education (6th edn.). London: Routledge.
Connor, U. & W. Rozycki (2006). Culture in an English-language training program. Asian Journal of
English Language Teaching 16, 89–112.
Cowie, N. (2006). What do sports, learning Japanese, and teaching English have in common? Social-
cultural learning theories, that’s what. JALT Journal 28.1, 23–37.
Creese, A. (2002). The discursive construction of power in teacher partnerships: Language and subject
specialists in mainstream schools. TESOL Quarterly 36.4, 597–616.
Creese, A. (2005). Teacher collaboration and talk in multilingual classrooms. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Creese, A. (2006). Supporting talk? Partnership teachers in classroom interaction. International Journal
of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9.4, 434–453.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd edn.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dale, A. (2006). Editorial: Quality in social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology
9.2, 79–82.
Darlington, Y. & D. Scott (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Stories from the field. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Day, E. M. (2002). Identity and the young English language learner. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Delamont, S. (2002). Fieldwork in educational settings. London: Routledge.
Denzin, N. K. & Y. S. Lincoln (1994). Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin &
Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1–17.
Denzin, N. K. & Y. S. Lincoln (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research.
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, 1–28.
Denzin N. K. & Y. S. Lincoln (eds.) (2005). Handbook of qualitative research (3rd edn.). London: Sage.
174 KEITH RICHARDS
Doecke, B. (2004). Accomplished story telling: English teachers write about their professional lives (the
standards for teachers of English language and literacy in Australia project). Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice 10.3, 291–305.
Donmoyer, R. (2006). Take my paradigm . . . please! The legacy of Kuhn’s construct in educational
research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 19.1 (special issue – Paradigm proliferation
in educational research), 11–34.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duff, P. A. (2002). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and difference: An
ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics 23.3, 289–322.
Duff, P. A. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dufficy, P. (2005). ‘Becoming’ in classroom talk. Prospect 20.1, 59–81.
DuFon, M. A. (2006). The socialization of taste during study abroad in Indonesia. In DuFon & Churchill
(eds.), 91–119.
DuFon M. A. & E. Churchill (eds.) (2006). Language learners in study abroad contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Edge, J. (ed.) (2001). Action research. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Edge, J. (2006). Computer-mediated cooperative development: Non-judgemental discourse in online
environments. Language Teaching Research 10.2, 205–227.
Edge, J. & K. Richards (1998). ‘May I see your warrant, please?’ Justifying outcomes in qualitative
research. Applied Linguistics 19.3, 334–356.
Egbert, J. (2007). Quality analysis of journals in TESOL and applied linguistics. TESOL Quarterly 41.1,
157–171.
Elbaz-Luwisch, F. (2004). Immigrant teachers: Stories of self and place. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education 17.3, 387–414.
Emerson, R. M., R. I. Fretz & L. L. Shaw (2001). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. In Atkinson et al.
(eds.), 352–368.
Farrell, T. S. C. & C. Mallard (2006). The use of reception strategies by learners of French as a foreign
language. The Modern Language Journal 90.3, 338–352.
Freebody, P. (2003). Qualitative research in education: Interaction and practice. London: Sage.
Freeman, M., K. deMarrais, J. Preissle, K. Roulston & E. A. St.Pierre (2007). Standards of evidence in
qualitative research: An incitement to discourse. Educational Researcher 36.1, 25–32.
Gao, X. (2007). Language learning experiences and learning strategy research: Voices of a mainland
Chinese student in Hong Kong. Innovation in Language Learning & Teaching 1.2, 193–207.
Gao, Y., Y. Li & W. Li (2002). EFL learning and self-identity construction: Three cases of Chinese
College English Majors. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 12, 95–119.
Gardner, G. (2001). Unreliable memories and other contingencies: Problems with biographical
knowledge. Qualitative Research 1.2, 185–204.
Gass, S. M. & A. Mackey (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M. & A. Mackey (2007). Data elicitation for second and foreign language research. Mahwah NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gibbons, P. (2006). Bridging discourses in the ESL classroom: Students, teachers and researchers. London:
Continuum.
Gibbs, G. R. (2002). Qualitative data analysis: Explorations with NVivo. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Gieve, S. & K. Miller (2006). Understanding the language classroom. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gillham, B. (2005). Research interviewing: The range of techniques. Maidenhead: Open University
Press/McGraw-Hill Education.
Giske, T. & B. Artinian (2007). A personal experience of working with classical grounded theory: From
beginner to experienced grounded theorist. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 6.4, 67–80.
http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/article/viewFile/992/678.
Goh, C. C. M. (2002). Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction patterns. System
30.2, 185–206.
Golombek, P. [R.] & S. R. Jordan (2005). Becoming ‘black lambs’ not ‘parrots’: A poststructuralist
orientation to intelligibility and identity. TESOL Quarterly 39.3, 513–534.
Golombek, P. R. & K. E. Johnson (2004). Narrative inquiry as a mediational space: Examining
emotional and cognitive dissonance in second-language teachers’ development. Teachers and Teaching:
Gomm, R., M. Hammersley & P. Foster (eds.) (2000). Case study method: Key issues, key texts. London: Sage.
Gordon, D. (2004). ‘I’m tired. You clean and cook.’ Shifting gender identities and second language
socialization. TESOL Quarterly 38.3, 437–457.
Gordon, J. A. (2006). Assigned to the margins: Teachers for minority and immigrant communities in
Japan. Teaching and Teacher Education 22.7, 766–776.
Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. London: Sage.
Gu, Q. & M. Schweisfurth (2007). Learning and personal growth in a ‘foreign’ context:
Intercultural experiences of international students. Presented at the UKFIET conference Education
and Development, 12 September 2007. http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/education/projects/qg-
intercultural-experiences/outputs.php.
Gubrium J. F. & J. A. Holstein (eds.) (2002). Handbook of interview research: Context and method. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guerrero, M. D. (2003). ‘We have correct English teachers. Why can’t we have correct Spanish teachers?
It’s not acceptable.’ International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 16.5, 647–668.
Ha, P. L. (2004). University classrooms in Vietnam: Contesting the stereotypes. ELT Journal 58.1,
50–57.
Halbach, A. (2000). Finding out about students’ learning strategies by looking at their diaries: A case
study. System 28.1, 85–96.
Hall, G. (2008). An ethnographic diary study. ELT Journal 62.2, 113–122.
Hall, J. K. (2003). Teaching and researching language and culture. London: Longman.
Hall, J. K. (2007a). Redressing the roles of correction and repair in research on second and foreign
language learning. The Modern Language Journal 91.4, 511–526.
Hall, J. K. (2007b). The devil’s in the details: A response to Seedhouse. The Modern Language Journal
91.4, 534–536.
Hall J. K. & L. S. Verplaetse (eds.) (2000). Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction.
Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hammersley, M. (1992). Deconstructing the quantitative-quantitative divide. In J. Brannen (ed.), Mixing
methods: Quantitative and qualitative research. London: Gower, 39–57.
Hammersley, M. (2005). The myth of research-based practice: The critical case of educational enquiry.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8.4, 317–330.
Hammersley, M. (2006). Ethnography: Problems and prospects. Ethnography and Education 1.1, 3–14.
Hammersley, M. & P. [A.] Atkinson (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice (3rd edn.) London:
Routledge.
Hammond, J. & P. Gibbons (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding in
articulating ESL education. Prospect 20.1, 6–30.
Hammond, K. (2006). More than a game: A critical discourse analysis of a racial inequality exercise
in Japan. TESOL Quarterly 40.3, 545–571.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2006). Feedback in portfolio-based writing courses. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (eds.),
Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 140–161.
Hanke, V. (2000). Learning about literacy: Children’s versions of the Literacy Hour. Journal of Research
in Reading 23.3, 287–298.
Hart, N. (2002). Intra-group autonomy and authentic materials: A different approach to ELT in
Japanese colleges and universities. System 30.1, 33–46.
Have, P. ten (2004). Understanding qualitative research and ethnomethodology. London: Sage.
Hawkins, M. R. (2005). Becoming a student: Identity work and academic literacies in early schooling.
TESOL Quarterly 39.1, 59–82.
Hawkins, M. R. & L. L. Legler (2004). Reflections on the impact of teacher–researcher collaboration.
Hayes, D. (2005). Exploring the lives of non-native speaking educators in Sri Lanka. Teachers and Teaching:
Hellermann, J. (2006). Classroom interactive practices for developing L2 literacy: A microethnogra-
phic study of two beginning adult learners of English. Applied Linguistics 27.3, 377–404.
Hellermann, J. (2007). The development of practices for action in classroom dyadic interaction: Focus
on task openings. The Modern Language Journal 91.1, 83–96.
Hellermann, J. (2008). Actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hewson, C., P. Yule, D. Laurent & C. Vogel (2003). Internet research methods: A practical guide for the social
and behavioural sciences. London: Sage.
176 KEITH RICHARDS
Hinkel, E. (2005). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. London: Routledge.
Ho, B. (2003). Time managements of final year undergraduate English projects: Supervisees’ and the
supervisor’s coping strategies. System 31.2, 231–245.
Holliday, A. (2002a). Doing and writing qualitative research. London: Sage.
Holliday, A. (2002b). Distinguishing the voices of researchers and the people they research in writing
qualitative research. In K. S. Miller & P. Thompson (eds.), Unity and diversity in language use. London:
Continuum, 125–137.
Holliday, A. (2004a). Issues of validity in progressive paradigms of qualitative research. TESOL Quarterly
38.4, 731–734.
Holliday, A. (2004b). The value of reconstruction in revealing hidden or counter cultures. Journal of
Applied Linguistics 1.3, 275–294.
Holliday, A. (2007). Doing and writing qualitative research (2nd edn.). London: Sage.
Hua, Z. & P. Seedhouse (eds.) (2007). Language learning and teaching as social interaction. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Huang, J. (2003). Activities as a vehicle for linguistic and sociocultural knowledge at the elementary
level. Language Teaching Research 7.1, 3–33.
Huang, J. (2005). A diary study of difficulties and constraints in EFL learning. System 33.4, 609–621.
Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching
Research 4.1, 33–54.
Iino, M. (2006). Norms of interaction in a Japanese homestay setting: Toward a two-way flow of
linguistic and cultural resources. In DuFon & Churchill. (eds.), 151–173.
Johnson, K. (2002). Designing language teaching tasks. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Johnson K. E. & P. R. Golombek (eds.) (2002). Teachers’ narrative inquiry as professional development.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, J. F. (2004). The many benefits of a research component in English language teacher education:
A case study. Prospect 19.2, 25–38.
Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2003). Reading in two languages: How attitudes toward home language and
beliefs about reading affect the behaviors of ‘underprepared’ L2 college readers. TESOL Quarterly
37.1, 35–71.
Kilbourn, B. (2006). The qualitative doctoral dissertation. Teacher’s College Record 108.4, 529–576.
Kurhila, S. (2006). Second language interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kurihara, Y. & K. K. Samimy (2007). The impact of a U.S. teacher training program on teaching
beliefs and practices: A case study of secondary school level Japanese teachers of English. JALT
Journal 29.1, 99–122.
Kvale, S. (2008). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Lacorte, M. (2005). Teachers’ knowledge and experience in the discourse of foreign-language
classrooms. Language Teaching Research 9.4, 381–402.
de Laine, M. (2000). Fieldwork, participation and practice: Ethics and dilemmas in qualitative research. London:
Sage.
Lamie, J. M. (2001). Understanding change: The impact of in-service training on teachers of English in Japan.
Huntington, NY: Nova.
Lazaraton, A. (1995). Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A progress report. TESOL Quarterly
29.3, 455–472.
Lazaraton, A. (2000). Current trends in research methodology and statistics in applied linguistics.
Lazaraton, A. (2003a). Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in applied linguistics: Whose criteria
and whose research? The Modern Language Journal 87.1, 1–12.
Lazaraton, A. (2003b). Incidental displays of cultural knowledge in the nonnative-English-speaking
teacher’s classroom. TESOL Quarterly 37.2, 213–245.
Lee, I. (2007). Preparing pre-service English teachers for reflective practice. ELT Journal 61.4, 321–329.
Leibowitz, B. (2005). Learning in an additional language in a multilingual society: A South African
case study on university-level writing. TESOL Quarterly 39.4, 661–681.
Li, Y. (2007). Apprentice scholarly writing in a community of practice: An intraview of an NNES
graduate student writing a research article. TESOL Quarterly 41.1, 55–79.
Liebscher, G. & J. Dailey-O’Cain (2003). Conversational repair as a role-defining mechanism in
classroom interaction. The Modern Language Journal 87.3, 375–390.
van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.
van Lier, L. (1996). Conflicting voices: Language, classrooms, and bilingual education in Puno. In
K. Bailey & D. Nunan (eds.), Voices from the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 363–387.
Lincoln, Y. & E. Guba (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Long, A. & M. Godfrey (2004). An evaluation tool to assess the quality of qualitative research studies.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology 7.2, 161–196.
Lynch, B. K. (2003). Language assessment and programme evaluation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
McCarthy, M. & A. O’Keeffe (2004). Research in the teaching of speaking. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics 24, 26–43.
McDonough, J. & S. McDonough (1997). Research methods for English language teachers. London: Hodder
Arnold.
McKay, S. [L.] (2000). An investigation of five Japanese English teachers’ reflections on their U.S. MA
TESOL practicum experience. JALT Journal 22.1, 46–68.
McKay, S. L. (2005). Researching second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McNiff, J. & J. Whitehead (2005). All you need to know about action research. London: Sage.
Maguire, M. H. & B. Graves (2001). Speaking personalities in primary school children’s L2 writing.
Mangubhai, F., P. Marland, A. Dashwood & J-B. Son (2004). Teaching a foreign language: One
teacher’s practical theory. Teaching and Teacher Education 20.3, 291–311.
Mangubhai, F., P. Marland, A. Dashwood & J-B. Son (2005). Similarities and differences in teachers’
and researchers’ conceptions of communicative language teaching: Does the use of an educational
model cast a better light? Language Teaching Research 9.1, 31–66.
Marefat, F. (2002). The impact of diary analysis on teaching/learning writing. RELC Journal 33.1,
101–121.
Markee, N. & J. Stansell (2007). Using electronic publishing as a resource for increasing empirical
and interpretive accountability in conversation analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 27,
24–44.
Martin, P. W. (2003). Interactions and inter-relationships around text: Practices and positionings in
a multilingual classroom in Brunei. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 6.3&4,
185–201.
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching (2nd edn.). London: Sage.
Mauther, M., M. Birch, J. Jessop & T. Miller (eds.) (2002). Ethics in qualitative research. London: Sage.
Maybin, J. (2006). Children’s voices: Talk, knowledge and identity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Menard-Warwick, J. (2005). Intergenerational trajectories and sociopolitical context: Latina immigrants
in adult ESL. TESOL Quarterly 39.2, 165–186.
Mickan, P. (2006). Socialisation through teacher talk in an Australian bilingual class. International Journal
of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9.3, 342–358.
Miles, M. B. & A. M. Huberman (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd edn.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Miller, J. (2003). Audible differences: ESL and social identity in schools. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Miller, J., J. Mitchell & J. Brown. (2005). African refugees with interrupted schooling in the high school
mainstream: Dilemmas for teachers. Prospect 20.2, 19–33.
Miller, L. & D. Aldred (2000). Student teachers’ perceptions about communicative language teaching
methods. RELC Journal 31.1, 1–22.
Miller, W. L. & B. F. Crabtree (1992). Primary care research: A multimethod typology and qualitative
roadmap. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (eds.), Doing qualitative research: Multiple strategies. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage, 3–28.
Mitchell, R. & H-W. Lee (2003). Sameness and difference in classroom learning cultures: Interpretations
of communicative pedagogy in the UK and Korea. Language Teaching Research 7.1, 35–63
Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities.
Motha, S. (2006). Racializing ESOL teacher iin U.S. K-12 public schools. TESOL Quarterly 40.3,
495–518.
Nazari, A. (2007). EFL teachers’ perception of the concept of communicative competence. ELT Journal
61.3, 202–210.
Neville-Barton, P. (2002). Family dynamics: A neglected motivational factor in English language
programs? Prospect 17.1, 4–14.
178 KEITH RICHARDS
Nijhof, G. (1997). ‘Response work’: Approaching answers to open interview readings. Qualitative Inquiry
3.2, 169–187.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning. London: Longman.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Connor, A. & J. Sharkey (2004). Teacher-researcher collaboration in TESOL: Defining the process
of teacher-researcher collaboration. TESOL Quarterly 38.2, 335–339.
O’Reilly, K. (2004). Ethnographic methods. London: Routledge.
O’Toole, G. (2002). Alone in a crowd or going native? A doctoral student’s experience. In G. Walford
(ed.), Doing a doctorate in educational ethnography: Studies in educational ethnography volume 7. Amsterdam:
JAI, 159–172.
Ohta, A. S. & T. Nakaone (2004). When students ask questions: Teacher and peer answers in the
foreign language classroom. IRAL (International Review of Applied Linguistics) 42.3, 217–237.
Oliver, P. (2003). The student’s guide to research ethics. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill
Education.
Ortega, L. & G. Iberri-Shea (2005). Longitudinal research in second language acquisition: Recent
trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25, 26–45.
Palfreyman, D. (2005). Othering in an English language program. TESOL Quarterly 29.2, 211–234.
Park, J-E. (2007). Co-construction of nonnative speaker identity in cross-cultural interaction. Applied
Linguistics 28.3, 339–360.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd edn.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Pavlenko, A. (2002). Narrative study: Whose story is it, anyway? TESOL Quarterly 36.2, 213–218.
Pavlenko, A. (2007). Autobiographic narratives as data in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics 28.2,
163–188.
Pavlenko, A. & A. Blackledge (eds.) (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual settings. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Pellegrino Aveni, V. A. (2005). Study abroad and second language use: Constructing the self. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Perpignan, H. (2003). Exploring the written feedback dialogue: A research, learning and teaching
practice. Language Teaching Research 7.2, 259–278.
Perry, B. & T. Stewart (2005). Insights into effective partnership in interdisciplinary team teaching.
System 33.4, 563–573.
Perry, F. L. Jr. (2005). Research in applied linguistics: Becoming a discerning consumer. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Pinter, A. (2007). Some benefits of peer–peer interaction: 10-year-old children practising with a
communication task. Language Teaching Research 11.2, 189–207.
Ponterotto, J. G. (2006). Brief notes on the origins, evolution, and meaning of the
qualitative research concept ‘thick description’. The Qualitative Report 11.3, 538–549.
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR11-3/ponterotto.pdf.
Prasad, P. (2005). Crafting qualitative research: Working in the postpositivist positions. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharp.
Ramanathan, V. & D. Atkinson (1999). Ethnographic approaches and methods in L2 research: A
critical guide and review. Applied Linguistics 20.1, 44–70.
Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. London: Longman.
Rampton, B. (2006). Language in late modernity: Interaction in an urban school. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rampton, B., K. Tusting, J. Maybin, R. Barwell, A. Creese & V. Lytra (2004). UK linguistic
ethnography: A discussion paper. UK Linguistic Forum. http://www.ling-ethnog.org.uk/documents/
discussion_paper_jan_05.pdf.
Rapley, T. J. (2001). The art(fulness) of open-ended interviewing: Some considerations on analysing
interviews. Qualitative Research 3.1, 303–323.
Reason, P. & H. Bradbury (2007). Handbook of action research (2nd edn.). London: Sage.
Reutzel, E. J. (2003). Laughter in an ESL classroom: The result of footing incongruous with Korean
Students’ cultural models. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 13, 45–60.
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Richards, K. (2006a). ‘Being the teacher’: Identity and classroom conversation. Applied Linguistics 27.1,
51–77.
Richards, K. (2006b). Language and professional identity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. London: Sage.

Roulston, K. (2006). Close encounters of the ‘CA’ kind: A review of literature analysing talk in research
interviews. Qualitative Research 6.4, 515–534.
Rubin, H. J. & I. S. Rubin (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Sakui, K. (2007). Classroom management in Japanese EFL Classrooms. JALT Journal 29.1, 41–58.
Sato, K. & R. C. Kleinsasser (2004). Beliefs, practices, and interactions of teachers in a Japanese high
school English department. Teaching and Teacher Education 20.8, 797–816.
Seale, C., G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium & D. Silverman (eds.) (2007a). Qualitative research practice. London:
Sage.
Seale, C., G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium & D. Silverman (2007b). Introduction: Inside qualitative Research
(paperback edn.). In Seale et al. (eds.), 1–12.
Sealey, A. (2007). Linguistic ethnography in realist perspective. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11.5 (special
issue – Linguistic ethnography: Links, problems and possibilities), 641–660.
Sealey, A. & B. Carter (2004). Applied linguistics as social science. London: Continuum.
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Seedhouse, P. (2005). Conversation analysis and language learning. Language Teaching 38.4, 165–187.
Seedhouse, P. (2007). On ethnomethodological CA and ‘linguistic CA’: A reply to Hall. The Modern
Language Journal 91.4, 527–533.
Shohamy, E. (2004). Reflections on research guidelines, categories, and responsibility. TESOL Quarterly
38.4, 728–731.
Siedman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researcher in education and the social sciences
(3rd edn.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Sikes, P. (2000). ‘Truth’ and ‘lies’ revisited. British Educational Research Journal 26.2, 257–270.
Silverman, D. (2004). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook (2nd edn.). London: Sage.
Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction (3rd edn.).
London: Sage.
Simon-Maeda, A. (2004). The complex construction of professional identities: Female EFL educators
in Japan speak out. TESOL Quarterly 38.3, 405–436.
Stewart, T. (2006). Teacher–researcher collaboration or teachers’ research. TESOL Quarterly 40.2,
421–430.
St.Pierre, E. A. & K. Roulston (2006). The state of qualitative inquiry: A contested science. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 19.6 (special issue – The state of qualitative inquiry), 673–684.
Stroud, C. & L. Wee (2007). A pedagogical application of liminalities in social positioning: Identity
and literacy in Singapore. TESOL Quarterly 41.1, 33–54.
Takahashi, S. (2005). Noticing in task performance and learning outcomes: A qualitative analysis of
instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics. System 33.3, 437–461.
Talmy, S. (2008). Reappraising the interview in applied linguistics research: Whose truth, whose voice,
what theory? Presented at the 2008 Annual Conference of the American Association for Applied
Linguistics, Washington, DC, 29 March – 2 April.
Tan, Z. (2007). Questioning in Chinese university EL classrooms. What lies beyond it? RELC Journal
38.1, 87–103.
Tardy, C. M. & B. Snyder (2004). ‘That’s why I do it’: Flow and EFL teachers’ practices. ELT Journal
58.2, 118–128.
Tashakkori, A. & C. Teddlie (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Teddlie, C. & A. Tashakkori (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the
social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social
and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 3–50.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: Falmer.
TESOL Quarterly (2003). Some guidelines for conducting quantitative and qualitative research in TESOL
(2003). TESOL Quarterly 37.1, 157–178.
Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity, social relations, and classroom practice. Clevedon:
Towndrow, P. (2004). Reflections of an on-line tutor. ELT Journal 58.2, 174–182.
180 KEITH RICHARDS
Tsui, A. B. M. (2007). Complexities of identity formation: A narrative inquiry of an EFL teacher.

Van de Ven, P-H. (2007). A collaborative dialogue – Research in Dutch language education.
English Teaching: Practice and Critique 6.3, 112–132. http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/
files/etpc/2007v6n3art7.pdf.
Vandergrift, L. (2003). Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled second language
listener. Language Learning 53.3, 463–496.
Varghese, M. M. & B. Johnston (2007). Evangelical Christians and English language teaching. TESOL
Quarterly 41.1, 5–31.
Vickers, C. H. (2007). Second language socialization through team interaction among electrical and
computer engineering students. The Modern Language Journal 91.4, 621–640.
Wallace, C. (2005). The cultural and linguistic resources of advanced bilingual learners: A case study
of four bilingual learners in a multilingual London school. Prospect 20.1, 82–94.
Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL
classroom. Language Teaching Research 6.1, 3–23.
Walsh, S. (2006a). Investigating classroom discourse. London: Routledge.
Walsh, S. (2006b). Talking the talk of the TESOL classroom. ELT Journal 60.2, 133–141.
Weigle, S. C. & G. L. Nelson (2004). Novice tutors and their ESL tutees: Three case studies of tutor
roles and perceptions of tutorial success. Journal of Second Language Writing 13.3, 203–225.
Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing. London: Sage.
Wilkinson, S. (2002). The omnipresent classroom during summer study abroad: American students in
conversation with their French hosts. The Modern Language Journal 86, 157–173.
Wolcott, H. F. (1992). Posturing in qualitative inquiry. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Milroy & J. Preissle
(eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education. New York: Academic Press, 3–52.
Wooffitt, R. & S. Widdicombe (2006). Interaction in interviews. In P. Drew, G. Raymond & D. Weinberg
(eds.), Talk and interaction in social science research methods. London: Sage, 28–49.
Wu, X. & L. Fang (2002). Teaching communicative English in China: A case study of the gap between
teachers’ views and practice. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 12, 143–162.
Xinmin, Z. & B. Adamson (2003). The pedagogy of a secondary school teacher of English in the
People’s Republic of China: Challenging the stereotypes. RELC Journal 34.3, 323–337.
Xuesong, G. (2006). Strategies used by Chinese parents to support English language learning: Voices
of ‘elite’ university students. RELC Journal 37.3, 285–298.
Yasuda, S. (2005). Different activities in the same task: An activity theory approach to ESL students’
writing process. JALT Journal 27.2, 139–168.
Yihong, G., L. Lichun & L. Jun (2001). Trends in research methods in applied linguistics: China and
the West. English for Specific Purposes 20, 1–14.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zhanjiang, H. J. (2006). Learner resistance in metacognition training? An exploration of mismatches
between learner and teacher agendas. Language Teaching Research 10.1, 95–117.
Zhu, W. (2004). Faculty views on the importance of writing, the nature of academic writing, and
teaching and responding to writing in the disciplines. Journal of Second Language Writing 13.1, 29–48.
KEITH RICHARDS is an associate professor at Warwick University. His research interests lie in the area
of professional interaction and his current work involves an exploration of academic argument and
identity. His recent publications include Qualitative inquiry in TESOL (Palgrave, 2003), Applying Conversation
Analysis (edited with Paul Seedhouse; Palgrave, 2005), Language and professional identity (Palgrave, 2006)
and Encounters in TESOL: Discourses of teachers in teaching (edited with Sue Garton; Palgrave, 2008).
Lang. Teach. (2009), 42:2, 181–196
doi:10.1017/S0261444808005624
Research Timeline
The use of statistics in L2 acquisition research
Shawn Loewen & Susan Gass Michigan State University, USA

loewens@msu.edu, gass@msu.edu
Second language acquisition (SLA) as a discipline has not had a long history and, as any
new discipline, has seen growing pains over the years. This research timeline traces the
development of the increased and more sophisticated use of statistics in SLA research and the
increasing demands for rigor in their use.1 Use of statistical procedures has been increasing in
the SLA literature, but the tools themselves have not developed from within the field; rather
the increased use stems from greater statistical sophistication on the part of users. In other
words, SLA is not an innovator but an increasingly knowledgeable borrower and adapter of
statistical procedures.
The beginnings of probability and statistics go back approximately 350 years. The early
focus was on probability for gambling purposes and has generally been traced back to
letters written in the 18th century (Bayes 1763). The field of SLA clearly does not go as
far back as the origin of statistics, but we mention early statistical developments to show
that statistical techniques were already well established at the time of early SLA research. In
looking at statistical use beginning with the early publications of SLA journals, we conducted
a survey (based on Gass, in press) of three journals (with different inaugural dates), all devoted
exclusively to research in SLA (Language Learning, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, and Second
Language Research), with regard to the use of statistical techniques over time. A graph, based
on 1,411 articles surveyed, is given in Figure 1. As can be seen, the number of articles using
both single and multiple inferential statistics has increased whereas articles with no statistical
procedures has declined. The number of articles with only descriptive statistics has generally
been low over the years.
Because statistics is a tool and not the object of research, this timeline takes a slightly
different approach than others in this series. Our selection of the literature is based on
developing signs that the field is promoting the use of statistical procedures. We take the
increasing appearance of publications (books, editorial comments, and articles) that focus
more and more on how statistics are used or can be used and interpreted in SLA as an
indication that the field considers the accurate and appropriate use of statistics important.
While publications do not always build upon previous works, as we have seen in other research
1 In preparing this timeline, we have limited our selection of works to those that focus on SLA somewhat narrowly defined.
This restriction meant not including many important works that were only tangentially related to SLA, as would be the
case with assessment, corpus linguistics, specific methodologies, language program analysis and so forth. We have also
restricted our selection of entries to books and journals and have excluded other publications such as newsletters.
182 RESEARCH TIMELINE
Figure 1 Statistical use in SLA: 1948–2006.
timelines in this series, what we see over time is a greater use of statistics and emphasis on
the need for rigorous statistical analyses. Over the years many, although not all, journals in
our field have introduced strict guidelines for the reporting of quantitative and qualitative
outcomes as part of their information for contributors and, indeed, many of our selections
are editorial comments, discussions, and/or articles referring to the need for such guidelines.
Editorial comments send a message to readers and authors alike of the need to be rigorous
in the consideration of appropriate statistical usage. Finally, there is an increasing number
of books dealing with statistics and research design aimed at applied linguists and SLA
researchers. In some sense, many of the books do not differ in scope, but their presence on
the market responds to a perceived need for work on statistical usage as it applies to the field
of SLA. In addition, many earlier works are out of print (sometimes due to the demise of a
particular publishing company). Furthermore, as a consequence of the increased focus on
statistics in L2 research, individual publishing companies appear to want their own version of
statistical coverage; market-driven increase, in and of itself, suggests a greater concern with
research rigor.
YEAR REFERENCES ANNOTATIONS
1942 Larsen, R., J. Wittenborn & E. Giesecke (1942). Factors In one of the earliest uses of quantitative statistics in applied linguistics,
contributing to achievement in the study of first semester Larsen et al. present descriptive statistics and critical ratios to investigate
college German. Journal of Experimental Education 10.4, 265–271. the differences between high and low achieving German L2 students.
1944 Wittenborn, J. & R. Larsen (1944). A factorial study of Wittenborn & Larsen’s study used factor analysis as a more sophisticated
achievement in college German. Journal of Educational Psychology exploratory tool to investigate further the data presented in LARSEN ET AL.
35.1, 39–48. (1942).
1958 Carroll, J. (1958). A factor analysis of two foreign language Carroll employs a factor analysis to reveal seven components of language
aptitude batteries. Journal of General Psychology 59.1, 3–19. aptitude. He comments on the limited use to-date of factor analysis in
investigating aptitude and achievement, and provides readers with
considerable information about the statistical procedure.
1973 Clark, H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A Although this analysis was conducted with data from child L1 acquisition, it
critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal is relevant to L2 studies. Clark was concerned with the issue of
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12.4, 335–359. generalizability. Through an analysis of studies on semantic memory, he
argued that there was no reliable evidence for the conclusions in the studies
he analyzed. He further called for the need to use statistics appropriately, to
have sound designs, and to use appropriate sampling procedures.
1978 Anshen, F. (1978). Statistics for linguists. Rowley, MA: Newbury Anshen’s short book, the first aimed specifically at linguists, covers basic
House. experimental concepts and was designed primarily for those doing work in
sociolinguistics.
S. LOEWEN & S. GASS: STATISTICS IN SLA RESEARCH
183
1978 Ingram, E. (1978). Applied linguistics, linguistic research, and In only the second issue of SSLA, Ingram wrestles with definitions of applied
the empirical model. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 1.2, linguistics followed by a discussion of the requirements for conducting
37–53. empirical research. She emphasizes, as did CLARK (1973), the need to use
appropriate descriptive, but also inferential, statistics in analyzing data. She
illustrates this by an analysis of data from an unpublished study on a
trilingual setting (Lapp, Norwegian, English), noting the need to understand

statistics sufficiently so as not to misuse them or misinterpret their use.
1982 Hatch, E. & H. Farhady (1982). Research design and statistics for Hatch & Farhady’s book is the first to be directed to applied linguists and
applied linguistics. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. is devoted to covering basic concepts necessary for applied linguistics work.
The book covers a range of topics basic to experimental research, including
research questions, parametric and nonparametric tests, variables, and factor
analysis.
1983 Pica, T. (1983). Methods of morpheme quantification: Their During the early days of SLA research, morpheme studies were a central
effect on the interpretation of second language data. Studies in part of the discipline. In this study, Pica compares two different methods of
Second Language Acquisition 6.1, 69–79. analysis: ‘suppliance in obligatory context’ and ‘target-like use’. She takes a
single set of data relating to the value of instruction, showing that depending
on which analysis is used, different interpretations of the role of instruction
result.
1985 Butler, C. (1985). Statistics in linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. This introductory text covers both descriptive and basic inferential statistics
and uses examples from various broad areas of linguistics. Butler provides
numerous formulae and tables for manually calculating different statistics.
1986 Cook, V. (ed.) (1986). Experimental approaches to second language This book aims to convince the readership of the value of experimental
learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. approaches to SLA. Cook initiates a discussion of empirical research by
considering reasons for conducting SLA research. The introduction provides
a brief overview of the rationale for experimental research, ethics involved in
research, and elements of design. Other chapters in the book provide results
from empirical studies with most (but not all) incorporating descriptive and
inferential statistics in their analyses.
1986 Woods, A., P. Fletcher & A. Hughes (1986). Statistics in language In this book, aimed at linguists, Woods et al. expand on previous works by
studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. discussing probability and statistical inferencing in more detail and by
including a greater number of multivariate methods. It provides a thorough
coverage of statistics, from basic statistical concepts to multivariate inferential
statistics and includes numerous mathematical formulae for calculating
statistical outcomes.
1986 Henning, G. (1986). Quantitative methods in language The inclusion of these two articles indicates the growing concern for
acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly 20.4, 701–708. quantitative analysis in TESOL Quarterly. Henning provides a definition of
quantitative research and remarks on the increase of quantitative research in
Chaudron, C. (1986). The interaction of quantitative and
two applied linguistics journals from 1970 to 1985. He provides nine
qualitative approaches to research: A view of the second
suggestions for improving quantitative analysis in SLA research, ranging
language classroom. TESOL Quarterly 20.4, 709–717.
from the use of nonparametric statistics when appropriate to the use of path
analysis and confirmatory factor analysis for constructing causal models.
Chaudron argues that both qualitative and quantitative SLA research are
necessary and that results from one method of investigation can inform the
questions asked by the other.
1987 Lazaraton, A., H. Riggenbach & A. Ediger (1987). Forming a Lazaraton et al., in a survey of 121 applied linguists, investigate knowledge
discipline: Applied linguists’ literacy in research methodology of and attitudes towards quantitative research, finding variation in both.
and statistics. TESOL Quarterly 21.2, 263–277. While respondents indicated a need for more familiarity with quantitative
research, they also underscored the importance of qualitative research.
185
1988 Brown, J. D. (1988). Understanding research in second language Brown provides an introduction to quantitative research for language
learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. teachers in an effort to help them read and understand the increasing
number of statistical SLA studies. He begins by discussing basic statistical
concepts in chapters labeled ‘Variables’ and ‘Patterns in Human Behavior’
and continues by discussing in detail both descriptive and inferential
techniques.
1988 Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on Chaudron’s book considers numerous issues related to classroom research,
teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. but highlights the need to have a sound research methodology, including
appropriate sampling, control of intervening variables, reliable

instrumentation and analysis, and detailed reporting.
1989 Seliger, H. W. & E. Shohamy (1989). Second language research This book, aimed at novice SLA researchers, provides an overview of the
methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. principles and concepts necessary for conducting research. Addressing
general quantitative issues in chapters such as ‘Research Design:
Experimental Research’ and ‘Analyzing the Data’, Seliger & Shohamy
also provide an appendix listing numerous statistical textbooks, many of
them specifically for the behavioral sciences.
1990 Brown, J. D. (1990). The use of multiple t tests in language In the first articles in TESOL Quarterly’s ‘Research Issues’ column, Brown
research. TESOL Quarterly 24.4, 770–773. and Siegel both lament the overuse of t tests in SLA experimental research,
which can lead to Type I errors (where significant differences are found when
Siegel, A. (1990). Multiple t tests: Some practical
in fact such differences do not exist). Both authors suggest alternatives to
considerations. TESOL Quarterly 24.4, 773–775.
mitigate the problem of multiple t tests.
1991 Lazaraton, A. (1991). Power, effect size, and second language Lazaraton and Crookes urge SLA researchers not to rely only on
research: A researcher comments. . . TESOL Quarterly 25.4, significance levels in interpreting the importance of their findings but also to
759–762. utilize power and effect sizes, which take into account population variability
and sample size. This was an early call for the inclusion of effect size which
Crookes, G. (1991). Power, effect size, and second language
became standard following the Language Learning editorial comment in 2000
research: Another researcher comments. . . TESOL Quarterly
(see below).
25.4, 762–765.
1991 Hatch, E. & A. Lazaraton (1991). The research manual: Design and Hatch &Lazaraton’s text/workbook covers all aspects of research design
statistics for applied linguistics. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. and analysis with a focus on L2 teaching and learning. This is to date the
most extensive coverage of statistics devoted to applied linguistics research.
1991 Brown, J. D. (1991). Statistics as a foreign language, part 1: Similar to his 1988 book, in this article Brown aims to make quantitative
What to look for in reading statistical language studies. TESOL SLA research accessible to teachers by providing information and strategies
Quarterly 25.4, 569 – 586. to help them understand and evaluate such studies. Included are discussions
of basic concepts underlying statistical analysis.
1991 Nunan, D. (1991). Methods in second language Both experimental and non-experimental data are included in this review of
classroom-oriented research: A critical review. Studies in Second classroom research. Nunan provides data (based on 50 studies) that show the
Language Acquisition 13.2, 249–274. extent to which statistics are used, noting that most are basic (based on
Teleni & Baldauf 1988). He critiques studies for inappropriate reporting, lack
of randomization, and violation of assumptions underlying the use of a
statistical technique. The article points to the need for empirical studies in
classrooms using appropriate analytical tools.
1991 Lambert, W. E. (1991). Pros, cons, and limits to quantitative Lambert lays out some of the issues related to broad-scale research. He uses
approaches in foreign language acquisition research. In K. de empirical studies to consider concerns related to quantitative research (size
Bot., R. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (eds.), Foreign language research in versus manageableness of studies, process versus product and the need to
cross-cultural perspective. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 53–71. balance each, and statistical use with moderate size investigations). He
suggests that when studies are smaller and local in scope, there is likely to be
greater progress.
1992 Brown, J. D. (1992). Statistics as a foreign language, part 2: Building on his 1991 article, Brown continues the goal of familiarizing L2
More things to consider in reading statistical language studies. teachers with statistical terminology in an effort to make them more
TESOL Quarterly 26.4, 629–664. discerning consumers of quantitative research. Strategies for critiquing
statistical research, as well as explanations of statistical terminology are
included.
187
1992 Johnson, D. (1992). Approaches to research in second language learning. In another of the increasingly popular introductory research methods books,
New York: Longman. Johnson presents basic concepts in a variety of research paradigms. The
assumptions and components of quantitative analysis are addressed in
chapters such as ‘Correlational Approaches’, ‘Survey Research’, and
‘Experimental Research’.
1992 Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Nunan’s book is a response to a strong research agenda that emerged in the
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. fields of language teaching and learning and the perceived need for teachers
to understand basic research concepts. The book, building on his 1991
article, covers a wide range of topics involved in conducting research,

including the experimental method. It is one of the early books that focuses
on the teacher as researcher, emphasizing the need for them to be able to
critically read and evaluate research reports.
1992 TESOL Quarterly, 26.4. 794–795. TESOL Quarterly introduces a section titled ‘Statistical Guidelines’ as part of
its general guidelines for submission to ensure ‘high statistical standards’
(p. 794). An overall statement attempts to ensure sufficient reporting to allow
replication and to allow evaluation of claims made. Among the requirements
are a statement of variables (dependent, independent, etc.), source tables for
statistical tests, assumptions underlying the design, tests of the assumptions
underlying the use of statistical tests, and appropriate interpretation of
statistical significance.
1993 Reitveld, T. & R. van Hout (1993). Statistical techniques for the study Reitveld & van Hout’s book assumes a basic statistical knowledge and
of language and language behavior. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. covers a wider range of advanced statistical techniques than many of the
previous works. Chapters provide detailed information about numerous
inferential statistics, complete with extensive formulae and tables. In
addition, an appendix with command lines for computing statistics in SAS or
SPSS is included, indicating an increasing reliance on the computerized
calculation of statistics.
1993 Valdman, A. (1993). Replication study. Studies in Second Language In this editorial comment, Valdman recognizes the significance of
Acquisition 15.4, 505. replication in order to increase the reliability and validity of SLA research.
His commentary ushers in a call for replication studies to be published in
SSLA, thereby raising the level of acceptability of such studies.
1993 Instructions for contributors. Language Learning, 43.1, 151–156. In the instructions, there is a departure from previous issues with the
statement ‘Manuscripts considered for publication will be reviewed for their
presentation and analysis of new empirical data, expert use of appropriate
research methods’ (p. 151). Even though this is not an explicit statement of
statistical rigor, it does indicate a deeper concern with issues of design,
methods, and analysis.
1994 Tarone, E., S. Gass & A. Cohen (eds.) (1994). Research methodology Tarone et al. edit one of the early books devoted to a concern with the
in second language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. methodology involved in eliciting data and how those data relate to
theoretical questions in SLA. The main theme is the need to recognize that
research methods and research questions are intimately related.
1996 Young, R. & R. Bayley (1996). VARBRUL analysis for second VARBRUL is an analytical tool used in sociolinguistic research, but prior to
language research. In R. Bayley & D. Preston (eds.), Second the publication of this article not well understood in the SLA literature.
language acquisition and linguistic variation. Amsterdam: John Young & Bayley take the reader through a step-by-step use of this tool
Benjamins, 253–306. including using it appropriately, coding data, checking the reliability of
coding, running the data, and interpreting the results. Numerous tables and
screen shots are available to help the reader use the tool appropriately and
understand and interpret results.
189
1997 Polio, C. & S. Gass (1997). Replication and reporting: A This commentary follows from VALDMAN’s (1993) call for more replication
commentary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19.4, 499–508. studies. Polio & Gass support this notion, while at the same time
recognizing the problems involved in conducting replication studies. They
focus on issues of level of detail needed in original research and propose three
possible solutions for reporting, including requiring sufficient level of detail in
published articles (see 1999, Language Learning editor statement), encouraging
graduate students to conduct replication studies, and including detailed
appendices to be put on a publisher’s website. They provide guidelines for
the level of detail to be included in such appendices.
1998 Bachman, L. & A. Cohen (eds.) (1998). Interfaces between second Bachman & Cohen highlight the mutually beneficial relationship between
language acquisition and language testing research. Cambridge: SLA research and the field of language testing which, over the years, has
Cambridge University Press. continually emphasized issues of statistical rigor in the analysis of data. The
book shows how the two groups of researchers have shared interests and
mutually beneficial concerns.
1999 Ellis, N. (1999). Editor’s statement. Language Learning 49.1, v–vi. This is an early expression∗ of the need for statistical rigor (although see the
1993 Language Learning Instructions for contributors entry) in the field. In
addition, Ellis discusses the issue of sufficiently thorough reporting to allow
replication.
1999 Saito, H. (1999). Dependence and interaction in frequency data Saito argues that many frequency analyses in SLA violate the assumption of
analysis in SLA research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition independence of data and he reanalyzes several studies to illustrate his point.
21.3, 453–475. He urges that more attention be paid to meeting the assumptions of
statistical tests in SLA research.
1999 Young, R. & B. Yandell (1999). Top-down versus bottom-up This response to SAITO (1999) provides a detailed account of VARBRUL
analyses of interlanguage data: A reply to Saito. Studies in Second analysis and how it can address the issue of data dependence. Young &
Language Acquisition 21.3, 477–490. Yandell also point out that the publishing of data sets is valuable for
engaging in this type of methodological discussion. This is one of the earliest
exchanges in an SLA journal among scholars on the topic of techniques of
analysis.
2000 Paolillo, J. (2000). Asymmetries in Universal Grammar: The Paolillo argues that researchers need to pay closer attention to the statistical
role of method and statistics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition methods they employ. By carefully dissecting previous UG research that used
22.2, 209–228. grammaticality judgment tests, Paolillo demonstrates the importance of using
statistical procedures appropriate to the data at hand.
2000 Ellis, N. (2000). Editor’s statement: Statistical reporting of effect Extending his earlier editorial statement, in this preface, Ellis states the
sizes. Language Learning 50.1, xi–xii. necessity of including effect sizes in good quantitative research and
announces that future submissions to Language Learning must include effect
sizes for all major statistical comparisons.
2000 Norris, J. & L. Ortega (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A Norris & Ortega investigate the effectiveness of L2 instruction by
research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language conducting the first meta-analysis in SLA research. In addition to answering
Learning 50.3, 417–528. the research question, they provide a detailed guide for conducting a
meta-analysis. Given that many studies had to be excluded from the
meta-analysis due to lack of sufficient statistical rigor, they also call for higher
standards, including the reporting of effect sizes, in the conducting and
reporting of quantitative SLA research.
2000 Lazaraton, A. (2000). Current trends in research methodology In a review of four applied linguistics journals over a seven-year period,
and statistics in applied linguistics. TESOL Quarterly 34.1, Lazaraton found an overwhelming majority of quantitative studies being
175–181. published, with ANOVA being the most frequently employed statistic in spite
of its stringent assumptions. Lazaraton stressed that statistics should be
conducted appropriately with the underlying assumptions met for each
statistic.
2002 Brown, J. D. & T. Rodgers (2002). Doing second language research. In a novel approach to familiarizing teachers with research, this handbook is
Oxford: Oxford University Press. designed to engage the reader in the process of research. To that end,
Brown & Rodgers include numerous exercises that involve the reader in
calculating both descriptive and basic inferential statistics. The authors
acknowledge that statistical software programs such as SPSS or SAS are
generally used to calculate statistics, but they argue that providing readers the
opportunity to compute basic statistics by hand increases understanding of
the techniques.
191
∗
We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out that the journals that require submissions to conform to APA guidelines are by the very
nature of the requirement demanding sophistication in the analysis and presentation of statistical data.
2002 Porte, G. K. (2002). Appraising research in second language learning: A Porte focuses on the interpretation, rather than the conducting, of research.
practical approach to critical analysis of quantitative research. This book focuses on critically interpreting all aspects of a study including
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. the design, operationalization of constructs, methods and procedures, and
interpretation of results. The last of these includes an understanding of
statistical usage and the interpretation thereof. Following BROWN’s (1991)
approach, he presents a method for critical reading of a research article.
2003 Chapelle, C. & P. Duff (2003). Some guidelines for conducting TESOL Quarterly expands the guidelines for statistics introduced in 1992. This
quantitative and qualitative research in TESOL. TESOL expansion makes explicit what should be included in each section of a
Quarterly 37.1, 157–178. research report. The guidelines serve the purpose of ensuring rigor in the
journal and also serve to inform researchers about what constitutes rigor.
2003 Norris, J. & L. Ortega (2003). Defining and measuring SLA. In Norris & Ortega provide a thorough account of issues of measurement in
C. Doughty & M. Long (eds.), The handbook of second language SLA research, noting the need for stages of measurement to ensure construct
acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 717–761. validity. They argue for multiple measures, the need to understand a full
range of behaviors underlying cognitive constructs, the reporting of reliability
estimates, the limitation of inferential statistics, the need for researchers to be
well-trained in measurement, and the recognition of thorough reporting.
2003 Matsumura, S. (2003). Modelling the relationship among In this early use of structure equation modeling, Matsumura provides a
interlanguage pragmatic development, L2 proficiency, and methodological example of how this advanced statistical procedure can be
exposure to L2. Applied Linguistics 24.4, 465–491. used to investigating latent variables and causal relationships.
2004 Brown, J. D. (2004a). Research methods for applied linguistics: In this overview of research paradigms, Brown argues that the
Scope, characteristics, and standards. In A. Davies & C. Elder qualitative/quantitative distinction should be viewed as a continuum rather
(eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, than a dichotomy. He also identifies appropriate standards for quality
476–500. research in applied linguistics, focusing specifically on reliability, replicability,
validity, and generalizability for quantitative research.
2004 Brown, J. D. (2004b). Resources on quantitative/statistical In this review article, Brown compares nine quantitative research books,
research for applied linguists. Second Language Research 20.4, suggesting that 20 conceptual topics shared by a majority of the books are
372–393. among the most essential topics for SLA researchers. In addition, he
identifies HATCH & LAZARATON (1991) as providing the most extensive
statistical coverage for applied linguists.
2005 Mackey, A. & S. Gass (2005). Second language research: Methodology This book presents a broad overview of research in SLA including generating
& design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. appropriate research questions; research ethics; data collection and the need
to match data collection to research questions; design; issues of validity and
reliability; coding; analysis (descriptive and inferential statistics); and the
writing of research reports. This is the first SLA research methods book to
include a lengthy description of ethics in research.
2005 Lazaraton, A. (2005). Quantitative research methods. In Lazaraton provides a historical overview of the use of statistics in SLA
E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and research. She analyzes published research studies over an 11-year period. On
learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 209–224. average, 86% of studies published in four journals employed quantitative
methodology, although TESOL Quarterly had the highest percentage of
qualitative studies (40%). Lazaraton again cautions against the overzealous
and inappropriate use of statistical procedures.
2006 Norris, J. & L. Ortega (eds.) (2006). Synthesizing research on language Following on from their call in 2000, this edited volume, in addition to
learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. providing multiple examples of SLA-related meta-analyses, describes the
value of both quantitative and non-quantitative research synthesis. The focus
is primarily on quantitative meta-analyses, and in the first chapter, Norris &
Ortega outline the purposes and procedures for conducting such studies. At
the end of the volume, chapters by N. Ellis and by Chaudron reflect upon the
strengths and weaknesses of meta-analyses and continue the call for statistical
rigor and reflection in SLA research.
193
2006 Chalhoub-Deville, M., C. Chapelle & P. Duff (eds.) (2006). In this edited collection, contributors were asked to address three issues from
Inference and generalizability in applied linguistics: Multiple perspectives. their research perspective: dependability, generalizability, and inference. This
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. is the first full-length book devoted to these issues in the applied linguistics
literature. Papers include discussion of these issues from the perspective of
testing and assessment, verbal protocols, functional grammar, conversation
analysis, and ethnography as well as more general discussions of these
constructs as they relate to applied linguistics/SLA research.
2007 Isemonger, I. (2007). Operational definitions of explicit and Isemonger critiques Ellis’ (2005) use of statistical procedures and criticizes
implicit knowledge: Response to R. Ellis (2005) and some his use of exploratory factor analysis to investigate the constructs of implicit
recommendations for future research in this area. Studies in and explicit L2 knowledge. He suggests the use of confirmatory factor
Second Language Acquisition 29.1, 101–118. analysis or structural equation modeling as more appropriate in this instance,
as well as for future research.
2007 Ellis, R. & S. Loewen (2007). Confirming the operational Ellis & Loewen address the statistical issues raised by Isemonger through
definitions of explicit and implicit knowledge in Ellis (2005): additional statistical analyses, including structural equation modeling. These
Responding to Isemonger. Studies in Second Language Acquisition subsequent analyses support Ellis’ (2005) initial analysis. This exchange is
29.1, 119–126. significant in its focus on the role of statistical techniques in the analysis of
SLA data.
2007 Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Dörnyei presents an overview of research in applied linguistics. He includes
Oxford University Press. issues of sampling in quantitative research and mixed-methods research
(quantitative and qualitative). Basic statistics are included as is a section on
writing a quantitative report. Great emphasis is placed on qualitative data
collection and mixed methods research.
2008 Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical Baayen provides the first manual for linguists that combines step-by-step
introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University instructions for using a statistical software package with examples and
Press. exercises that utilize linguistic data.
2008 Replication Research Studies. Language Teaching 41.1, iii–iv. Similar to the SSLA emphasis (see VALDMAN 1993) on replication, Language
Teaching devotes a strand to replication studies. The two-page call for papers
details what is expected in a replication study and includes definitions of
exact replication, approximate replication and conceptual replication.
2008 Language Teaching Review Panel. (2008). Replication studies in Introducing the newly-established replication strand in the journal, the
language learning and teaching: Questions and answers. journal’s review panel responds to 14 questions which include, inter alia, an
Language Teaching 41.1, 1–14. explanation of why replication studies are undervalued, the difficulties
involved in conducting replication studies, identification of studies to
replicate, and information to be included in a replication paper. Heeding the
call from POLIO & GASS (1997), the journal announces that detailed
additional data from replication studies not presented through lack of space
in the print version will be made available in an online supplement.
2008 Tseng, W. & N. Schmitt. (2008). Toward a model of motivated Tseng & Schmitt’s study illustrates the use of the increasingly popular
vocabulary learning: A structural equation modeling approach. structural equation modeling analysis in creating and assessing complex
Language Learning 58.2, 357–400. models of L2 acquisition.
195
References
Bayes, T. (1763). An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society of London 3, 370–418.
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 141–172.
Gass, S. (in press). An historical survey of SLA research. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhaita (eds.), New handbook
of second language acquisition. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing.
Teleni, V. & R. Baldauf (1988). Statistical techniques used in three applied linguistics journals, Language
Learning, Applied Linguistics and TESOL Quarterly 1980–1986: Implications for readers and researchers.
Ms., James Cook University of Northern Queensland.
SHAWN LOEWEN is Assistant Professor in the Second Language Studies program at Michigan State
University. He specializes in L2 acquisition and L2 classroom interaction. His recent research has
investigated the occurrence and effectiveness of incidental focus on form in meaning-focused L2
classrooms; his work has appeared in Language Learning, Studies in Second Language Acquisition and Modern
Language Journal. He teaches classes on SLA and research methodologies, specializing in quantitative
analysis, and serves on the advisory board of Language Teaching Research and Innovation in Language Learning
and Teaching.
SUSAN GASS is University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Linguistics & Germanic,
Slavic, Asian and African Languages at Michigan State University. She serves as Director of the
English Language Center, Director of the Second Language Studies Program, Co-Director of the
Center for Language Education and Research, and Director of the Arabic Flagship Program. She
conducts research in L2 acquisition and has published widely in books and journals. She is co-author
(with Alison Mackey) of Second language research: Methodology and design (Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005), (with
Alison Mackey) Data elicitation for second and foreign language research (Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007), and
(with Larry Selinker) Second language acquisition (Routledge, 2008). She has served as President of the
International Association of Applied Linguistics (AILA) (2002–2008) and President of the American
Association for Applied Linguistics (1987–1988), is the Associate Editor of Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, and is the recipient of numerous awards.
Lang. Teach. (2009), 42:2, 197–211
doi:10.1017/S0261444808005491 First published online 12 December 2008
Plenary Speeches
Multilingual education policy and practice: Ten certainties

(grounded in Indigenous experience)
Nancy H. Hornberger University of Pennsylvania, USA

nancyh@gse.upenn.edu
Although multilingualism and multilingual education have existed for centuries, our
21st-century entrance into the new millennium has brought renewed interest and
contestation around this educational alternative. Ethnolinguistic diversity and inequality,
intercultural communication and contact, and global political and economic interdependence
are more than ever acknowledged realities of today’s world, and all of them put pressures on
our educational systems. Now, as throughout history, multilingual education offers the best
possibilities for preparing coming generations to participate in constructing more just and
democratic societies in our globalized and intercultural world; however, it is not
unproblematically achieved. There are many unanswered questions and doubts as to policy
and implementation, program and curricular design, classroom instruction practices,
pedagogy, and teacher professional development, but there is also much that we understand
and know very well, based on empirical research in many corners of the world. Here I
highlight Bolivian and other Indigenous educational experiences with which I am most
familiar, and which capture certainties that hold beyond the particular instances I describe.
My emphasis is on what we know and are sure of, and my goal is to convey my deep
conviction that multilingual education constitutes a wide and welcoming educational
doorway toward peaceful coexistence of peoples and especially restoration and
empowerment of those who have been historically oppressed.
1. Introduction
In his review of bilingual education in the Western ancient world up to the Renaissance,
Welsh scholar Glyn Lewis writes:
Polyglottism is a very early characteristic of human societies, and monolingualism a cultural limitation. It
is doubtful whether any community or any language has existed in isolation from other communities or
languages . . . If there is one thing we learn from a historical study of languages in contact it is that the
languages which appear to contribute most and survive longest . . . are usually supported and reinforced
by powerful institutions, of which the schools . . . are among the most influential. (Lewis 1976: 150, 199)
Revised version of a plenary paper presented on 30 March 2008 at the American Association of Applied Linguistics
Conference, Washington, DC.
198 PLENARY SPEECHES
Although multilingualism and multilingual education have existed for centuries, our 21st
century entrance into the new millennium has brought renewed interest and contestation
around this educational alternative. Ethnolinguistic diversity and inequality, intercultural
communication and contact, and global political and economic interdependence are more
than ever acknowledged realities of today’s world, and all of them put pressures on our
educational systems. Now, as throughout history, multilingual education offers the best
possibilities for preparing coming generations to participate in constructing more just
and democratic societies in our globalized and intercultural world; however, it is not
unproblematically achieved.
Multilingual education is, at its best, (1) multilingual in that it uses and values more than
one language in teaching and learning, (2) intercultural in that it recognizes and values
understanding and dialogue across different lived experiences and cultural worldviews, and
(3) education that draws out, taking as its starting point the knowledge students bring to the
classroom and moving toward their participation as full and indispensable actors in society –
locally, nationally, and globally.
Beyond these fundamental characteristics, there are many unanswered questions and
doubts surrounding multilingual education as to policy and implementation, program and
curricular design, classroom instruction practices, pedagogy, and teacher professional devel-
opment, but there is also much that we understand and know very well, based on empirical
research in many corners of the world. Multilingual education is in its essence an instance of
biliteracy ‘in which communication occurs in two (or more) languages in or around writing’
(Hornberger 1990: 213), and I here use my continua of biliteracy framework as implicit orga-
nizing rubric for considering some certainties about biliteracy contexts, media, development,
and content in multilingual education policy and practice around the world (Hornberger
1989, 2003; Hornberger & Skilton-Sylvester 2000).1 I highlight Bolivian and other Indigenous
educational experiences with which I am most familiar, and which capture certainties that
hold beyond the particular instances I describe.2 My emphasis is on what we know and are
sure of, and my goal is to convey my deep conviction that multilingual education constitutes
a wide and welcoming educational doorway toward peaceful coexistence of peoples and
especially restoration and empowerment of those who have been historically oppressed.
2. What do we know about contexts – and spaces – for multilingual education?
I begin with a vignette from a bilingual classroom in Andean South America:
At Kayarani, a new school building was inaugurated last year and the rooms are nice, with tables and
chairs that can be set up for group work. Berta, a native of Tarija, has been teaching here for three years,
implementing bilingual education under the 1994 Bolivian National Education Reform. She began with
1 Note that the continua of biliteracy framework accommodates both multilingualism and bilingualism, while recognizing
that they are by no means synonymous.
2 The original version of this paper included reference throughout to cases from around the world and across time that
support and illustrate the ten certainties, but the length and range of the manuscript proved unwieldy for either a plenary
address or a brief journal article such as this. My goal is to include this rich literature in a future book-length monograph
and in the meanwhile I beg my readers’ indulgence for highlighting only a few recent cases with which I have the greatest
first-hand acquaintance.
NANCY H. HORNBERGER: MULTILINGUAL EDUCATION 199
her class from the start of their schooling; they are now in 2nd–3rd grade. The classroom is decorated
with posters made by the teacher in Quechua, including models of a story, a poem, a song, a recipe,
and a letter, as well as both the Quechua and the Spanish alphabets, which the students recite for me
later. Also on the wall is the class newspaper, Llaqta Qhapariy [Voice of the People], featuring an article
in Quechua written by student Calestino about farmers’ wanting better prices for their potatoes, which
constitute their community’s subsistence.
A key provision of the 1994 Reform is the establishment of a library in every primary classroom of
the nation, each stocked with a collection of 80 books provided by the Ministry of Education under the
auspices of UNESCO. Included are six Big Books in Spanish, three of them based on oral traditions in
Quechua, Aymara, and Guarani, respectively. This classroom, too, has a library corner housing a small
collection including a couple of Big Books, and the teacher calls on a child to come to the front of the
class to read from one of the Big Books aloud to his classmates. Later, after the class leaves for recess, a
couple of the children notice my interest in the Big Books and gleefully hold the books up for a photo.
(Kayarani, Bolivia, 14 August 2000)3
This vignette points to two certainties about multilingual education.
2.1 First certainty: National multilingual language education policy opens up ideological
and implementational spaces for multilingual education
Bolivia’s 1994 Education Reform sought to implant multilingual education, termed bilingual
intercultural education (EIB), nationwide, incorporating all 30 Bolivian Indigenous languages,
beginning with the three largest – Quechua, Aymara, and Guarani (Albó 1995, 1997;
Hornberger & López 1998; López & Küper 2004). The new law massively expanded the
reach of EIB, from 114 experimental schools in the early 1990s to more than 1,000 by the
year 1997 and almost 3,000 schools by 2002, accounting for 22% of the primary school
population, and accompanied by dropping school desertion rates and rising graduation rates
(Nucinkis 2006, cited in Swinehart 2007). The 1994 Reform clearly opened spaces for the
practice of multilingual education, including actual physical spaces in schools and classrooms,
as in the Kayarani instance. This is not to say that these spaces are unproblematically accepted
and adopted, however.
2.2 Second certainty: Local actors may open up – or close down – agentive spaces for
multilingual education as they implement, interpret, and perhaps resist policy initiatives
The Kayarani teacher depicted in the vignette actively embraced and creatively put into
practice the Bolivian Reform’s multilingual pedagogy. Where multilingual education policies
are in place, spaces like these are opened up for the implementation of multilingual education
programs. But top–down policy is not enough: any policy may fail if there is no bottom–up,
local support (cf. Hornberger 1987, 1988). In other rural Bolivian schools, untouched stacks
of the Reform’s texts remain in locked cabinets in the director’s office and little effort has
been made to implement EIB. Uptake of the Reform is by no means a foregone conclusion
and a key factor in the Bolivian case has been popular participation via Indigenous Peoples’
Educational Councils (López 2008).
3 For each vignette, the place and date denote that I was a participant/observer of the incident described. Real names are
used, with permission of the participants. Reprinted, with modification, from Hornberger (2006: 285–286).
In addition to local communities, local educators at primary, secondary, and tertiary

levels may themselves be the ones opening spaces for multilingual education. One of the
most interesting, promising, and potentially enduring developments in bilingual education
in the Andes in the last few decades has been the master’s program in bilingual intercultural
education for Indigenous students at PROEIB Andes. The PROEIB Maestrı́a (as it is called),
housed at the University of San Simón in Cochabamba, Bolivia, is a consortium effort
sponsored by Indigenous organizations, universities, and Ministries of Education in six
countries – Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru – with additional
international funding from German Technical Assistance (GTZ), UNICEF, UNESCO, the
World Bank, and others. Impelled by the vision and energy of Peruvian sociolinguist Luis
Enrique López, this program has opened up spaces for Indigenous rights and Indigenous
education surpassing even those initially envisioned even in the Reform. It is a case illustrating
that ‘[l]ocal educators are not helplessly caught in the ebb and flow of shifting ideologies in
language policies – they help develop, maintain, and change that flow’ (Hornberger & Johnson
2007: 527; see also Johnson 2007).
A second vignette from Bolivia introduces our third certainty:
It is the opening session of the four-day 7th Latin American Congress on Bilingual Intercultural Education
(VII-EIB), sponsored by the Bolivian Ministry of Education, organized by PROEIB Andes, and convened
in Cochabamba, Bolivia, at Centro Portales, a cultural and educational foundation housed in the former
home of Bolivian tin baron Simon Patiño. The six hundred mostly Indigenous delegates representing
24 countries sit and chat comfortably in the outdoor amphitheatre among gently dropping petals of the
flowering jacarandá trees, awaiting the arrival of Bolivian Minister of Education Felix Patzi, who will give
the opening address.
After several introductions and greetings from conference sponsors and hosts, as well as a brief
ceremony of burnt offering for an auspicious gathering, Patzi arrives and greets the delegates with a roll
call of the two-dozen countries represented, a communicative act that serves to reinforce the shared sense
of an important international gathering of Indigenous educational leaders. Patzi, an Aymara sociologist,
goes on to speak at some length on decolonization and interculturality. He affirms that Indigenous peoples
must decolonize education such that not only European but also Indigenous knowledges are included,
that interculturality is not only about respect and tolerance for the other but also about democratizing
cultures and equalizing cultural conceptions, and that the status of Indigenous languages must be raised
by people speaking them not just within their own communities, but beyond. (Cochabamba, Bolivia, 1
October 2006)
2.3 Third certainty: Ecological language policies take into account the power relations
among languages and promote multilingual uses in all societal domains
Among the decolonizing reforms introduced by Bolivia’s first Indigenous president, Evo
Morales, since taking office in January 2006, is a new education law proposed by Patzi
at the June 2006 Bolivian National Congress of Education. Named in honor of two
early 20th-century Bolivian Indigenous education reformers, Avelino Siñani and Elizardo
Pérez, the proposed law has as its stated objective the construction of an education
that is ‘communitarian, decolonizing, scientific, productive, intracultural, intercultural, and
plurilingual’.4 Patzi had criticized the 1994 Reform as being too focused on language rather
4 Ante Proyecto: Nueva Ley de Educación ‘Avelino Siñani y Elizardo Perez’, proposed by the Ministry of
Education and Culture, National Commission on the New Bolivian Education Law, Sucre, Bolivia, July 2006
(http://www.constituyentesoberana.org/info/?q=nueva-ley-educacion-avelino-perez).
than culture and epistemology, and as contemplating only a one-way interculturalism rather
than a truly democratizing two-way equality among cultures.
Yet, despite the Morales administration’s initial rhetoric about reversing all policies
associated with the previous neo-liberal administration (López 2005, 2008), the new proposed
law is best seen as building upon and expanding the achievements of the existing bilingual
intercultural education reforms rather than abandoning them altogether. Certainly the
emphasis on two-way interculturalism and its necessary complement, intraculturalism, were
very much part of the practice of those who took up the 1994 Reform (e.g. Hornberger 2000;
Hornberger & Hult 2008: 292). The founder of PROEIB Andes, Luis Enrique López, puts it
this way:
Before opening oneself to discussing relationships among diverse peoples, cultures, and identities, colonial
oppression creates a necessity to first reaffirm oneself as Indigenous . . . Bolivian Indigenous leader Froilán
Condori puts this clearly when he speaks of intraculturalism – that first there must be a strong phase of
intraculturalism before undertaking dialogue among cultures. He affirms that we can’t speak as equals if
I have always been told that mine is of no value, but the other’s is. (L. E. López interview, 26 June 2005;
my translation)
Opening up spaces for multilingual education is about taking into account all languages in
the ecology and recognizing that those languages are situated in social spaces and contexts.
Planning for any one language in a particular social space necessarily entails planning for all
languages and social influences in that space; this is especially true in the case of planning
for endangered or dominated languages since the fortunes of any one language necessarily
hinge on those of other languages in its context.
In Bolivia, at one end of the spectrum, a June 2006 decree makes knowledge of an
Indigenous language prerequisite for any public office (‘El bilingüismo’ 2006). At the other
end, the 2006 proposed Education law explicitly adds English to the multilingual education
mix while maintaining a strong emphasis on Indigenous languages: all teachers are required
to speak English as well as Spanish and an Indigenous language, and instruction is to be
trilingual.
Bolivia’s proposed new trilingual education could be seen as a step in the right direction
for Bolivia’s increased presence on the world stage, since it includes English, the increasingly
undisputed tool of access to a globalized world, along with Spanish and the Indigenous
languages. On the other hand, language planning for the management of linguistic diversity,
in Bolivia as elsewhere in the world, is susceptible to the discourses of linguistic hierarchy
which privilege English as a global language, leaving many challenges ahead for giving
real attention to minority mother tongues and achieving an ecological balance for a truly
sustainable multilingualism (cf. Hult 2007: 314–316, on Sweden).
3. What do we know about media – and modalities – of multilingual education?
I begin this section on the media of biliteracy with a third vignette, this time from a Māori
immersion school in Aotearoa/New Zealand.
We three – my colleague Stephen May of the University of Waikato, his colleague Karaitiana Tamatea,
parent and former whanau ‘extended family’ leader at the school, and I – enter the kura kaupapa Māori
‘Māori immersion school’ following the traditional powhiri ‘protocol’, which means that the assistant
principal (in the principal’s absence) greets us with a chant while we are still outside the premises, and
then we slowly enter, exchanging chants with her as we do. After a continuation of this protocol inside
one of the classrooms where all 80 children (grades 1–6) are gathered for our visit, we are invited to a
different room for refreshments. Because of the strict prohibition on the use of English anywhere on the
school premises at all times, this is the only room where I, a non-Māori speaker, can have a conversation
with teachers, staff, and leadership of the school.
I am introduced to the current whanau leader. Here, as is the case for the 58 other kura kaupapa schools
in Aotearoa/New Zealand, the whanau has been indispensable in the establishment and existence of the
kura kaupapa. The school exists in the first place only by initiative of the whanau; and only after two years
of running the school themselves may they appeal for government recognition and support. This school
was founded in 1995 and gained recognition and its own school building and grounds several years ago.
The whanau leader asks me ‘What do you think of bilingual education?’ As I formulate my answer and
engage in further dialogue with him, it suddenly dawns on me that for him, bilingual education and
Māori immersion are opposites, while for me they are located on a continuum. Māori-only ideology is of
such integral and foundational importance to Māori immersion that the use of two languages suggested
by the term bilingual is antithetical to those dedicated to Māori revitalization. (Hamilton, Aotearoa/New
Zealand, 28 June 2002)5
This vignette points to two more certainties about multilingual education.
3.1 Fourth certainty: Models of multilingual education instantiate linguistic and

sociocultural histories and goals in each context
As my conversation with the whanau leader made clear, Māori immersion is different
from other bilingual education. Māori immersion is also different from Canadian French
immersion. In the latter, English-speaking children are immersed in French, but later also
take up reading and writing in English, usually beginning in third grade, in a 50–50%
proportion. In contrast, when the Māori immersion movement started in the 1980s, Māori
communities opted for exclusive use of Māori language in formal education – enforcing a total
immersion model of multilingual education, in which use of the dominant language, English,
is in principle prohibited within the school precincts, and the separation of languages is
meant to be absolute and sequential between Māori in school and English in the surrounding
environment (May 1999; Hornberger 2002; May & Hill 2008).
These programmatic differences in Canadian and Māori immersion models, insofar as
simultaneous vs. successive acquisition along the media of biliteracy, are based in different
sociocultural and linguistic histories and goals in each context. The history of writing in
Māori goes back to 1825, before New Zealand became a nation. Nevertheless, Māori was
prohibited from use in school and was on the way to extinction when revitalization efforts
began in the 1980s; the immersion schools were a key component of those revitalization
efforts. The initiative taken by Māori elders and parents in Aotearoa/New Zealand in the
1980s to establish pre-school language nests, kōhanga reo, to teach their children the ancestral
language that was being replaced by English and in danger of disappearing, was a crucial
5 Reprinted from Hornberger (2006: 287–288).

step toward Māori language revitalization. That initiative gradually expanded and today
encompasses Māori-medium education at all levels as well as official status for the language
since 1987 (May 1999, 2002; May & Hill 2008), overseen by national-level bodies such as the
Education Review Office, which takes up both status and corpus concerns.
3.2 Fifth certainty: Language status planning and language corpus planning go hand in hand
The aims of Māori-medium education have been first and foremost the revitalization of
the language, at which considerable success has been achieved; only more recently has a
complementary focus on the educational effectiveness of Māori-medium education begun to
emerge (May & Hill 2008), while simultaneously, there has been a growing recognition of the
importance of Māori language revitalization efforts not only in formal education but also in
home and community (M. K. Hohepa 2006).
Literacy has been acknowledged to play an integral role in Indigenous language
revitalization – or regeneration, as Māori scholar and parent Margie Hohepa prefers to
call it since regeneration suggests ‘growth and regrowth, development and redevelopment’
(M. K. Hohepa 2006: 294; following her linguist father’s usage, cf. P. Hohepa 2000). In
her estimation, print literacy in the Indigenous language validates and gives status to the
language, supports the preservation of past traditions for future generations, ensures a wider
variety of functions for the language, and recreates the language within a changing culture
and society (M. K. Hohepa 2006: 295).
Print literacy and the use of a language in teaching and learning imply a writing system,
standardized grammar, and elaborated vocabulary. If these do not exist, they must be
developed. Planning for a language’s status as medium of education and developing its
corpus for those uses go hand in hand (Fishman 1980). Examples abound of the challenges
involved, and these ‘problems in the socio-educational legitimization of languages/varieties’
have always accompanied the introduction of vernacular languages into education (Fishman
1982: 4). The challenges are neither rare, unexpected, nor insuperable. We have many
evidences of successfully completed and in-progress production of educational and print
literacy materials in Indigenous languages (Châtry-Komarek 1987, 1996, 2003), including
Māori.
A fourth vignette, from a site of multilingual Indigenous teacher education in Amazonian
Brazil, introduces our sixth certainty:
Every year since 1983, an Indigenous teacher education course sponsored by the Comissão Pró-Indio
do Acre (CPI) has been held during the summer months (January–March) in the Amazonian rainforest
of Brazil. The 1997 session is attended by some 25 professores indios ‘Indigenous teachers’, representing
eight different ethnic groups whose languages are in varying stages of vitality, from those with about 150
speakers to those with several thousand. One of the striking features of the course is that the professores
indios are simultaneously learners and teachers-in-formation; that is, they are simultaneously learning the
school curriculum themselves for the first time, while also preparing themselves to return to their aldeias
‘communities’ to teach it.
Another feature of the course is the mutual multilingual understanding among the professores, in that
the Indigenous languages are not only encouraged and used as medium and subject of instruction in
the course and later in their own schools, but also the professores encourage and exchange among each
other across their different languages. Although they do not necessarily speak or understand all the other
languages spoken and written by their peers, they read, listen, and look at each other’s work. To facilitate
mutual understanding, they at times use Portuguese as lingua franca, at times draw on the geometric
designs and illustrations that are an integral part of their writing, and at times simply rely on their shared
intra-/inter-ethnic experiences. One activity in which these features converge is in their authorship of
teaching materials in the Indigenous languages which are reflective of Indigenous culture, history, and
artistic expression. These materials serve as documentation of the teachers’ own learning while also later
serving as a teaching resource for their own classrooms. (Rio Branco, Brazil, 23 January 1997)6
3.3 Sixth certainty: Communicative modalities encompass more than

written and spoken language
The multimodal, multilingual, mutual comprehension among the Amazonian Indigenous

teachers is particularly striking given the great diversity of languages in the group and
the salience of multimodal drawing and geometric design in their writing practices. Each
written assignment bears the complex and colorful geometric designs and maps that are,
as Monte (1996, 2003) and Menezes de Souza (2005) demonstrate, not merely illustrations
to accompany the alphabetic text, but integral complements to it; and these multimodal
expressions contribute to the Indigenous teachers’ mutual understanding across language
differences as well as to the development of their writing in those languages and in Portuguese.
A similarly multilingual and multimodal ecology of languages characterizes classroom
practices at the PROEIB Andes Maestrı́a, in ways that strengthen each individual participant’s
linguistic repertoire while simultaneously fostering peer interaction and cooperative learning,
or interaprendizaje (L. E. López interview, 26 June 2005), as shown below.
4. What do we know about the development – and transfer – of language and

literacy in multilingual education?
I begin this section on the development of biliteracy with a vignette from a workshop
on ethnographic methods with the 42 students in the Maestrı́a’s fourth cohort. The Maestrı́a
faculty practice and promote an ethnographic, social constructivist, and interpretive research
orientation, which goes against the grain of more positivist academic traditions at San Simón
and other universities in Latin America (and the world). Knowing my own research experience
in the Andes and my continuing commitment to ethnographic research, the faculty had asked
me to conduct workshops on ethnographic research, first with the faculty themselves, and
subsequently with the students. In this session, I asked the students to collaboratively analyze
a two-page excerpt from an interview in Quechua and Spanish.
The Maestrı́a students formed four groups of 7–8 each, making sure there were one to two Quechua
speakers in each group. The task was to describe, analyze, and interpret a segment of the interview,
following guidelines I had presented earlier. I used a transcript from my recent interview with Justo
Ramos in Kinsachata, 22 years after my initial study of bilingual education there when he was a
6 Reprinted, with modification, from Hornberger (1998: 440).

5th-grader. There turned out to be a wide range of approaches in the four groups. One group in
particular seemed very efficient and focused, moving systematically through the steps of segmenting the
transcript, choosing a segment to analyze, applying some of the tools of discourse analysis and then
Hymes’ (1974: 53–62) SPEAKING heuristic. In my observation, they were helped by the fact that one of
them had taken very clear notes on my lecture in Spanish and referred to them throughout, and another
was able to read and interpret the Quechua fluently and quickly.
In contrast, two of the groups seemed to get bogged down in the task of literally reading and translating
the transcript before they could get to work on the assigned task. This made me partly regret that I had
given them a transcript with so much Quechua, but the combination of Quechua and Spanish provided
rich material for analysis in terms of code-switching and use of linguistic resources. To their credit, both
these groups persisted, asking me lots of questions, and I think actually learned a lot even though they
didn’t get ‘as far’ as the first group.
The last group also made good progress and had some excellent interpretive insights. They asked, for
example, whether Justo himself had been in the bilingual education program, since he makes reference to
his own writing in Quechua. In fact he had not, but their question points to an interesting insight, in that
Justo’s younger siblings were in the bilingual program in his school while he was there in an upper grade,
and through them, he may have picked up some Quechua reading/writing and exposure to Quechua
texts. This information is not explicit in the transcript, but their analysis led them to infer that it might
have been the case, perhaps a reflection of their own experience transferring Spanish reading and writing
to Quechua reading and writing fairly readily. (Cochabamba, Bolivia, 11 September 2004)
This vignette, and the Brazilian one above, point to a seventh certainty about multilingual
education.
4.1 Seventh certainty: Classroom practices can foster transfer of language and literacy
development along receptive–productive, oral–written and L1–L2 dimensions,
and across modalities
The workshop interaction exemplifies some of the ways the Maestrı́a students’ classroom
practices regularly enabled them to draw from across their multiple languages and literacies
in accomplishing academic tasks collaboratively. Three PROEIB Maestrı́a participants have
written specifically about strategies of interdialectal communication in Quechua within
PROEIB (Luykx, Julca & Garcı́a 2005); and there is a rich repertoire of strategies for
multilingual communication as well.
Such hybrid multilingual classroom practices, recently eloquently theorized and docu-
mented as translanguaging practices (Baker 2003; Garcı́a 2007, 2008; Creese & Blackledge
2008), or bilingual supportive scaffolding practices (Saxena 2008), offer the possibility for
teachers and learners to access academic content through the linguistic resources they
bring to the classroom while simultaneously acquiring new ones. These biliteracy practices
incorporate aspects of what have also been referred to in earlier bilingualism literature as
passive bilingualism, receptive bilingualism, and dual lingualism (Lincoln 1975).
Theses of the Maestrı́a provide further evidence of the productive multilingual, multimodal
mix that nurtures these Indigenous educators in their pursuit of graduate studies. In addition
to various theses exploring Indigenous language use, identities, and ideologies in classroom
and community, or the production of written texts in Indigenous languages, a number of theses
explore other communicative modes in the Indigenous repertoire, including textile weaving
(Castillo Collado 2005) and the traditional Andean musical form, huayño (Tito Ancalle 2005);
and one student wrote her entire thesis in Quechua, in an explicit act of language planning
designed to explode the myth that it cannot be done and showed that it is indeed possible to
extend the use of Quechua to new domains, and to expand Quechua vocabulary in authentic
contexts, i.e. to intellectualize the language (cf. Garvin 1974: 72).
5. What do we know about content – and identities – in multilingual education?
This last section, on the content of biliteracy, begins with a last vignette, also from the PROEIB
Andes workshop on ethnographic research methods.
My final unit with the 42 students was on the Indigenous research agenda proposed by Māori researcher
Linda Tuhiwai Smith in her book Decolonizing methodologies (Smith 1999). She talks in terms of four ‘tides’
or conditions in which Indigenous peoples live – survival, recovery, development, and self-determination;
four directions or processes through which they move – healing, decolonization, mobilization, and
transformation; and 25 projects they undertake, such as reclaiming, renaming, remembering, revitalizing,
networking. I wasn’t sure how this would go over, but I guessed it might be very interesting for these
Indigenous educators learning to be researchers.
They were extremely attentive, taking notes as I presented this Indigenous agenda and although
there was not a lot of discussion, there were clear moments of resonance and response. For example:
(1) connecting – in the sense of connecting people to each other and to the earth – the students really
buzzed among themselves when I told them of Linda Smith’s example of reinstituting the traditional
Māori practice of burying the afterbirth after the child is born; in Māori the word for afterbirth and earth
is the same; (2) renaming – given the example of Indigenous people renaming places and people with
their original Indigenous names, the students came up quickly with their own examples, e.g. Aguarunas
reclaim their own name, Awajun; (3) envisioning – the students got very actively involved in helping me
find the right Spanish translation for this concept, which is more real than soñando ‘dreaming’ but less
concrete than proyectando ‘planning’ – we ended up with visionando though some were not sure that’s really
a word.
There was also humor along the way, such as with my (bad) translation of gendering as engendrando
‘engendering’, which René then joked meant peopling the earth with more Quechua, Aymaras, etc. At
the end, I asked ¿Qué les parece? ‘What do you think?’ and the students immediately replied Estamos con la
Linda! ‘We’re with Linda!’ – a resounding endorsement. (Cochabamba, Bolivia, 11 September 2004)
This vignette points to three final certainties.
5.1 Eighth certainty: Multilingual education activates voices for reclaiming the local
Indigenous educators participating in the workshop resonated with Linda Smith’s notion of
connecting – in the sense of connecting people to each other and to the earth. When in later
interviews I asked these educators what it meant to them to be Indigenous, the first and most
prominent responses were about living close to the land, speaking one’s native language, and
experiencing discrimination by others. These themes, about affirmation of one’s own ways of
doing, being, and speaking, that is, about activating one’s voice (cf. Hornberger 2006) – and
at the same time experiencing discrimination by others for those very practices and voices –
were foremost in the collective story of these individuals’ experiences of and reflections about
being Indigenous.
Local knowledges, local identities, local languages, local practices, local voices, local
literacies, local standards, local demands, local experiences, folk wisdom and native
representations are among the things local being reclaimed by Indigenous educators at
PROEIB (cf. Canagarajah 2005). Reclaiming the local is, moreover, fraught with challenges
for these Andean Indigenous educators, just as it is for the Cajun French poets and
singers (Ryon 2005), Kashinawá writers (Menezes de Souza 2005), New York Dominican
community (Utakis & Pita 2005), international TESOL professionals (Lin et al. 2005), Brunei
teachers and pupils (Martin 2005), and Chicana language and literature students (Mermann-
Jozwiak & Sullivan 2005) whose accounts we read in Canagarajah (2005), for whom local
contents are multiple and diverse, continuously evolving and negotiated, contested and
hybrid, riddled with internal contradictions, and enmeshed in global politics and transnational
movements of people and labor.
5.2 Ninth certainty: Multilingual education affords choices for reaffirming our own
Renaming places and people with their original Indigenous names was another of Linda
Smith’s projects that captured the imagination of the Indigenous Andean educators.
Renaming and reaffirming one’s own names, places, and ways, as a kind of coming back to
one’s identity by choice (cf. McCarty 2006), figured prominently in the educators’ reflections
on what it means to be Indigenous and to carry out research in one’s own Indigenous
communities.
Nery, a Peruvian Quechua from Callalli and Cuzco, talks about the importance of
revitalizing languages in Indigenous communities, language being for her one of the most
visible elements of Indigenous identity, a cultural resource to be devolved and protected just
as much as or even more than lands or material and cultural artefacts; and she contemplates
the role of research in opening Indigenous eyes to look at and reaffirm one’s own language
and its expressive resources (N. Mamani interview, 26 June 2005).
5.3 Tenth certainty: Multilingual education opens spaces for revitalizing the Indigenous
Envisioning and building an Indigenous future was another theme that resonated with the
Andean educators, closely linked to reclaiming their locally rooted practices, renaming their
world, and revitalizing their Indigenous identities. And they emphasized again and again
that it was in the texts and encounters around PROEIB’s multilingual education that these
themes emerged and became meaningful for them.
Maestrı́a students give great credit to their experiences at PROEIB for the strengthening of
their Indigenous identities. Summing up his sense of what it means to him to be Indigenous,
Moisés, a Peruvian Aymara from Puno and Lima, touches on all three certainties above –
reclaiming, reaffirming, and revitalizing:
Para mi, [ser indı́gena] significa identificarse con mi pueblo étnico, con el pasado, la historia, cosmovisión,
lengua; en el presente, hacer labores que reivindican sus derechos, comprometerse; y en el futuro, proyec-
tarse a que nuestro pueblo étnico tenga un futuro con igualdad de oportunidades con otros pueblos del
paı́s.
[For me, being Indigenous means identifying with my ethnic people, our past, our history, our worldview,
our language; in the present, working to reclaim our rights, being actively committed; and in the future,
projecting that our ethnic people might have a future with equality of opportunities with other peoples of
our country.] (M. Suxo interview, 10 February 2005; my translation)7
Moisés’ commitment is to take and use his present graduate studies to improve the lives of
his people, drawing on their collective past to project toward the future. Through both lived
experience and intellectual study, he and his peer Indigenous educators are fully aware of
the enormous structural obstacles and historical oppressions they face and they consciously
choose the path of transformational resistance – often at great personal cost, in the sense
Brayboy (2005) highlights in relation to American Indian students in the U.S. They opt to,
as another PROEIB student says, aprovechar el espacio que el Estado nos da ‘exploit the space the
nation-state gives us’ – through multilingual education – to work toward the future equality
and dignity of their people and thereby of all people.
In this, the Indigenous educators’ experience is both profoundly different from and
profoundly the same as that of other multilingual educators. Varghese (2000, 2004) has
written about the highly politicized nature of bilingual education in the United States and
the contestation around language policy and professional roles that goes on even among
bilingual teachers and teacher educators. She argues, on the basis of her ethnographic
study of a bilingual professional development institute in Philadelphia, that because of the
marginalized nature of their profession and the multiple roles they are expected to play as
teachers of both language and content, and as advocates for their students and families as well
as for bilingual education, bilingual teachers’ professional development settings might usefully
become productive sites for dialogue around these contested bilingual teacher professional
roles, making explicit that bilingual teachers are agents – and often advocates – who make
situated choices in a contested terrain.
It is that advocacy for the oppressed – and Indigenous peoples are arguably the most deeply
oppressed of all peoples – that makes multilingual education so politically controversial and
at the same time why it offers so much hope for a better and more just future for all peoples.
I presented an earlier version of this talk as a plenary at the 7th Congress mentioned above,
on a day that happened to be the anniversary of Gandhi’s birth, 2 October. In honor of his
birthday, and his life and work devoted to building a more just society, I quoted words Gandhi
often repeated in the non-violent fight for a free and independent India: ‘Until we stand in
the fields with the millions that toil each day under the hot sun, we will not represent India
– nor will we ever be able to challenge the British as one nation’. Multilingual education is,
for me, all about standing in the oppressed places of the world, under the hot sun with the
millions that toil each day, in the non-violent fight for a liberating education. And it is not
so much that I have strength to give them, but rather the reverse – that I am continually
renewed by the unfathomable energy, vision and forgiveness of those who toil.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Nina Spada for inviting and encouraging me to give this plenary at AAAL
2008, and to Luis Enrique López for having invited me to give its predecessor mirror
7 Reprinted from Hornberger & Johnson (2007: 256).

version, in Spanish, at the 7th Latin American Congress on Bilingual Intercultural Education
in Cochabamba, Bolivia. Thanks to all who listened and commented on those occasions
and subsequently at Indiana University’s School of Education, University of Washington’s
Simpson Center for the Humanities, and the University of Limpopo in South Africa. My
sincere thanks also to Graeme Porte and four anonymous reviewers for their comments and
suggestions.
References
Given space limitations, titles are given in the original language(s) only. Readers interested in their
English translations should contact the author at nancyh@gse.upenn.edu.
Albó, X. (1995). Educar para una Bolivia plurilingüe. Cuarto Intermedio 35, 3–69.
Albó, X. (1997). Causas sociales de la desaparición y del mantenimiento de la lengua: Desafı́os de la
Bolivia plurilingüe. Pueblos Indı́genas y Educación 39/40, 73–102.
Baker, C. (2003). Biliteracy and transliteracy in Wales: Language planning and the Welsh national
curriculum. In Hornberger (ed.), 71–90.
El bilingüismo será herramienta clave para la educación. La Razón, 25 June 2006.
Brayboy, B. M. J. (2005). Transformational resistance and social justice: American Indians in Ivy
League universities. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 36.3, 193–211.
Canagarajah, A. S. (ed.) (2005). Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Castillo Collado, M. (2005). Aprendiendo con el corazón: El tejido andino en la educación quechua. La Paz:
PINSEIB/PROEIB Andes/Plural Editores.
Châtry-Komarek, M. M. (1987). Libros de lectura para niños de lengua vernácula: A partir de una
experiencia interdisciplinaria en el altiplano peruano. Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Technische
Zusammenarbeit.
Châtry-Komarek, M. M. (1996). Tailor-made textbooks: A practical guide for the authors of textbooks for primary
schools in developing countries. Oxford: CODE Europe.
Châtry-Komarek, M. (2003). Literacy at stake: Teaching reading and writing in African schools. Windhoek,
Namibia: Gamsberg Macmillan Publishers.
Creese, A. & A. Blackledge (2008). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning
and teaching? Ms., University of Birmingham.
Fishman, J. A. (1980). Bilingual education, language planning and English. English World-Wide 1.1,
11–24.
Fishman, J. A. (1982). Sociolinguistic foundations of bilingual education. The Bilingual Review/La revista
bilingüe 9.1, 1–35.
Garcı́a, O. (2007). Foreword. In S. Makoni & A. Pennycook. (eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, xi–xv.
Garcı́a, O. (2008). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Hoboken, NJ & Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Garvin, P. L. (1974). Some comments on language planning. In J. A. Fishman (ed.), Advances in language
planning. The Hague: Mouton, 69–78.
Hohepa, M. K. (2006). Biliterate practices in the home: Supporting Indigenous language regeneration.
Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 5.4, 293–301.
Hohepa, P. (2000). Towards 2030 A. D.: Māori language regeneration – Examining Māori language
health. Presented at Applied Linguistics Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.
Hornberger, N. H. (1987). Bilingual education success, but policy failure. Language in Society 16.2,
205–226.
Hornberger, N. H. (1988). Bilingual education and language maintenance: A Southern Peruvian Quechua case.
Berlin: Mouton.
Hornberger, N. H. (1989). Continua of biliteracy. Review of Educational Research 59.3, 271–296.
Hornberger, N. H. (1990). Creating successful learning contexts for bilingual literacy. Teachers College
Record 92.2, 212–229.
Hornberger, N. H. (1998). Language policy, language education, language rights: Indigenous,

immigrant, and international perspectives. Language in Society 27.4, 439–458.
Hornberger, N. H. (2000). Bilingual education policy and practice in the Andes: Ideological paradox
and intercultural possibility. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 31.2, 173–201.
Hornberger, N. H. (2002). Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecological
approach. Language Policy 1.1, 27–51.
Hornberger, N. H. (ed.) (2003). Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research and
practice in multilingual settings. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hornberger, N. H. (2006). Voice and biliteracy in indigenous language revitalization: Contentious
educational practices in Quechua, Guarani, and Māori contexts. Journal of Language, Identity, and
Education 5.4, 277–292.
Hornberger, N. H. (ed.) (2008). Can schools save Indigenous languages? Policy and practice on four continents.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hornberger, N. H. & F. M. Hult (2008). Ecological language education policy. In B. Spolsky & F. M.
Hult. (eds.), Handbook of educational linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 280–296.
Hornberger, N. H. & D. C. Johnson (2007). Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in
multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly 41.3, 509–532.
Hornberger, N. H. & L. E. López (1998). Policy, possibility and paradox: Indigenous multilingualism
and education in Peru and Bolivia. In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee. (eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism
and multilingual education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 206–242.
Hornberger, N. H. & E. Skilton-Sylvester (2000). Revisiting the continua of biliteracy: International
and critical perspectives. Language and Education: An International Journal 14.2, 96–122.
Hult, F. M. (2007). Multilingual language policy and English language teaching in Sweden. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Hymes, D. H. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia, PA: University
of Pennsylvania Press.
Johnson, D. C. (2007). Language policy within and without the school district of Philadelphia. Ph.D.
Lewis, E. G. (1976). Bilingualism and bilingual education: The ancient world to the renaissance. In
J. A. Fishman. (ed.), Bilingual education: An international sociological perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House, 150–200.
Lin, A., W. Wang, N. Akamatsu & M. Riazi (2005). International TESOL professionals and Teaching
English for Glocalized Communication (TEGCOM). In Canagarajah (ed.), 197–222.
Lincoln, P. C. (1975). Acknowledging dual-lingualism. Working Papers in Linguistics (University of Hawaii)
7.4, 39–46.
López, L. E. (2005). De resquicios a boquerones: La educación intercultural bilingüe en Bolivia. La Paz: PROEIB
Andes y Plural Editores.
López, L. E. (2008). Top–down and bottom–up: Counterpoised visions of bilingual intercultural
education in Latin America. In Hornberger (ed.), 42–65.
López, L. E. & W. Küper (2004). La educación intercultural bilingüe en América Latina: Balance y perspectivas.
La Paz & Cochabamba: Cooperación Técnica Alemana (GTZ)–PINSEIB–PROEIBAndes.
Luykx, A., F. Julca & F. Garcı́a (2005). Estrategias de comunicación interdialectal en quechua.
Proceedings of the Conference on Indigenous Languages of Latin America-II . Austin, TX: University of Texas.
http://www.ailla.utexas.org/site/cilla2_toc.html.
Martin, P. (2005). Talking knowledge into being in an upriver primary school in Brunei. In Canagarajah
(ed.), 225–246.
May, S. (1999). Language and education rights for Indigenous peoples. In S. May. (ed.), Indigenous
community-based education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 42–66.
May, S. (2002). Accommodating multiculturalism and biculturalism in Aotearoa/New Zealand:
Implications for language education. Ms., Waikato University.
May, S. & R. Hill (2008). Maori-medium education: Current issues and challenges. In Hornberger
(ed.), 66–98.
McCarty, T. L. (2006). Voice and choice in indigenous language revitalization. Journal of Language,
Identity, and Education 5.4, 308–315.
Menezes de Souza, L. M. T. (2005). The ecology of writing among the Kashinawá: Indigenous
multimodality in Brazil. In Canagarajah (ed.), 73–95.
Mermann-Jozwiak, E. & N. Sullivan (2005). Local knowledge and global citizenship: Languages and
literatures of the United States–Mexico borderlands. In Canagarajah (ed.), 269–286.
Monte, N. L. (1996). Escolas da floresta: Entre o passado oral e o presente letrado. Rio de Janeiro: Multiletra.
Monte, N. L. (2003). Novos frutos das escolas da floresta: Registros de práticas de formação. Rio de Janeiro: N. L.
Monte.
Nucinkis, N. (2006). La EIB en Bolivia. In L. E. López & C. Rojas. (eds.), La EIB en América Latina bajo
examen. La Paz: Plural/PROEIB Andes, 25–110.
Ryon, D. (2005). Language death studies and local knowledge: The case of Cajun French. In
Canagarajah (ed.), 55–72.
Saxena, M. (2008). Bilingual scaffolding: Linking New Literacy Studies approach and neo-Vygotskian
theory. Ms., Universiti Brunei Darussalam.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. London: Zed.
Swinehart, K. (2007). Whose proposal? Bolivian intercultural bilingual education (IBE) before and
beyond neoliberalism. Ms., University of Pennsylvania.
Tito Ancalle, F. (2005). Sunchu: El huayno en la formación de la identidad en los migrantes quechua–
hablantes de Huaycán, Lima – Perú. Master’s thesis, Universidad de San Simón, Cochabamba.
Utakis, S. & M. D. Pita (2005). An educational policy for negotiating transnationalism: The Dominican
community in New York City. In Canagarajah (ed.), 147–164.
Varghese, M. (2000). Bilingual teachers-in-the-making: Advocates, classroom teachers, and transients.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Varghese, M. (2004). Professional development for bilingual teachers in the United States: A site for
articulating and contesting professional roles. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
7.2 & 3, 222–237.
NANCY H. HORNBERGER is Professor of Education at the University of Pennsylvania, USA. She has
published widely on multilingualism and education, with special attention to Indigenous and immigrant
languages, grounded in her long-term, in-depth experience in Andean South America and urban
Philadelphia, PA, and comparative work in Paraguay, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Africa,
among others. Her recent publications include Can schools save Indigenous languages? Policy and practice
on four continents (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), and the ten-volume Encyclopedia of language and education
(Springer, 2008).
Lang. Teach. (2009), 42:2, 213–222
doi:10.1017/S0261444808005508 First published online 12 January 2009
Discourses of identity
Theo Van Leeuwen University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

Theo.vanLeeuwen@uts.edu.au
This lecture discusses the concept of lifestyle, which emerged in the field of marketing in the
1970s, as a new, and increasingly pervasive, discourse of identity cutting through older
‘demographic’ discourses. Distributed by mediated experts and role models, and realized
through the semiotics of ‘composites of connotation’, it redraws the opposition between the
social and the individual, by expressing individuality in terms of socially mediated resources
and reconfiguring social categories as individual lifestyle choices.
1. Introduction: the re-emergence of style
When I first studied linguistics in the early 1970s, ‘style’ was still a keyword. In British
linguistics, Crystal & Davy’s Investigating English Style (1969) was a seminal discovery. Unlike
the then dominant Chomskyan linguistics, it used real language and whole texts rather than
made up sentences, and it did not see English as a homogeneous whole but as a collection of
‘varieties’ of which any individual speaker would only command a limited number.
In their view, style expressed social meanings of two kinds – meanings related to identity,
and meanings related to specific roles, occupational roles, for instance, and specific contexts,
e.g. specific types of discourse such as news reading, sports commentary and prayer. Social
style, as they saw it, expresses ‘who we are’, in terms of stable categories such as class, gender,
age and provenance, and in terms of specific socially regulated activities and the roles we play
in them. The former were seen as more or less ingrained habits which are for the most part
out of conscious control by the language user. The latter were seen as competencies, social
rules of ‘appropriateness’ that must be complied with.
In both cases the distinctive features that manifest specific styles were not seen as
meaningful, but as identifying ‘markers’, linguistic labels – as a kind of linguistic ‘uniform’,
one could say, that reveals the social role of the wearer at a glance. At the same time,
the authors recognized individual style, the ‘relatively permanent features of the speech or
writing habits that identify someone as a specific person’ – style, in other words, as a kind of
linguistic fingerprint or identifying mark that is in itself meaningless, but does distinguish a
person from all others. Such ‘individuality’ was then to be distinguished from ‘singularity’, a
form of stylistic individuality that is deliberately developed and manipulated – for instance,
Revised version of a plenary paper presented on 29 November 2007 at the Discourses and Cultural Practices Conference
in Sydney.
the style of a literary author. But, although individual style was recognized in this way,
social determination and social variation were seen as the main area of study for linguistic
stylistics.
At the time they wrote, this social conception of style still had to be defended against the
conception of style which was dominant in literary studies, and which foregrounded, not the
social, but the individual, and conceived of style, not as a meaningless identifying mark, but
as expressive of personality and attitudes, whether as the result of deliberate decisions or not.
‘Style’, said Pierre Guiraud,
is a study of the stylistic value of means of expression. There are expressive values which give away
the feelings, desires, characteristics and social origin of the speaking subject, and there are impressive
values which are deliberately produced and get across the impression the speaking subject seeks to create.
Guiraud (1972: 57)
In short, the concept of style that came across to me in this time created a strong opposition
between the social and in the individual. There was on the one hand social style, a matter
of inescapable social classification in terms of categories such as class and gender, and of the
strictly regulated obligations of social institutions and practices. And there was on the other
hand individual style, which somehow managed to live in the interstices of social regulation,
like grass growing between neatly laid, rectangular flagstones, and which could only exist
because social regulation cannot cover every detail of our behaviour and therefore leaves
room for the expression of individuality, even if only in small details, because there was,
alongside the public world, the private world, which provided some room for unbuttoning
and expressing individuality, and there was, in a world otherwise governed by bony-structured
rules, some degree of license for breaking social conventions, especially for women, children
and artists.
Whether, in this context, a theory foregrounds and validates the social over the individual,
or the individual over the social, this construction of style always constructs the two as opposed
and separate – the individual VERSUS the social, the public VERSUS the private and so on.
2. Lifestyle
After the 1960s, the word ‘style’ was heard less and less. The intellectual mood of the day
favoured the social, and the backgrounding of the individual which could already be felt in
Investigating English Style evolved into a silencing of the individual, perhaps forefelt in Roland
Barthes’ concept of ‘degree zero style’ as writing from which all traces of individual personality
have been erased, ‘colourless writing, freed from all bondage’ which will set the author free
from the ‘prison of style’ (Barthes 1967: 82) and also in his later emphasis on the ‘death of the
author’ (Barthes 1977), which was just one of the manifestations of the emphasis on social
determination that prevailed in the intellectual climate of the time. At the same time, and
well outside of the radar of Althusserianism, a new concept of style was developed in the field
of marketing, the concept of ‘lifestyle’, which created a new synthesis out of the elements I
have so far described, and a new co-articulation of the social and the individual. What it
THEO VAN LEEUWEN: DISCOURSES OF IDENTITY 215
retained from the concept of social style was that every style is always the style of a social
group. But the characteristics of these groups were now no longer conceived of in terms of
traditional, stable social positionings such as class, gender and age, or of occupations, but
in terms of a combination of, on the one hand, things which formerly would have been the
province of individuality, such as ‘attitudes’ and ‘personality traits’ and ‘feelings’, and, on
the other hand, things that are more in the public domain such as income, and especially
consumer behaviour. Such lifestyles, however, much as they were concerned with intangibles
such as attitudes and personality traits, nevertheless had to be signified by appearances, for
instance styles of dress, interior decoration etc, and also of speech. As the sociologist David
Chaney put it:
Strongly held beliefs and commitment to family values are likely to be symbolized by particular types of
aesthetic choice. . .particular ways of dressing, talking and leisure. Chaney (1996: 96)
Such forms of expression are social because they not only allow people to express
interpretations of the world, and shared affiliations with certain values and attitudes, but also
to recognize others, across the globe, as sharing these interpretations and affiliations. They
are also social because they emerged as corporations looked for new ways of creating market
demand, with marketing experts replacing ‘demographics’ with ‘psychographics’, clusters
of ‘behaviours’, ‘attitudes’ and ‘consumption patterns’. But it is also individual because it
introduces choice where there used to be destiny and does away with the need to dress and
talk and act your age, gender, class, occupation and even nationality. While these styles may in
fact be shared by many, they are subjectively experienced as individual and personal choices
from the wide range of semiotic resources made available by the market. And they are no
longer meaningless labels of identity. They express meaning, as I will shortly discuss in more
detail.
Here, for instance, are a few of the ‘classes’ of American newspaper readers, showing
the typical mixture of social categories and what used to be regarded as individual,
psychological rather than sociological categories (from Michman 1991: 1–3): ‘Young, bored
and blue/Tomorrow’s leaders/Achievers/Mr Middle/Senior solid conservatives’. In short,
lifestyle entails on the one hand a loss of uniformity and a gain of space for individual style;
on the other hand, it draws on deliberately designed and globally distributed ‘off the shelf’
models and does away with individual style as it used to be, with individual style as something
that escapes the social.
In linguistics and discourse analysis, and that includes my own practice, ‘style’ has re-
emerged much more recently, for instance in Norman Fairclough’s analysis of the language
of New Labour, in which he relates the concept to politics and says:
Styles are to do with political identities and values; discourses with political representations and genres
with how language figures as a means of Government . . . Any speech by Tony Blair, for instance, can be
looked at in terms of how it contributes to the governing process (how it achieves consent), for instance,
how it represents the social world and the political and governmental process itself, and how it projects
a particular identity, tied to particular values – that is, in terms of genre, discourse and style. (Fairclough
2000: 14)
Unlike the individuality described by Crystal & Davy (1969), lifestyle individuality does
not derive from the unconscious. In the way that writers, actors and artists had already
done earlier, people now created their identities quite deliberately or ‘reflexively’ and could
therefore also change them, so that identity became less stable and permanent. Semiotically
speaking, traditional social styles were based on systematically organized semiotic systems,
or codes. In my book Introducing Social Semiotics I quoted (Van Leeuwen 2005: 39–40.) the
Prague School semiotician Peter Bogatyrev, who described the dress code of traditional
Moravian Slovakia (Bogatyrev 1971 [1937]), a code in which dress signified ‘demographic’
characteristics. It could tell you where the wearer came from, for instance. There were 28
costume districts in Moravian Slovakia. You could recognize a man from Pozlovice because
he would wear two velvet bands round his hat and two carmine ribbons with a green one in
between, a man from Biskupice because his hat had only one velvet band and a red ribbon,
and so on. And dress could also tell you the wearer’s occupation, social class, marital status
and religion. Such dress codes were organized as systematic, binary taxonomies and signified
stable social identities, social destinies. Individuality would be expressed through the ‘parole’
of the system, through the way in which the clothes were worn, the angle of the hat on the
head, the amount of buttons done up, and so on, in the way that subtle differences in the way
school uniforms are worn can express individuality. Dress codes of this kind have not totally
disappeared. We can still recognize age differences, such as in dress codes for children and
adults, and gender differences, but on the whole they are retreating and remain only in the
realm of uniforms and ceremonial dress.
Social identity systems have developed in a similar way. In Global Media Discourse David
Machin and I looked at diversity questionnaires, and showed not only that they use the kind
of stable and unescapable identities that make or break social destinies, but also that they
are structured like binary, taxonomical codes (Machin & Van Leeuwen 2007: 44–50.). The
questionnaire in Figure 1, for instance, opposes ‘specific’ to ‘unspecific’ identities (‘others’),
‘mixed’ races to ‘pure’ races, ‘white’ to ’ black’, and so on. Again, it introduces two kinds of
‘whites’, those with and those without a named nationality, and, lower down the tree, two
kinds of named nationalities, ‘British’ and ‘Irish’ and so on. All this can be expressed in terms
of a rigid, binary taxonomy.
Lifestyles, on the other hand, are expressed differently and much less systematically, and
rest on one of two principles, the principle of the ‘composite of connotations’ and/or that of
experiential metaphor. Connotation, as was already explained by Barthes (1977) some forty
years ago, is not systematically organized. It can be characterized as an unordered lexicon
of culturally meaningful signifiers which derive their meaning from provenance, from ‘where
the signifier comes from’. The principle is this. A sign from a certain domain – a certain
period, or other context, such as region, country, culture, occupation, etc. – is imported into
a domain where it has hitherto not been part of the repertoire. In that new domain it carries
the associations – the values and attitudes – which, in that new domain, people have with
the domain from which it comes, so expressing a kind of affiliation with those values, in the
‘lifestyle’ mode. To use, again, the example of dress, in recent times many signifiers from the
military domain have entered the domain of street fashion. People walk around wearing drill
trousers with a camouflage motif, for instance. This can then resonate with values such as
Black or black British
Black African
Black Caribbean
Any other black background
Chinese or other ethnic group
Chinese
Any other ethnic group
White
British
Irish
Other white
Asian or Asian British
Indian
Bangladeshi
Pakistani
Any other Asian background
Mixed race
White & Black Caribbean
White & black African
White & Asian
Any other mixed raced
Figure 1 Diversity questionnaire for job applicants at Cardiff University.
adventurousness, the resourcefulness of the commando, etc., drawing on discourses that are
now ubiquitous in popular culture.
The same can happen also with language. One of the many contributions of Norman
Fairclough to critical discourse analysis has been the way he pointed out, already in the
early 1990s, how elements of corporate language were introduced into areas where they
previously did not belong to the repertoire, such as universities, and how this expressed
an affiliation with the values and attitudes of the corporate world. Which shows that very
similar semiotic mechanisms now work in both the private and the public spheres, thus
contributing to the overall tendency of undoing the split between the private and the public
that had been gradually developing and institutionalizing over the last 200 years (Fairclough
1993).
The point of the idea of the ‘composite of connotation’ is that different connotations can
be combined into complex messages. A well-cut expensive shirt (connotations: elegance, a
touch of formality) can be combined with the drill trousers, and, perhaps, also with sports
shoes, which were also imported from another domain, that of sports, into street fashion, and
can perhaps connote healthy living, exercise and sport.
In Global Media Discourse, David Machin and I have analyzed the linguistic style of the
Cosmopolitan magazine in the same way – as an amalgam of
• the language of advertising, connoting its association with consumer goods and more
generally, the values that advertising stands for: glamour, success, hedonism, sensuality,
sexuality, etc.;
• the language of the expert, connoting reliable and trustworthy information on issues such
as health, beauty, career and, of course, sex;
• the language of the street, connoting youth, being up to date on the latest trends, a touch
of provocativeness;
• conversational style, connoting the way you talk with your friends.
(Machin & Van Leeuwen 2007: 138–149)
This style is reflexively and deliberately adopted, to the point that, for instance, the editor of
the Indian version of Cosmopolitan conducted focus groups with young people to get the latest
trendy expressions.
Experiential metaphors draw on the material qualities of the signifier to, again, express
values and attitudes. In an article on colour, Kress & Van Leeuwen (2002) explained that
the characteristics of colour have a certain potential for metaphoric meaning. For instance, a
colour can be plain or ‘modulated’, showing a variety of different shades of the same colour.
That physical quality of the colour, plain-ness, can then become a source of metaphoric
meaning. It can mean simple, pure, uncluttered and so on. And its opposite, modulated
colour, can mean ‘subtle, complex, nuanced, fussy’, and so on. Specific instances of colour
are characterized by a range of such features. Not only are they plain or modulated, they are
also light or dark, saturated or unsaturated, luminous or dull, and so on, and all these features
are graded, capable of many degrees, and not either–ors. So many different complexes of
metaphoric meaning can be built up.
In our article we gave examples from home decoration magazines. In one magazine article
the owners of a particular home were interviewed and talked about the colours they used in
decorating their home. Our article explains that
[they] use nearly the whole spectrum in their house, from mustard yellow and leaf green in the sitting
room, to brick red and blue in the dining room. Their bedroom is a soft buttery yellow combined with
orange, there’s lemon and lime in the breakfast room and cornflower and Wedgwood blues on the stairs.
‘It’s great that there are so many bright shades in the house’, says Hamish, ‘It’s a shame people aren’t
more adventurous. It’s when you start being timid that things go wrong.’ (Kress & Van Leeuwen 2002:
359)
Clearly there is no connotation here. There is no ‘other domain’ being drawn upon here to
yield meaning. It is the physical characteristics of being ‘bright’ and ‘varied’ that are used to
express the meaning ‘adventurous’ – and their opposite ‘pale’ and ‘monotonous’, ‘unvaried’
would express ‘timidity’. And clearly the kinds of meanings expressed here are lifestyle identity
meanings, ‘personality traits’, ‘attitudes’.
3. Normative discourses
This leads to another point. It is increasingly important to look, not just at semiotic practices
themselves, in this case practices of signifying identities of different kinds, but also at the
normative discourses that surround them and make them possible. Semiotic codes of the
older kind have generally been learnt and internalized in one of two ways, through the autho-
rity of written texts and their authoritative interpreters, and through tradition. In the case of
tradition, or ‘customary law’, nothing is written down, nothing explicitly and systematically
codified, at least not in a form that is accessible to the people who must live by the codes.
People do things in certain ways ‘because that’s how they have always been done’, or at
least, that is what people think, because traditions do in fact change, but generally without
people consciously noticing. And the rules of traditions are learnt by social exposure and
reinforcement, as every member of the group has the know-how necessary to pass on the
tradition.
By and large, I would almost say, traditionally, linguistics has construed language in this
way, as passed on between the generations without any form of authoritative regulation
occurring, and as changing ‘from below’, through the activity of ‘the people’ with linguists
merely recording what is the practice of ‘the native speaker’. But of course the linguistic
rules of national languages have been, and still are, in fact strongly policed by authorities,
educational institutions, academies, publishing houses and so on. From the 18th century
on, they have been codified in the form of written grammars and dictionaries, and these in
turn have been taught by certified interpreters in well-regulated and generally authoritative
institutions.
The norms and rules of the new lifestyles, on the other hand, are regulated in very different
ways, through the ‘rule of the role model’, as I call it. ‘Lifestyle media’ play a particularly
important role here. I have already mentioned Cosmopolitan, and ‘Home Beautiful’ type
magazines. In these media we are confronted with role models, whether they are celebrities
or ordinary people whose choices are presented as a ‘best practice’ model. And even though
this does not present itself as a form of social control, it does give us clues as to how to
dress, how to talk, how to think about things and so on – precisely those things that form the
components of ‘lifestyle’ identity.
Two further characteristics are fundamental here: choice and change. Lifestyle identity is
not a destiny, but a matter of choice, although this choice may of course be restricted by the
amount of money you have and the amount of access both to the semiotic resources and to
the discourses that regulate them. And secondly, the rules change often. A given colour, or
length of skirt, or linguistic expression can be ‘in’ one year and ‘out’ the next, so that we
must constantly monitor media, compare notes with friends and colleagues, and update the
consumer goods and semiotic practices that signify our identities.
4. Technology
However, there is also another form of control over our semiotic practices emerging, and
that is technological control. At the same time that linguists began to reintroduce style as the
expression of identity, software producers did the same thing. HTML, for instance, introduced
the style sheet, on which you program what will be the overall characteristics of the text you
are writing, especially through colour schemes and choice of typography, which offers its
own metaphor potentials as I have tried to explain elsewhere (Van Leeuwen 2006). Thus
the concept of style, and the way we create an identity for our text and for ourselves as
its producer, is as it were built into the very tool we use to create it. Something like this is
provided in PowerPoint, the tool I am using in this lecture. PowerPoint obliges me to select,
not just my words, and the structure of my presentation, but also its overall style. And through
that overall style I necessarily must express my identity as a speaker, and/or the identity of
the practice I am engaged in, in other words the attitudes and values that underpin it.
The Chief Financial Officer of the University in which I work used a calm blue sea as
background for the slides of his budget speech, which were otherwise full of figures, and he
interspersed his figures with quotes from business gurus as well. In this way he sought to
present himself as a visionary rather than, say, just a meticulous and precise accountant.
With a tool like PowerPoint, there is no escape. One way or another identity must be
expressed. A friend told me that he really dislikes PowerPoint templates and generally uses a
plain white background. But he received so many apparently innocent or joking comments
(‘a bit bare’, ‘a bit boring’, ‘a bit stark’) that he finally succumbed and changed his practice,
upon which the comments stopped. He can now be ‘placed’. And of course I do this too. I
recently gave a talk in which I attempted to relate the scent of perfumes to the colours in the
ads for these perfumes. I used a template which featured a sensual, hot pink background and
a half-open curtain on the side, perhaps suggesting half hidden secrets, in the same way that
the ads alluded to sex without showing it.
5. Conclusion
A new concept of identity has come into being over the past thirty years or so. It merges
the individual and the social, making individuality a social and socially regulated affair,
rather than something which escapes the social, and making the social an apparently
individual affair, open to choice, rather than coercive. This kind of identity is expressed
through style, that is through semiotic characteristics which are constant for the duration of
a whole text or communicative event, or for the identity of a person or corporation during a
particular period. In that constellation, style is no longer the arbitrary marker of a particular
identity, but it has meaning. It expresses attitudes, values, personality traits and so on, all
of which therefore become more consciously and reflexively constructed. To construct such
identities, people need to constantly monitor semiotic resources and the discourses that model
them.
Needless to say, change does not happen all at once. The old identities from the diversity
questionnaire, tied as they are to older institutions, to the nation state and its institutions such
as education and health, still play a very important role. The new identities move away from
this. It does not matter much where you come from so long as you can pay for the consumer
goods. But at the same time, the new identities are not as free as some people make out.
Many contemporary writers about identity have critiqued essentialist and singular definitions
of identity. In their view identity is infinite. As one book on language and identity has it:
A heterogeneous set . . . endlessly created anew, according to various social constraints, social interactions,
encounters, and wishes that may be very subjective and unique. (Le Page & Tabouret-Keller 1985: 316)
Clearly, people who critique the tendency to essentialize ‘others’ and ‘other cultures’ and
ascribe static identities to them are right. But many go a step further and celebrate unique,
complex and flexible identities without at the very least realizing that this approach to identity
has grown into being in the context of the rise of corporate culture and its ‘lifestyle’ model. As
marketing experts and large corporations began to emphasize production over consumption,
so did theorists of identity and meaning. As they abandoned singular, stable demographic
identities in favour of complex, flexible and individual identities, so did theorists of identity.
As they championed the consumer’s power of choice, so did theorists of identity. I am not
saying either are wrong. The new identity has, in principle, positive potential. But this does
not change the fact that the lifestyle model is just as much produced and imposed by a
powerful social institution as the older model, even if it propagates a different kind of identity
and communicates it in very different ways. It follows that the study of style as a discursive
practice of identity deserves its re-emergence from the temporary obscurity in which it has
lived.
References
Barthes, R. (1967). Writing degree zero. London: Jonathan Cape.

Barthes, R. (1977). Image–music–text. London: Fontana.
Bogatyrev, P. (1971 [1937]). The function of folk costume in Moravian Slovakia. The Hague: Mouton.
Chaney, D. (1996). Lifestyles. London: Routledge.
Crystal, D. & D. Davy (1969). Investigating English style. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse and the marketization of public discourse: The universities.
Discourse and Society 4.2, 133–168.
Fairclough, N. (2000). New Labour, new language. London: Routledge.
Guiraud, P. (1972). La stylistique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Kress, G. & T. Van Leeuwen (2002). Colour as a semiotic mode: Notes for a grammar of colour. Visual
Communication 1.3, 343–369.
Le Page, R. & A. Tabouret-Keller (1985). Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches to language and identity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Machin, D. & T. Van Leeuwen (2007). Global media discourse: A critical introduction. London: Routledge.
Michman, R. D. (1991). Lifestyle market segmentation. New York: Praeger.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Towards a semiotics of typography. Information Design Journal 14.2, 139–155.
THEO VAN LEEUWEN is Professor of Media and Communication, and Dean of the Faculty of Humanities
and Social Sciences at the University of Technology, Sydney. He has published widely in the areas of
critical discourse analysis, multimodality and visual semiotics. His books include Reading images – The
grammar of visual design (with Gunther Kress), Speech, music, sound, Multimodal discourse: The modes and media
of contemporary communication (with Gunther Kress), Introducing social semiotics and Global media discourse (with
David Machin). His latest book, Discourse and practice was published in 2008 (Oxford University Press).
He is a founding editor of the journal Visual Communication.
Lang. Teach. (2009), 42:2, 223–234
doi:10.1017/S0261444808005636
Language learner autonomy and the European Language

Portfolio: Two L2 English examples
David Little Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

dlittle@tcd.ie
This article argues that the Council of Europe’s European Language Portfolio is capable of
supporting the implementation of language learner autonomy on a large scale. It begins by
explaining what the author understands by ‘language learner autonomy’, then introduces the
European Language Portfolio and explains how it can stimulate reflective learning in which
goal setting and self-assessment play a central role. It concludes by giving two practical
examples that involve the learning of L2 English in Ireland, in one case by adult immigrants
with refugee status and in the other by newcomer pupils in primary schools.
1. Introduction
‘Learner autonomy in language learning: Widening the circle’ – I assume that the title of this
event is intended to provoke and perhaps answer the question: How can we extend the practice
of learner autonomy in language classrooms without investing in impossibly expensive and
complex programmes of in-service teacher training? As my own title is intended to imply, I
believe the European Language Portfolio (ELP) offers an answer to this question. I’ve been
very much involved with the ELP at European level since the pilot phase at the end of the
1990s, and from an early stage it became evident that the ELP could have a transformative
impact on language learning. In the Czech Republic, for example, where large numbers of
teachers of Russian were suddenly required to become teachers of English, the ELP provided
them with the means to develop learner-centred and reflective teaching approaches (for some
examples, see Little & Perclová 2001).
I want to begin by summarizing my view of language learner autonomy. Back in
1990 I predicted that learner autonomy was set to become a buzz word and that – like
‘communicative’ – it would soon be emptied of any clearly agreed meaning (Little 1991: 2).
As a result, it is necessary repeatedly to explain what one understands by language learner
autonomy, and what the processes are that one imagines underpin its development and
practice. I shall then talk about the ELP in relation to the concept of learner autonomy,
Revised version of a plenary talk given on 12 May 2007 at a meeting of the IATEFL Learner Autonomy SIG held at the
University of Warwick.
which the Council of Europe first introduced into discussion of language teaching and
learning more than a quarter of a century ago. And after that I shall give two examples: one
involves adult immigrants learning L2 English in Ireland; the other, learners of L2 English
in Irish primary schools.
2. Language learner autonomy
In formal educational contexts autonomous language learners are able to take charge of
their own learning; that seems to have been universally agreed since Henri Holec’s report
Autonomy and foreign language learning (cited here as Holec 1981) was first published by the
Council of Europe in 1979. Autonomous learners also develop a capacity for ‘detachment,
critical reflection, decision making and independent action’ (Little 1991: 4); they can manage
the affective dimension of their learning experience to their motivational advantage (Ushioda
1996); and they become more autonomous in language learning in proportion as they become
more autonomous in language use, and vice versa (Little 1991).
I’ve always been worried about discussions of learner autonomy that run away with the
idea of freedom: I don’t believe that to be autonomous is to be 100% free. People who are
ENTIRELY free and detached from all responsibility are not autonomous, they are autistic (see,
e.g., Frith 1989). That always gets a laugh, but it’s not intended to: it’s a perfectly serious
point, because to the extent that we’re not living under some socio-pathological handicap,
we are social beings, our independence is always balanced by dependence, and our essential
condition is one of interdependence. That helps to explain why it is that, like the acquisition
of a language, the development of learner autonomy depends on social interaction. And
that’s where the socio-historical, socio-cultural theory that derives from the work of Vygotsky
fits into the picture (e.g., Lantolf 2000, Lantolf & Thorne 2006). This line of argument leads
me to say that autonomous learners always do things for themselves, but they may or may
not do things on their own.
Pedagogies that succeed in developing learner autonomy as I’ve defined it do so, I believe,
because they answer a basic human need. According to Edward Deci (1995), human beings
have three fundamental social-psychological needs: to be autonomous, that is, to set their
own agenda and follow it through; to feel competent in what they do; and to be assured
of their relatedness to other people. The power of this apparently inborn imperative to be
autonomous is something that every parent has experienced. The point is well made by
Phillida Salmon in the following description of the realities of family life:
To parents, even babies seem to have a will of their own; they are hardly passive creatures to be easily
moulded by the actions of others. From their earliest years, boys and girls make their active presence,
their wilful agency, their demands and protests, very vividly felt. In every household that has children,
negotiations must be made with young family members: their personal agendas have somehow to be
accommodated. (Salmon 1998: 24)
In those parts of our lives that are untouched by education, most of us achieve autonomy
without conscious awareness or effort. By contrast, the development of autonomy in formal
learning is generally a matter of deliberate effort and conscious reflection precisely because
DAVID LITTLE: LEARNER AUTONOMY AND ELP 225
formal learning itself can happen only on the basis of explicit plans and intentions, which is
one of the reasons why the teacher plays an essential role. I have argued elsewhere (e.g., Little
2001, 2007) that the teacher’s role is shaped by three pedagogical principles. First, there’s the
principle of learner involvement – we have to involve learners fully in planning, monitoring
and evaluating their own learning. Then there’s the principle of learner reflection –
we must help learners to reflect continuously on the process and content of their learning
and to engage in regular self-assessment. And thirdly, there’s the principle of target language
use – we must ensure that the target language is the medium as well as the goal of learning,
including its reflective component. These three principles describe at a very general level the
things teachers have to do to create and sustain an autonomous language learning community.
Together they create a framework within which the individual teacher must select (or develop)
and implement an approach appropriate to the age, proficiency level, focus and goals of her
learners.
According to these principles, in autonomy classrooms the target language is the preferred
medium of communication, which means that the teacher has to scaffold negotiation with
and between learners, insisting that they participate actively in the process. If she just talks
to them in the target language, she won’t get anything back, especially if they’re beginners.
The teacher also involves her learners in a non-stop quest for good learning activities, which
means that she must help them to develop criteria for critical evaluation: Is this really a good
learning activity? Why? Can you say what you think you learned from it? And so on. Within
whatever larger agenda is imposed by the official curriculum, autonomous learners set their
own goals and choose their own learning activities, which means that the teacher must help
them to be focused in their aims and realistic in their choices. In an autonomous classroom,
individual learning goals are pursued partly via collaborative group work (where dialogue
mediates between the need to be autonomous and the need for relatedness), so the teacher
must show her learners how to support one another in collaborative discourse. All learners
keep an individual written record (journal or logbook) of their learning, which facilitates a
focus on form, encourages memorization, and supports what can be a very powerful two-way
interaction between speaking and writing (using interactive speech to generate written text;
using written text as a prompt for speaking). Finally, all aspects of learning are regularly
evaluated in the target language by the whole class, by groups of learners, and by individual
learners in their logbook, which means that to begin with it must be done in very simple
terms. That, very rapidly sketched, is the framework within which I operate (see also Dam
1995).
When it comes to implementing language learner autonomy on a larger scale, we run
into three challenges. The first is teacher doubt: ‘It may be alright for learners of English
in Denmark, but you can’t do it with learners of French in Dublin.’ That kind of response
is often a cover for the second challenge, which is lack of teacher know-how. And the third
challenge is the supposed tyranny of the curriculum and/or the textbook and/or the exam:
‘I know I ought to get these kids to talk to one another in German, because that’s the only
way they’re going to become at all proficient, but I’ve got to get through the textbook and
prepare them for the exam.’ It’s my purpose in this talk to suggest that the ELP, which gives
a very specific shape to the learning journal or logbook, can help us to respond successfully
to these challenges.
3. Language learner autonomy and the ELP
So let me first say something about the relation between the ELP and learner autonomy as
I have been talking about it. To do that it’s necessary to begin with the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), which was developed to provide ‘a common
basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, text-
books, etc. across Europe’ (Council of Europe 2001: 1; see also Little 2006). It was intended,
in other words, to stimulate debate, comparison, and collaboration. For those not familiar
with it, it comprises a complex apparatus for describing L2 proficiency at six levels (A1 and
A2 – basic user; B1 and B2 – independent user; C1 and C2 – proficient user) in relation to
five communicative activities: listening, reading, spoken interaction, spoken production and
writing. Following the Council of Europe’s tradition of three decades, the CEFR embodies
an action-oriented approach to language use that may be summarized as follows.
• We use language to perform communicative acts, which may be external and social
(communicating with other people) or internal and private (communicating with ourselves).
• Communicative acts comprise language activity, which is divided into four kinds: reception,
production, interaction and mediation.
• In order to engage in language activity, we draw on our communicative language
competence.
• Language activity always occurs in a context that imposes conditions and constraints.
• Because we must cope with often unpredictable contextual features, our communicative
language competence has sociolinguistic and pragmatic components.
• Language activity entails the performance of tasks, and to the extent that they are not
routine or automatic, those tasks require us to use strategies in order to understand and/or
produce spoken or written texts.
A more complex version of this summary is to be found in the text box at the beginning of
chapter 2 of the CEFR (Council of Europe 2001: 9).
An important point to add here is that the CEFR’s action-oriented approach assigns
a central role to language use in language learning: ‘Language use, embracing language
learning, comprises the actions performed by persons who as individuals and as social agents
develop a range of competences’ (ibid.). Thus the ‘I can’ descriptors of the self-assessment
grid (ibid.: 26–27) and the ‘can do’ descriptors of the CEFR’s illustrative scales characterize
the autonomous L2 user – autonomous precisely because they say what he or she can do –
but also, by extension, the autonomous language learner.
The European Language Portfolio was conceived as a companion piece to the CEFR. It
reflects the Council of Europe’s concern with (among other things) the development of the
language learner and his or her capacity for what the CEFR calls independent language
learning. According to the principles and guidelines that define the ELP (Council of Europe
2006), it’s the property of the learner and a tool to promote learner autonomy. It encourages –
indeed, it doesn’t work without – frequent goal-setting, monitoring and self-assessment; so
it is connected in various ways with the concept of learner autonomy that I’ve sketched for
you.
The ELP has three obligatory components: a language passport, a language biography,
and a dossier. It uses the proficiency levels of the CEFR in two ways: in summary form
(usually the self-assessment grid; Council of Europe 2001: 26–27) in the language passport,
which the owner updates at regular intervals, for example at the end of a semester or a
school term, to provide a summary of his or her experience of learning and using second
languages; and in the form of ‘I can’ checklists (usually found in the language biography
and arranged according to language activity and proficiency level), which the owner uses to
identify learning targets, monitor learning progress, and assess learning outcomes.
In principle the ELP can support the autonomy classroom in three ways. First, when
the checklists reflect the demands of the official curriculum they provide learners and their
teachers with an inventory of learning tasks that they can use to plan, monitor and evaluate
learning over a school year or a term or a month or (sometimes) just a week. Secondly,
the language biography is explicitly designed to associate goal setting and self-assessment
with reflection on learning styles, learning and communication strategies, and the cultural
dimension of L2 learning and use. And thirdly, when the ELP is presented partly in the
learner’s target language, it can help to promote the use of the target language as medium
of learning and reflection. One of the ELPs that we’ve developed in Ireland is for secondary-
school learners of foreign languages (Authentik 2001), and it arose from a project designed
to explore ways of fulfilling the requirement of the official curriculum, all too often ignored,
to develop learner autonomy. In other words, we designed this ELP as a dissemination tool
for our project. One of the teachers who participated in the pilot implementation reported
that she had found it all but impossible to get her 15-year-old learners to use French in
the classroom until she presented them with ‘I can’ checklists in French. They immediately
recognized that these were a resource for talking about their learning goals and achievements
in the target language, and speaking to one another in French no longer seemed impossible.
(For a report on the CLCS Learner Autonomy Project, see Little, Ridley & Ushioda 2002;
for an account of the preliminary piloting of this ELP, see Ushioda & Ridley 2002.)
3.1 Adult immigrants learning L2 English in Ireland
The Irish government provides free English language courses for adult immigrants to whom
it grants refugee status or humanitarian leave to remain in the country. Responsibility for
designing and delivering these programmes lies with Integrate Ireland Language and Training
(IILT), a not-for-profit campus company of Trinity College Dublin.1 In 2006, 925 learners
attended courses in Dublin and thirteen other centres around Ireland. Most learners attend
classes for between six and twelve months before either finding employment or moving on to
further education or training.
Students at IILT’s students must learn as much English as they can in the shortest possible
time so that they can get on with their lives as members of an English-speaking society. In
1 This was the situation at the time this talk was given. In June 2008 the Department of Education and Science informed
the directors of IILT that it had decided to mainstream IILT’s activities and divert funding to other agencies. IILT ceased
operations in August 2008.
other words, courses have to respond in a very immediate way to students’ objective and
subjective needs: the needs imposed on them by building a new life in Ireland, but also
the needs that come from their personal agenda. Courses therefore emphasize language
learning through language use and they also seek to develop language learner-users who will
be capable of creating their own learning opportunities after the end of their course.
Students come from many different ethnic and linguistic backgrounds (in 2006 we had more
than 60 nationalities), and between them they have a wide range of educational experience
and achievement, so classes are never homogeneous. Most students, nevertheless, begin
with the same expectation: that they’re going to sit more or less passively in the classroom
while their teacher teaches them. So what about our pedagogical approach? We expect our
teachers to create an autonomous classroom along the lines that I’ve described. There’s no
pre-existing curriculum; instead teachers are required to negotiate each term’s programme
with their students. In most audiences to whom I describe our practice there’s at least one
person who asks, ‘How can you do that with complete beginners?’ The answer is that the
teacher negotiates with complete beginners by exploiting whatever communicative resources
are available in the class and using pictures to refer to the different social and bureaucratic
domains that students have to cope with. As the term progresses, teachers help students at all
levels to develop individual learning agendas within evolving class agendas, and learning is
supported by a highly flexible classroom dynamic – some things are done by the whole class
working together, some by groups of learners, and some by individuals working on their own.
As this perhaps already implies, we don’t use textbooks, for two reasons. First, most
textbooks available in Ireland assume that the learner wants to cope with British society,
but there’s no point in having our students learn how to ask for directions on the London
Underground when what they really need to know is how to cope with taking a sick child to
the doctor. Secondly, textbooks all too easily serve to constrain classroom discourse, whereas
we want to draw our students into rich, unpredictable and open interaction that reflects the
nature and scope of the communicative challenges they encounter outside the classroom.
Thus, we make a lot of use of authentic materials – information leaflets, application forms,
and so on; and we encourage students to work together to devise learning materials and
activities that suit their own learning agendas.
At a very early stage, partly to make up for the absence of textbooks, we devised our
own versions of the ELP to provide teachers and students with a common framework for
teaching and learning; and in due course we developed the Milestone ELP in collaboration
with colleagues teaching the language of the host community to immigrants in Germany,
The Netherlands, Sweden and Finland. The Milestone ELP begins not with the language
passport but with the language biography, which is divided into two parts. The first part
focuses on previous language learning and intercultural experiences, important events in
the learner’s life, and his or her starting proficiency in the host community language. It has
turned out to be important in terms of raising students’ self-esteem, but also productive in
terms of teaching and learning, to do as much as we can to draw individual experiences into
the common knowledge resource of the class. Milestone colleagues contributed interesting
ideas that certainly hadn’t occurred to us. The Dutch group, for example, introduced the
language biography page on which the learner summarizes his or her past life as a timeline.
In their original proposal the timeline went from 0 to 40 – more than enough if most of your
learners are under 25, but it wasn’t much use to us because at the time our oldest student
was a 77-year-old refugee from Afghanistan; so it was agreed to extend the timeline from 0
to 100. The second part of the language biography focuses on current language learning –
attitudes, expectations, learning contract, learning style, personal learning goals, the ‘I can’
checklists and self-assessment. This isn’t something that people sit down with and fill out like
an income tax return; rather, it is drawn into the interaction of the classroom from day to
day and week to week. In many ELPs the dossier is simply an open form which can be filled
with samples of work, work in progress, or a learning journal. The dossier in the Milestone
version can be used in the same way, of course, but we also gave it some structured content;
for example, there is a page on which learners kept their own attendance record. The last
element in the Milestone ELP is the language passport, which is the so-called standard adult
passport that the Council of Europe recommends for use with all ELP models designed for
older adolescents and adults.
In introducing the Milestone ELP we wanted to develop an institutional ELP culture. All
IILT’s teachers and students must use the Milestone ELP; it’s not a matter of choice. At the
same time, teachers are entirely free to introduce and exploit the ELP in whatever way best
suits their teaching style and the level of their learners. A teacher working with a new class
of learners whose level is already A2 or B1, for example, may start by using the language
passport to conduct a rapid audit of the languages and cultural identities present in her class
and the self-assessment grid to focus on the communicative skills her learners have already
mastered. She may then turn to the checklists in the language biography to identify more
precise learning targets for the term, using checklist descriptors to build a programme for
the whole class and to negotiate learning agendas with individual students. From time to
time pages in the language biography will be used as a focus for more general reflective
exchanges, for instance on cultural dimensions of the English language as it is used in Ireland
or on students’ different learning preferences and learning styles. As the term progresses, the
dossier will be used to record the learning that happens day by day and to store work in
progress. Once a week students will return to the checklists and review group and individual
progress from the perspective of agreed learning outcomes. This activity is undertaken in
small groups, and learners are expected to be able to demonstrate their mastery of new
material or skills. In this way self-assessment is embedded in peer-assessment, which in turn is
embedded in the interactive reflection that frames each lesson. Occasionally we have classes
of learners whose level of English is zero and who have absolutely no literacy skills in any
language; they come very slowly into the ELP dossier via a series of simple worksheets. But
sooner or later each page of the Milestone ELP is used in all our classes as a focus for learning,
and our teachers have developed an enormous wealth of worksheets and learning activities
that lead into or out of the ELP.
What are the advantages of all this for learners? Any form of portfolio learning encourages
reflection and supports the development and exercise of learner autonomy, but the ELP offers
more than this because it relates learning process and learning outcomes to the empirically
derived proficiency scales of the CEFR. The descriptors in the checklists help learners to
see themselves as autonomous users of English whose continuously expanding capacity can
be measured against an internationally accepted metric. In IILT’s courses, moreover, ELP-
based learning merges with the portfolio-based approach to assessment adopted by FETAC
(Further Education and Training Awards Council), the accreditation body for adult education
in Ireland. Some of the projects our learners work on coincide with FETAC modules, which
means that at the end of their course they have their ELP but also certificates that carry credit
within the Irish adult education system and are exactly the same as those awarded to native
speaker adult learners. In other words, externally moderated portfolio assessment becomes
an instrument of integration.
What are the advantages for teachers? For one thing, the ELP makes it easier to manage
learners’ transition from one class to another. We never close, except for a few days at
Christmas and New Year, because if you’re a refugee learning the language of the host
community it doesn’t make sense to take time off. We divide the year into four terms of
12–13 weeks, and (as I explained earlier) learners are typically with us for between six and
twelve months; so most of them move upwards, from one teacher to another, at least once.
When they get to their second term and they are negotiating the term’s programme with
a new teacher, they can use their ELP as a basis for working out what they need and want
to learn. Also, we quickly found that the ELP helps teachers to share experience, discuss
problems, and develop approaches; and newly recruited teachers find that the ELP helps
them to understand and engage with our autonomy ethos. For example, one new teacher
had to use the ELP on her first day with a new class; half of the students were new to IILT
and the other half had used the ELP in their previous class. So she said to those who hadn’t
seen it before, ‘Now, in this class we’re going to use something called the European Language
Portfolio and these students have been using it, and they’re going to tell you how to do it.’ In
that way she too found out a lot about the ELP. In general we can claim that the Milestone
ELP has come to embody the principles of learner involvement, learner reflection and target
language use.
3.2 L2 English in Irish primary schools
My second example has to do with the teaching of L2 English in Irish primary schools. Since
the 1990s large numbers of immigrants have come to Ireland, among them of course IILT’s
adult students. Whatever the status of their parents, all children and adolescents resident in the
state are required to attend school. There are currently about 12,000 pupils in primary schools
whose first language is neither English nor Irish. The Department of Education and Science
funds L2 English support on a withdrawal basis – pupils are taken out of the mainstream
class, usually for one lesson a day – for two years per pupil. By the end of the school year
2006–07, there were expected to be 1,450 special L2 English teaching posts in the primary
sector, so it’s an area of major government investment. In the year 2000, IILT was given
responsibility for designing the curriculum, developing learning and teaching supports and
assessment instruments, and mediating these to teachers via in-service seminars.
When we set out to design the primary L2 English curriculum, we were clear that it must
reflect the purpose of L2 English support, which is to give pupils access to the mainstream
curriculum. We also wanted it to capture learning progression in a way that would correspond
to teachers’ experience. We knew that teachers would not use it unless it was relatively
brief and clearly presented, and we also knew that it needed to support a communicative
pedagogy and the development of communicative learning materials. Finally, it must foster
the development of learner autonomy because newcomer pupils spend 85% of their time
in the mainstream class, so from the beginning they must be encouraged to continue their
language learning in the absence of their L2 English teacher rather than sitting surrounded
by noise they don’t understand. The CEFR offered itself as a very obvious model and source
for constructing a curriculum that would meet those criteria, and we came up with what we
call English Language Proficiency Benchmarks (IILT 2003). They are a reworking of the first
three levels of the CEFR (A1, A2, B1) to make them age-appropriate and domain-specific.
Part I of the Benchmarks comprises two grids (set out exactly like the self-assessment grid
in the CEFR): global benchmarks of communicative proficiency – what the learner can do
at the three levels in listening, reading, spoken interaction, spoken production and writing;
and global scales of underlying linguistic competence – vocabulary, grammar, phonology and
orthography. Then in part II we have thirteen grids, so-called units of work, which restate
the behavioural capacities captured in the global benchmarks, but in terms of recurrent
curriculum themes: Myself: Our school; Food and clothes; Colours, shapes and opposites;
People who help us; Weather; Transport and travel; Seasons, holidays and festivals; The local
and wider community; Time; People and places in other areas; Animals and plants; Caring
for my locality. For a fuller account of the Benchmarks, see Little & Lazenby Simpson (2004).
Having designed the curriculum, we decided to develop a version of the ELP as a key
learning support (IILT 2004). The language passport focuses on the pupil’s linguistic identity:
what languages she knows, when she uses them, and with whom. As in the case of the
Milestone ELP, these pages are not filled out all at once but are returned to at regular
intervals, so that pupils gradually develop a sense of their identity in relation to the English
language and the Irish educational system. An interesting object lesson for Irish parents is the
rapidity with which newcomer pupils record that they can speak Irish. As in all ELP models,
the language passport provides for regular summative self-assessment (necessarily teacher-
supported, of course) against descriptors derived from the English Language Proficiency
Benchmarks. The language biography focuses on the pupil’s daily exposure to language in
the environment and on learning how to learn. Again these pages are not filled in once and
for all, but revisited whenever it seems to the teacher appropriate to do so. The language
biography also provides detailed goal-setting and self-assessment checklists for the thirteen
units of work – altogether 211 ‘I can’ statements that define the curriculum in behavioural
terms calculated to empower the learner. Self-assessment is not a matter of learners simply
ticking off the tasks they claim they can perform. It is an interactive process guided by the
teacher, supported by peer assessment, and validated by the evidence that learners provide
in support of their claims. It plays a crucial role in developing learners’ metacognitive and
metalinguistic awareness. Finally, the dossier has a table of contents page, open pages related
to the units of work, and additional worksheets (e.g. on clock time, days of the week, etc.). As
always it’s also a place to keep finished work.
Since primary English language support is a matter of withdrawing pupils from their
mainstream classroom, usually for one lesson a day, language support groups are mostly
specific to a particular class or year level. Within this framework, one teacher with whom
we have worked closely uses the benchmarks to plan her teaching for the school year. They
enable her to identify themes, select learning activities and materials, and identify learning
outcomes for pupils of different ages and at different stages of L2 English development. Her
choice of thematic focus at any particular time depends on the programme that is being
followed in her pupils’ mainstream classes. At different points in the school year, she also
uses seasonal themes – Halloween, Christmas, the arrival of spring – as the basis for projects
to which all her language support pupils contribute. Every two or three weeks she spends
a few minutes with each language support group reviewing the work they have done – the
themes they have addressed, the learning activities they have performed, and the learning
outcomes they have achieved. She selects one or two descriptors from the ELP checklists that
reflect these outcomes and invites her pupils to consider how well they can perform the tasks
involved. Take, for example, a descriptor from the A2 checklist for the theme Myself: ‘I can
answer lots of questions about myself’. A pupil demonstrates that she can do this by giving
as many examples as possible of relevant questions and answers. The teacher then draws
her pupils’ attention to descriptors in other A2 checklists that have to do with asking and
answering questions – perhaps ‘I can ask and answer questions about drinks and foods’ (Food
and clothes), ‘I can ask questions about colours, shapes, size and opposites’ (Colours, shapes
and opposites), or ‘I can ask questions about the jobs that people do to help us’ (People who
help us). Sometimes pupils find that they can perform the relevant tasks even though the
tasks have not been a specific learning target; sometimes identifying the need to expand their
repertoire into another thematic area marks the beginning of a new phase of learning.
Using the ELP in this context brings two advantages. First, it embodies in a very concrete
way the dynamic nature of the L2 English curriculum, making it visible to L2 English teachers,
learners, class teachers, principals, school inspectors and parents. Secondly, it makes clear
to the same stakeholders an approach to L2 teaching and learning that emphasizes learner
involvement, learner reflection, and communicative use of the target language. In other
words, it places at centre stage a version of the CEFR’s action-oriented approach to language
use and language learning that captures the evolving features of autonomous learner-users
of L2 English.
4. Conclusion
The experience that I’ve briefly described in this talk confirms beyond any reasonable doubt
that the ELP can foster the development of language learner autonomy as I understand it, by
supporting learners in goal setting, self-assessment and other forms of reflection on language
learning and language use, and by supporting teachers who are new to the concept of learner
autonomy and its implementation in the classroom. The same experience confirms that the
ELP can help to make visible the process and content of L2 learning that is shaped by the
principles of learner involvement, learner reflection and target language use.
It is necessary, however, to enter two caveats. First, the ELP will help us to ‘widen the circle’
only if we embed it in the right way and give it the right kind of support. As I have explained,
the ELP is an obligatory support in all IILT’s courses for adult learners of L2 English. If it
had not been obligatory, I very much doubt whether teachers would have grappled in such
a productive way with the challenges that the ELP poses. Compulsion, however, is clearly
difficult to impose in public educational environments. The ELP for primary L2 English
learners in Ireland is very widely used – since we revised it in 2004, we’ve given away, and
latterly sold, more than 15,000 copies. It has achieved this level of use not because teachers
are intent on the development of learner autonomy or attracted by the idea of using a tool
devised by the Council of Europe, but because it mediates the curriculum to learners in
an accessible way, is the foundation for a very substantial array of learning and teaching
resources, and supports forms of peer- and self-assessment that are fully harmonious with the
official tests – which IILT also designed (Little 2005).
The second caveat is this. The development of learner autonomy is not the only thing
the Council of Europe hopes to achieve via the ELP. It’s also designed to record all of an
individual’s language learning, including learning that takes place outside formal education;
to promote the concept of plurilingualism and its adoption as a general educational goal;
to support the development of intercultural awareness; and to encourage lifelong language
learning. Sometimes in Strasbourg my colleagues show signs of impatience when I talk yet
again about the ELP in its pedagogical function, in relation to what happens between teachers
and learners, sooner or later mentioning learner autonomy. The point, however, is that unless
you can make the ELP work as a pedagogical tool that promotes the development of learner
autonomy on a large scale, it is unlikely to achieve these other goals.
References
Authentik (2001). European Language Portfolio/Punann na dTeangacha Eorpacha (Model for post-primary
language learners; Council of Europe accreditation number 10.2001). Dublin: Authentik.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching,
Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Available at http://www.coe.int/lang, section
‘Common European Framework of Reference for Languages’.]
Council of Europe (2006). A user’s guide to the European Language Portfolio reference documents. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe. [Available at http://www.coe.int/portfolio, section ‘Procedure for validation’.]
Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin: Authentik.
Deci, E. L. (with R. Flaste) (1995). Why we do what we do. New York: Penguin.
Frith, U. (1989). Autism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon. [First published 1979,
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.]
IILT (2003). English Language Proficiency Benchmarks for Non-English-speaking Pupils at Primary Level. Dublin:
Integrate Ireland Language and Training.
IILT (2004). European Language Portfolio (Model for primary learners of English as a second language;
Council of Europe accreditation number 11.2001 (rev.)). Dublin: Integrate Ireland Language and
Training.
Lantolf, J. P. (ed.) (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P. & S. L. Thorne (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues, problems. Dublin: Authentik.
Little, D. (2001). We’re all in it together: Exploring the interdependence of teacher and learner
autonomy. In L. Karlsson, F. Kjisik & J. Nordlund. (eds.), All together now. Helsinki: University of
Helsinki, Language Centre, 45–56.
Little, D. (2005). The Common European Framework and the European Language Portfolio: Involving
learners and their judgements in the assessment process. Language Testing 22.3, 321–336.
Little, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited. Innovation
in Language Learning and Teaching 1.1, 14–29.
Little, D. & R. Perclová (2001). European Language Portfolio: Guide for teachers and teacher trainers. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe. [Available at http://www.coe.int/portfolio, section ‘Documentation’.]
Little, D. (2006). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Content, purpose,
origin, reception and impact. Language Teaching 39.3, 167–190.
Little, D. & B. Lazenby Simpson (2004). Case study 1: Using the CEF to develop an ESL curriculum
for newcomer pupils in Irish primary schools. In K. Morrow (ed.), Insights from the Common European
Framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 91–108.
Little, D., J. Ridley & E. Ushioda (2002). Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom
(Report on an Irish research-and-development project 1998–2001). Dublin: Authentik.
Salmon, P. (1998). Life at school: Education and psychology. London: Constable.
Ushioda, E. (1996). Learner autonomy 5: The role of motivation. Dublin: Authentik.
Ushioda, E. & J. Ridley (2002). Working with the European Language Portfolio in Irish post-primary
schools: Report on an evaluation project (CLCS Occasional Paper 61). Dublin: Trinity College,
Centre for Language and Communication Studies. [Available at http://www.tcd.ie/slscs/clcs,
section ‘Featured research, European Language Portfolio’.]
DAVID LITTLE retired recently as Head of the School of Linguistic, Speech and Communication Sciences
and Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at Trinity College Dublin. His principal research interest
is the theory and practice of learner autonomy in L2 education. From 2001 to 2008 he was Director of
Integrate Ireland Language and Training, a government-funded unit that provided English language
courses for adult newcomers with refugee status and supported the learning of L2 English in Irish
schools. He is currently chair of the Council of Europe’s European Language Portfolio Validation
Committee. His numerous publications on learner autonomy include Learner autonomy 1: Definitions,
issues and problems (Authentik, 1991).
Lang. Teach. (2009), 42:2, 235–256
doi:10.1017/S0261444808005648
Surveys of Ph.D./Ed.D. Theses
Review of doctoral research in second-language teaching and

learning in the United States (2006–2007)
Suhanthie Motha University of Washington, Seattle, USA

smotha@u.washington.edu
This review highlights recent doctoral research in the United States completed between the
spring of 2006 and the fall of 2007 in the areas of language teaching and language learning.
Topics of particular interest included language policy, second/foreign language pragmatics,
computer-mediated communication, non-native-speaking teachers, academic genre teaching
and usage, applied learner corpus analysis, new approaches to corrective feedback, on-line
corpora and reference tools, language ideologies, conversation analysis, task complexity,
affordances and opportunities in language learning, phonological acquisition, U.S. resident L2
adolescents (sometimes referred to as Generation 1.5 students), language socialization, input
processing and parsing, and reconceptualizations of private speech.
1. Introduction
This review highlights recent doctoral research in the United States in the areas of language
teaching and language learning. To undertake this review I searched the Digital Dissertations
database for doctoral dissertations completed between the spring of 2006 and the fall of
2007 related to language teaching, language learning, and other subject keywords that had
the potential to yield relevant work, such as language acquisition, second language (L2)
studies, foreign language (FL), multicultural education, and TESOL (Teaching of English to
Speakers of Other Languages). I contacted faculty and program coordinators at universities in
the United States and pursued contacts I had at various associations and journals. I examined
dissertation awards granted by professional associations and foundations. With a list of just
over 500 dissertations, I looked for ways of grouping them, paying particular attention to
categories that appeared to be areas of emerging research within language teaching and
learning. I specifically sought to include dissertations that seemed to represent future trends.
These studies not only build on current research, but also carry ideas with potential to
influence future research. The following represented either fresh themes in language teaching
or research that takes an established body of work in a new direction: language policy, L2/FL
pragmatics, computer-mediated communication, non-native-speaking teachers, academic
genre teaching and usage, applied learner corpus analysis, new approaches to corrective
feedback, on-line corpora and reference tools, language ideologies, conversation analysis,
task complexity, opportunities in language learning, phonological acquisition, U.S. resident
236 SURVEYS OF PH.D./ED.D. THESES
L2 adolescents (sometimes referred to as Generation 1.5 students), language socialization,

input processing and parsing, and reconceptualizations of private speech.
The most salient trend that I observed over the period of study is hybridity. Rather
than aligning themselves with static camps, many emerging scholars in language studies
are taking exploratory stances towards their research, looking at ways of lacing together
methods, bodies of literature, lines of research, and ideologies that might have historically been
considered uneasy, sometimes even discordant, bedfellows. Such are Ishihara’s (2006) use of
phenomenological methods to investigate pragmatics, Tremblay’s (2007) union of theoretical
linguistics and experimental psycholinguistics, Hult’s (2007) reliance on ethnography to
analyze language policy, and Muller’s (2006) blending of conversational analysis and
ethnography.1
Hybridity is also a trend methodologically. A combination that was particularly popular
is the union of discourse analysis and ethnography. While interest in quantitative work
remains strong and emerging researchers continue also to adopt qualitative methods,
a surge in experimentation with mixed-methods analyses was noticeable. In terms of
theoretical underpinnings, new scholars are embedding their studies in frameworks that
draw simultaneously from multiple theoretical positions. I observed an increase in research
embedded in sociocultural theory (e.g., in the work of Lee 2006; and Martin-Beltran 2006),
and an interest in how power circulates within language learning and teaching was evident
in the reliance of many new researchers on critical theories and pedagogies (e.g., Pinheiro
Rosa 2006; Sayer 2007).
Although a vigorous proliferation in identity work continues, I chose not to make it a
separate category because this more current work tended away from a specific focus on
identity and rather towards identity as it is situated within intricate matrices of complex
factors, such as heritage language learning or adolescent writing (e.g., Lei 2006; Ortmeier-
Hooper 2007)
In this article I describe one outstanding dissertation from each of 15 categories in depth
and sometimes refer to related dissertations from the same time period in order to provide the
reader with contextual information and to offer suggestions for further reading. This was the
maximum number that I could include without my attention to each becoming awkwardly
cursory and consequently unhelpful. I read, and wanted to share, many dissertations that I
do not summarize here, not because they are not inspirational and important to the field,
but simply because of space constraints. As I made decisions about which of these many
dissertations to review, my foremost goal was diversity. I sought to include dissertations from
a range of universities and work that addressed an array of language groups and related
geographic locations, which drew from a variety of research methodologies (for instance,
specific focused experimental methods, large ethnographic explorations, discourse analyses),
which was embedded in a diversity of philosophies (cognitive approaches, critical applied
linguistics, sociocultural theory), and which represented an assortment of institutional and
teaching contexts (K-12 public schools, community colleges, Intensive English programs
(IEPs), private language schools, heritage language schools).
1 For ease of reference, in this paper, detailed references to works cited are to be found immediately after the section in
which they are discussed.

SUHANTHIE MOTHA: THE UNITED STATES 237
The authors whose studies I reference are graduates of Arizona State University, George-
town University, New York University, The Pennsylvania State University, Purdue University,
Stanford University, the University of Hawaii, the University of Iowa, the University of
Maryland College Park, the University of Minnesota, the University of New Hampshire, the
University of New Mexico, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Texas at San
Antonio, the University of Washington, and the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
2. Synthesis of doctoral research
2.1. Language policy
Research on language policy that emerged during the period of study, much of it from the
University of Pennsylvania, was particularly noteworthy. Several scholars skillfully stitched
together connections between language policy and language use in specific local contexts.
Francis Hult (2007), from the University of Pennsylvania, situated his elegantly designed
doctoral work within an ecological framework, looking not simply at how languages are
taught and learned but rather more broadly at relationships among languages in social
contexts. Bringing together analytical tools from sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, and
policy studies, Hult used nexus analysis (Scollon & Scollon 2004) to look at relationships
among languages on three dimensions: (i) policy documents, (ii) social contexts (understood
through linguistic landscape analysis; Gorter 2006), and (iii) educational practice. He first
examined the ways in which national policy texts discursively frame English, multilingualism,
and language education, then connected these discourses to public language use in one urban
environment in Sweden, specifically storefront signs in the city of Malmö. Finally, he used
ethnographic and discourse-analytic methods to study ELT practitioners’ engagement with
both official and unofficial policy within the context of Malmö, examining the ways in which
policy texts and broader social discourses are appropriated in practice.
Hult found that while national language policy documents celebrated multilingualism in
theory, in practice concerns about teaching English without threatening Swedish tended to
dominate over the promotion of languages other than Swedish and English in education.
The national curricula for languages echo the same linguistic hierarchy present in the
policy documents. In analyzing storefront signs in Malmö, Hult concluded that Swedish
is the main language, with English playing an important role, particularly by representing
modernity and international connectedness. Other languages are welcome when they are
used primarily within minority communities and alongside Swedish. Hult observed that
individual ELT teachers are placed in the position of having to negotiate the terrain between
de jure language policy and de facto language reality. While the practitioners in this study took
the policy documents seriously and drew on them within their day-to-day practice, the de
jure language policy provided inadequate guidance for them as they discovered within their
diverse contexts a linguistic complexity that was not anticipated in the national curriculum
for English.
In a discussion of the implications of the study, Hult suggested the development of a new
national curriculum that takes into account the complexities of multilingual contexts in order
to begin ‘to change the discourse cycle from a strict linguistic hierarchy to a more ecological
orientation that fosters sustainable multilingualism’ (p. 307). He suggests a reconsideration of
the role of English in education, noting that its current status as the only language other than
Swedish that is required in education inevitably bestows upon English a degree of prestige
and consequently limits ‘implementational spaces’ (Hornberger 2002) available for other
languages. Hult suggests a need for discourse planning (LoBianco 2005) in order to make
explicit and reflect upon the ways in which language planning and its associated problems
are discursively constructed.
In addition to presenting important research, this dissertation offers a comprehensive
synopsis of the interdisciplinary roots of educational linguistics from the author who recently
co-edited, with Bernard Spolsky, the Handbook of educational linguistics (Spolsky & Hult 2008).
Readers who are interested in other exceptional work on language policy are referred
to dissertations by Serafin Coronel-Molina’s (2007) and David Cassells Johnson (2007).
Coronel-Molina’s dissertation was a case study of the first and principal language academy for
Quechua, located in Peru. His dissertation shed light on the role that language academies can
play in language maintenance, standardization, and revitalization and in promoting the status
of oppressed languages. Johnson (2007) used ethnography and discourse analysis to examine
the ways in which a group of teachers in the School District of Philadelphia interpreted
federal and state educational language policies, which were often not supportive of bilingual
education. His dissertation was important in demonstrating ways in which schoolteachers
who valued multilingualism were able to create local language policy and work within the
confines of their contexts to advance the cause of developmental bilingual education.
References
Coronel-Molina, S. (2007). Language policy and planning, and language ideologies in Peru: The case
of Cuzco’s High Academy of the Quechua Language (Qheswa Simi Hamut’ana Kuraq Suntur).
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Gorter, D. (2006). Introduction: The study of linguistic landscape as a new approach to multilingualism.
International Journal of Multilingualism 3.1, 1–6.
Hornberger, N. (2002). Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecological
approach. Language Policy 1.1, 27–51.
Hult, F. (2007). Multilingual language policy and English language teaching in Sweden. Ph.D.
Johnson, D. C. (2007). Language policy within and without the school district of Philadelphia. Ph.D.
LoBianco, J. (2005). Including discourse in language planning theory. In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson,
W. G. Eggington, W. Grabe & V. Ramanathan (eds.), Directions in applied linguistics. Clevedon: Multi-
lingual Matters, 255–263.
Scollon, R. & S. W. Scollon (2004). Nexus analysis: Discourse and the emerging Internet. London: Routledge.
Spolsky, B. & F. M. Hult (eds.) (in press). The handbook of educational linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
2.2 Language learning opportunities
With a recognition that successful language learning depends not only on the volition
of individual language learners but also on opportunities available to them, Melinda
Martin-Beltran (2006) examined the nature of interaction between language-minority and

language-majority students in a dual-immersion bilingual education environment. The
author argued that the nature (and not merely effects) of interaction within dual-immersion
environments needs to be better understood. Her rich and detailed study does not disappoint;
it extends our understanding of the ways in which language teaching and language learning
take place by vividly capturing and demonstrating for the reader patterns of interaction,
language use, affordances, and moments of language exchange. Martin-Beltran’s watchful
attention to metalinguistic talk in classroom contexts offers educators and researchers
valuable insight into the intricate and constructive nature of this type of talk. To carry out her
study of thirty 5th-grade students and their teacher over a school year, the author developed
a methodology inspired by ethnographic studies, discourse studies, and L2 acquisition
research from a sociocultural perspective. She captured students’ natural interactional
practices in the context of their schoolwork, equipping six focal students with portable tape
recorders and microphones. In her dissertation, she compares the language experiences of
three of her focal students in order to describe the social and linguistic landscape of the
school and to understand the obstacles to and opportunities for language exchange.
In order to focus on what students did with language and how they perceived language, she
looked at language-related episodes (Swain & Lapkin 1998), instances of students explicitly
discussing language use, for instance, offering alternatives, negotiating, questioning, and
collaboratively rephrasing. Her research sheds light on how young learners talk about and
think about language while engaged in academic tasks.
The implications drawn from this study were significant. The author found students
serving as languaculture informants in terms of both linguistic (syntax, semantics, phonology,
crosslinguistic comparisons) and social discourse (sociopragmatics) features made explicit
during student interactions. She also focused attention on the ways in which the nature
of activities, physical arrangements, and classroom participation created or constrained
affordances for language exchange. For instance, she identified some pedagogical practices
that supported language exchange – these included collaborative writing activities, co-
authorship, teachers redirecting students to rely on each other as resources, reading and
writing aloud (hence making reading and writing public and communicative acts), attention
to timing, and the creation of a social space for hybrid language practices. She similarly
found examples of missed opportunities, affordances for interaction that were not taken
up, and she examined why students chose not to invest in these opportunities. Particularly
noteworthy was her examination of the discursive construction of PROFICIENCY, which was
reified through accommodation practices, resistance to participation, and public declarations,
and worked to constrain further opportunities for interaction and, consequently, language
learning.
Martin-Beltran highlighted compellingly the complexity and importance of attending
to the co-construction of metalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge, which requires
learners to grapple with multiple layers of linguistic and social understanding (such as
formality, politeness, register, and social position). The study is provocative and contributes
to understanding about SLA by redirecting the focus from individual learning to collective
activity and helping us to understand how language learning affordances are shifted and
constructed throughout interactions with others.
References
Martin-Beltran, M. (2006). Opportunities for language exchange among language-minority and

language-majority students. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.
Swain, M. & S. Lapkin (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French
immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal 82.3, 320–337.
2.3 Non-native English-speaking teachers
At the forefront of a wave of doctoral research on English teachers who speak an L1 other than
English – a group that indeed represents the majority of teachers of English worldwide – is
the doctoral dissertation of Lucie Moussu (2006). An extensive and skillfully designed study of
attitudes and beliefs about non-native English-speaking teachers in Intensive English Progam
(IEP) contexts, Moussu’s (2006) study is one of the earliest Ph.D. dissertations to ask questions
about the assumed superiority of native English teachers throughout the multiple layers of
those who participate in IEPs: ESL students, teachers, and administrators. Moussu used a
quantitative design and surveyed 1040 ESL students, 96 teachers, and 21 administrators from
25 IEPs. Questionnaires were translated into students’ native languages.
She explored ESL students’ attitudes towards native English-speaking teachers (NEST)
and non-native English-speaking teachers (NNEST) looking at variables that influenced their
responses, such as gender, class subject, level, expected grade, and teacher’s native language.
Acknowledging that attitude is a dynamic construct that may be reported differently at
different times, she further examined the influence of time by comparing beginning- and end-
of-semester responses. The questionnaires for the 96 teachers (18 NNESTs and 78 NESTs)
examined their self-perceptions about proficiency and teaching skills. The IEP administrators
were asked their opinions about and experiences with NESTs and NNESTs.
Some of Moussu’s findings confirmed earlier literature, yet some unexpected findings
surfaced. While students held more positive opinions towards NESTs, they were more likely
to be favorable towards NNESTs if they had an NNEST teacher and furthermore were
likely to be favorable the longer their exposure to the NNEST teacher. For instance, students
taught by NESTs seemed to believe that only native teachers could be good teachers, but
students taught by NNESTs realized that NNESTs could be good teachers. After a semester
with an NNEST, students were more likely to agree that they understood their teacher’s
pronunciation, less likely to agree that ‘All ESL teachers should speak with a perfect American
accent’ (p. 203), and more likely to agree that they could learn English just as well from an
NNEST as from an NEST. Moussu notes that these findings have significant implications for
hiring practices at IEPs, commenting that ‘the less exposure to NNESTs students have, the
more prejudiced they could be towards NNESTs’ (Moussu 2006: 86).
Of the teachers surveyed, NNESTs were less confident in their teaching ability than
NESTs, particularly in Speaking, Culture, and Writing/Composition classes. While NNESTs
reported less confidence in their linguistic and teaching skills, they nonetheless believed that
having an NNEST teacher could be an asset.
Administrators surveyed identified NNESTs’ strengths, including pedagogical skills, high
standards and expectations, and service as good role models. The study identified three
major weaknesses that IEP administrators perceived in NNESTs: (i) ‘foreign accent’, (ii)
‘overdependence on didactic presentation of grammar’ or ‘focusing too much on grammar,’
and (iii) lack of self-confidence.
As Moussu discussed the implications of her study for teacher education, she noted a need
for World Englishes, sociolinguistics, and NNEST issues to be addressed and for collaboration
and two-way mentoring between students of different linguistic backgrounds to be supported.
She suggests that IEPs develop clear hiring criteria and a more intense focus on support
systems for all new teachers.
This large-scale quantitative study has provoked many questions that beg deeper
exploration, and the author offers well-developed suggestions for further research. One
example of in-depth qualitative work that complements Moussu’s study is Gloria Park’s (2006)
dissertation, which provides access to more contextualized and detailed understanding of the
professional complexities that surround non-native identity. In her narrative analysis, Park
offers rich portraits of five East Asian women in U.S. TESOL programs, engaging with
themes of marginalization and privilege and developing implications for teacher education.
References
Moussu, L. (2006). Native and nonnative English-speaking English as a second language teachers:
Student attitudes, teacher self-perceptions, and intensive English administrator beliefs and practices.
Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University.
Park, G. (2006). Unsilencing the silenced: The journeys of five East Asian women with implications
for United States TESOL teacher education programs. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland
College Park.
2.4 Second/foreign language pragmatics
Noriko Ishihara’s (2006) innovatively designed study and cleverly theorized dissertation
extend the boundaries of current understandings of pragmatics. In it, the author challenges
assumptions that have remained in some of the literature on cross-cultural and intercultural
pragmatics, including the belief that conforming to or emulating the pragmatic conventions
of the L2 is the preferred choice for all learners. The dissertation comprises three separate
studies, each working in concert with the other two to create a cohesive picture. In
‘Study I, Emulating and resisting pragmatic norms: Learner subjectivity and foreign
language pragmatic use’, seven advanced Japanese learners at a large university in the
Midwestern region of the United States, all of whom had exposure to Japanese culture,
were interviewed about their subjectivity and pragmatic choices that they made in earlier
elicitation tasks. Their pragmatic use was elicited through discourse tasks, including imagined
situations and role-plays. For the most part, they conformed to what they perceived
to be L2 pragmatic norms, but in some instances they intentionally diverged. Through
interviews and follow-up e-mails, Ishihara used stimulated-recall questioning techniques as
she sought to answer the question: how do learners explain their deliberate pragmatic choices
to accommodate to or resist perceived FL pragmatic norms? Participants’ explanations

included, for instance, a resistance to keigo (Japanese honorifics) and gendered language
because these delineated a social hierarchy that was contrary to their personal and cultural
values.
‘Study II, Centering second language (SL) speakers’ experience: A study of SL speakers’
resistance to pragmatic norms of the SL community’, was a phenomenological inquiry that
further investigated L2 speakers’ resistance to perceived L2 norms. Using six interviews with
pragmatically competent L2 English and Japanese speakers, Ishihara examined the ways in
which participants knowingly deviated from perceived L2 norms that conflicted with their
own standards as she unraveled the meanings that these acts of resistance carried for the
speakers. Participants sometimes described the rejection of a perceived pragmatic norm as
an expression of their values, culture, or cultural identity and indicated that their resistance
was an expression of their own subjectivities or an attempt to maintain distance from the L2
community.
With ‘Study III, A web-based curriculum for pragmatics instruction in Japanese as a foreign
language: An explicit awareness-raising approach’, Ishihara addresses the need for explicit
L2 pragmatics instruction with a web-based curriculum for intermediate/advanced learners
of Japanese. The self-access curriculum she describes, implemented in a third-year Japanese
course, uses sample dialogues (audio with transcripts) to provide explicit awareness-raising
tasks related to the five most researched speech acts: apologies, compliments/responses to
compliments, requests, refusals, and thanks. Learners’ reflective journaling indicated that
their awareness of L2 speech acts was enhanced to varying degrees.
Collectively, the three studies carry implications for language teaching, language learning,
and teacher education. Ishihara identifies a need for language educators to develop increased
sensitivity towards learners’ subjectivities and respect for learner agency, keeping in mind
that learners’ pragmatic investments may remain in cultures other than the L2. She suggests
that the aim of pragmatics instruction be that learners develop a good understanding of
norms, but that resistance or emulation of those norms remain the learner’s prerogative.
Pragmatic production should not be evaluated solely on the basis of native speaker norms.
She draws on the notions of ‘explanatory pragmatics’ (Richards & Schmidt 1983; Meier
2003) and ‘critical cultural literacy’ instruction (Kramsch 1993) as desirable ends, suggesting
that teachers should ensure that learners are fully aware of the meanings of the pragmatic
conventions mean and the consequences of ignoring them, but that learners are not coerced
into following them.
References
Ishihara, N. (2006). Subjectivity, second/foreign language pragmatic use, and instruction: Evidence of
accommodation and resistance. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Kramsch, C. (1993). The cultural context of language teaching. Presented at the 10th World Congress
of the International Association of Applied Linguistics, Amsterdam.
Meier, A. (2003). Posting the banns: A marriage of pragmatics and culture in foreign and second
language pedagogy and beyond. In A. Martı́nez, E. Usó & A. Fernández (eds.), Pragmatic competence
and foreign language teaching. Castellón: Servicio de publicaciones de la Universidad Jaume I,
185–210.
Richards, J. & R. Schmidt (1983). Language and communication. Harlow: Longman.
2.5 Applied learner corpus analysis
Jonathon Reinhardt’s (2006) dissertation connects the acquisition of pragmatic norms to

teaching authority. With more and more universities developing teaching preparation courses
for international teaching assistants (ITAs), increased attention is being paid to the language
features particular to genres such as lecturing and conducting office hours. For Reinhardt,
the office hours genre signifies ‘a microcosmic representation of one-on-one teacher–student
educational discourse’ (p. 6) because it asks teachers to use culturally shaped language that
exercises their authority and imposes their will, such as directing, giving advice, and making
suggestions. Reinhardt embarked on one of few studies within the newly emerging field of
applied learner corpus analysis, exploring the ways in which learners and expert speakers
used directives in the context of office hours.
Reinhardt’s study embedded within a social-functional framework a constellation of five
interrelated studies: (i) a grounded analysis of directive constructions, (ii) a comparison
of learner and expert use based on the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English
(MICASE; see Simpson et al. 2002), (iii) a genre analysis of features of office hours discourse,
(iv) an analysis of individual directive usage by three learners, and (v) an experimental study
of an instructional unit in which directives usage is taught.
Through his initial analysis of transcriptions of ITA classes, Reinhardt identified several
categories of lexical-level items that index directive force, including modals and periphrastic
modals, irrealis devices, imperative forms, and directive vocabulary including verbs, nouns,
adjectives, and adverbs. These transcriptions from ITA training classes form the basis of
ITACorp, a corpus of authentic ITA samples, developed and designed by Reinhardt to be to be
housed and publicly available at The Pennsylvania State University. The author’s comparison
of expert and learner usage indicated that ITA directive usage differed significantly between
experts and learners. Because ITA learners were reluctant to be perceived as authoritarian,
they used certain constructions less frequently than experts, especially constructions that
appealed to listener involvement or independence. The author found a lack of connection
among ITAs’ socialization within their schooling, the content of their ITA preparation courses,
the social contexts of their departments, and the visions they articulated of the academic
professional identities they aspired to.
This dissertation serves as an effective applied example of usage-based language pedagogy
and offers researchers a sound model of corpus analysis of pragmatic usage. Overall, the
project carries far-reaching and well articulated implications for ITA preparation, usage-
based materials design, corpus-based pragmatics and politeness research, and the field of
applied learner corpus analysis.
References
Reinhardt, J. (2006). Directives usage by ITAs: An applied learner corpus analysis. Ph.D. dissertation,
The Pennsylvania State University.
Simpson, R. C., Briggs, S. L., Ovens, J. & Swales, J. M. (2002). The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken
English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan.
2.6 Corpora and on-line reference tools in language learning
With language students turning with increasing frequency to corpora and on-line reference
tools in FL classrooms, language teaching researchers and educators are progressively more
interested in identifying technologies that assist language learners and in understanding the
effects of such tools on language teaching and learning. One dissertation that represents an
extension of this line of research is Kyosung Koo’s (2006), in which the author examined
participants’ use of a corpus (a collection of authentic and well contextualized samples of
language production) as a reference tool in conjunction with dictionaries as they paraphrased
English newspaper articles.
Koo asked his subjects, 10 Korean graduate students with advanced English proficiency, to
paraphrase a newspaper article and then observed the ways in which they used reference tools
to carry out the task. He intended to answer research questions about ESL learners’ reasons
for consulting a concordancing program while writing in English, the type of information
that learners looked for in the corpus, the strategies that learners used while consulting a
corpus, complementarity between corpora and dictionaries, the effects of using a corpus on
written work subsequently produced, and learners’ attitudes towards corpora. All subjects
were computer literate but none had ever used a corpus. Participants used English Gigaword,
a corpus of articles from English language newspapers. For the study, the corpus from only one
newspaper, The New York Times, was used. Students used the concordancing program students
MonoConc Pro, which displays key words in context (KWIC) and can display word counts
and frequencies of collocations (words that appear together frequently). Subjects were asked
to paraphrase a 550-word newspaper article: ‘North Korea Rejects U.S. Demand to Scrap
Its Nuclear Programs’, from The New York Times on March 28, 2004. They were permitted
to use on-line Yahoo Korean Dictionaries, which include English–Korean, Korean–English,
and English dictionaries and an English thesaurus.
The computer screen was recorded while subjects interacted with the concordancing
program and dictionaries and typed their text on the screen, then Koo asked questions
about their decisions and process while they watched the recorded screen interactions. The
stimulated recall sessions were digitally audio-recorded.
Koo found that participants used the concordancing program for a number of purposes,
including collocations (usually words or phrases following a verb, most frequently verb +
preposition combinations), definitions, context, and parts of speech (which they deduced
by looking at the words nearby). They looked for a variety of information within the
concordancing program, including prepositions, authentic samples, and context in which
search terms were used. They used dictionaries to look up definitions, parts of speech, and
sample sentences. Subjects’ most frequently used strategy was to combine reference tools; the
second most common strategy was to use a collocation frequency list in MonoConc; and the
third was a specific search word. The reference tools were found to increase grammaticality,
with subjects applying their findings 81 percent of the time. Koo offers detailed data illustrating
the ways in which MonoConc sometimes led to errors.
Using a researcher-developed survey to measure students’ attitudes towards the
effectiveness, helpfulness, and ease of using MonoConc, Koo determined that students agreed
that the corpus was more effective than a dictionary in improving writing and for finding the
correct usage of vocabulary and phrases, and was more useful for writing than reading. Most
would recommend the corpus to other international students.
Koo’s study highlights a new perspective on corpus linguistics, one in which corpora are
used not only to support linguists’ understandings of how language is used, but also educators’
understandings of how corpora can be used to support language learning. It further helps
language educators, many of whom are witnessing a dramatic increase in students’ use of
on-line dictionaries and concordancing programs in academic writing, to understand the
effects of these technologies on their students’ language learning.
Reference
Koo, K. (2006). Effects of using corpora and online reference tools on foreign language writing: A
study of Korean learners of English as a second language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa.
2.7 Corrective feedback within computer-mediated communication (CMC)
This dissertation brings together two fields that command the interest of language educators.
The first, corrective feedback, is a long-standing favorite of new and veteran researchers,
while the other, computer-mediated communication, has rapidly gained prevalence in recent
years. Shannon Sauro’s (2007) study explored two different approaches to corrective feedback
administered in a written synchronous CMC context. The first approach was to provide
corrective feedback that reformulated the error in the form of recasts, and the second was to
provide metalinguistic information about the nature of the error.
An intact class of 23 high-intermediate–advanced adult learners of English in a Grammar
and Translation class at a Swedish university were randomly assigned to three groups, one
for each type of corrective feedback and one control group, and were randomly paired
with native English-speaking graduate students. In task-based text chat, learners were given
corrective feedback on the omission of the zero article with non-count nouns of generic
reference. Sauro identified this form as difficult to master because of the low perceptual
salience of incorrect forms, lack of communication breakdown as a result of the error, and
opacity of the form–meaning relationship.
No effect of the treatment was apparent for gains in L2 knowledge over time, for immediate
gains in production accuracy, or for long-term gains in production accuracy. However, Sauro
found that participants receiving metalinguistic information about the error demonstrated
immediate gains in the development of target form knowledge. Her results section offers the
reader thorough descriptions of chat sessions, balanced analyses of factors influencing whether
learners took up or overlooked individual instances of error correction, and connections to
previous literature that effectively situate her findings in relation to related research. Findings
suggest that CMC may provide an effective context for focused corrective feedback on target
form errors for at least short-term development of target forms among advanced learners.
Sauro’s study is important in helping educators to question their intuitive sense of how direct
or detailed error correction in various contexts should be.
Like Sauro’s study, Maria Teresa Camblor-Portilla’s (2006) dissertation offers an

informative analysis for language educators who wonder about the effectiveness of various
forms of error correction. Camblor-Portilla examined whether exposure to different types
of written feedback (implicit, explicit, interactive, and no feedback) affected the use of L2
input differentially. While no one treatment produced results that were statistically significant,
Camblor-Portilla noted higher levels of awareness of the target form.
References
Camblor-Portilla, M. (2006). Type of written feedback, awareness, and L2 development. Ph.D.

dissertation, Georgetown University.
Sauro, S. (2007). A comparative study of recasts and metalinguistic feedback through computer
mediated communication on the development of L2 knowledge and production accuracy. Ph.D.
2.8 Teacher feedback
Just as Sauro’s study engages with questions about feedback, so too does Peter Clements’
(2006) dissertation, although with quite a different approach. Clements takes an expansive
perspective on teacher feedback and commentary on L2 students’ writing, not looking
specifically at identifying which types of feedback are empirically most effective in improving
writing, but rather examining the relationships between teacher commentary, student writing,
and the discursive frameworks that these texts develop within. Clements studied two sections
of an eight-week academic writing course for L2 students in an IEP program at a Japanese
English-medium university, developing his theory of response at three levels: a textual level
(response as discourse and genre), an interpersonal level (response as dialogic interaction),
and a social level (response as enculturation into communities of practice).
Clements first carried out a discourse analysis of a large corpus of written comments, then
developed case studies of student writing and faculty response during the course. He collected
commented-upon drafts and conducted ongoing interviews with the two teachers and four
focal students, two from each class. His other data sources included surveys and video-taped
observations of classes. The research questions focused on the patterns and variations in
teachers’ written commentary across drafts and students, students’ response to teachers’
feedback, and the points of agreement and disconnect between teachers and students. In
addressing these questions, the study aimed to illuminate the connections between writing,
response, teachers’ and students’ backgrounds and goals, the social roles that they enacted
throughout the course, and the institutional context of the comments.
Clements’ analysis of teacher feedback in relation to the complex layering of
individual teachers’ attitudes, personal and professional backgrounds, pedagogical goals, and
institutional contexts convincingly demonstrates the complexity of the discursive interactions
underlying seemingly simple written comments. Similarly, he viewed students’ responses
to comments as equally complexly situated within their own investments, histories, and
philosophies, and he interpreted written comments as always in dialogue with other social,
institutional, and classroom texts.
Findings highlighted the importance of feedback channels other than written comments,
such as regular tutorials, conferences, and in-class discussions of students’ writing, especially
those that allow students to arrive at decisions about writing dialogically. Clements’ analysis
also pointed to the importance of recognizing the individual and subjective nature of response,
meaning that guidelines for responding to students necessarily defy standardization.
Reference
Clements, P. (2006). Teachers’ feedback in context: A longitudinal study of L2 writing classrooms.

Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.
2.9 Language socialization
Language socialization research that surfaced during the period under study extended recent
research that has begun to take into account the multidirectional and co-constructed nature
of language socialization (Garrett & Baquedano-López 2002). In one excellent example, Jing
Lei (2007) examined the ways in which six second-generation Chinese-American adolescents
in the process of ethnic revitalization explored multiple identities through heritage language
learning. Her research questions asked about the role of language learning and use in
changes in self-identification, linguistic and non-linguistic factors that contribute to weak
ethnic identification, the influence of rebirth and revitalization of identity on use of Chinese
and English, and Chinese American bilinguals’ construction and display of different identities
through language-mediated practices.
Using discourse analysis and ethnographic methods, Lei offered detailed descriptions of
how language learning takes place throughout diverse settings: prepared shows, language
classrooms, parties, media, and interpersonal contacts. She then demonstrated the ways in
which her participants constructed, negotiated, and redefined themselves through language-
mediated social interactions, developing multiple, fluid, and contingent identities across
different social settings. She argued that Chinese language education serves as both an
ideological and instrumental investment.
Lei found families and peer groups to be the most important factors in socializing children
and also suggested that Chinese television, the Internet, and music played significant roles. She
highlighted the importance of idiomatic expressions in Chinese cultural development, noting
that the metaphorical language in Chinese idiomatic expressions requires deciphering the
indexical relationship between linguistic form and its socio-cultural meaning. In her discussion
of the implications of her study, she suggests the need for a focus on connections between extra-
curricular activities (storytelling contexts, skits) and heritage school curricula, and greater
collaboration between public schools and heritage language schools. An anomaly among the
dissertations discussed here, Lei’s study was conducted in a Department of Anthropology.
I include it because it sheds important light on broader social factors influencing language
learning and teaching in heritage language school contexts, and offers important educational
implications.
Another remarkable dissertation that explored language socialization in a heritage
language learning context was Li Jia’s (2006) study. Jia explored the language socialization
of Chinese- and American-born Mandarin learners at a heritage language school in the
southwestern United States, examining the ways in which members of a small Chinese
community contributed to the maintenance of Chinese language and culture in home and
school contexts. This study is notable because of the author’s engagement with the role played
by children as active and selective agents in their own socialization.
References
Garrett, P. & P. Baquedano-López (2002). Language socialization: Reproduction and continuity,

transformation and change. Annual Review of Anthropology 31, 339–361.
Jia, L. (2006). The invisible and the visible: Language socialization at the Chinese Heritage Language
School. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at San Antonio.
Lei, J. (2007). A language socialization approach to the interplay of ethnic revitalization and heritage
language learning: Case studies of Chinese American adolescents. Ph.D. dissertation, University at
Albany, State University of New York.
2.10 U.S. resident L2 adolescents’ (Generation 1.5) academic literacy
Recent years have seen a flourishing of new research situated at the intersection of composition
studies and ESL (cf., Clements 2006, section 2.8. above). Noting a dearth of research on
secondary schools and adolescent writers within discussions of academic literacy, Christina
Ortmeier-Hooper (2007) conducted case studies of the writing experiences of five U.S. resident
adolescent L2 (sometimes referred to as ‘Generation 1.5’) students during their first year of
high school. Her study is important in drawing on and making explicit theoretical connections
between language education and the fields of literacy and composition studies. Ortmeier-
Hooper looked at how academic tracking and institutional labels shaped the positionality of
L2 learners in U.S. high schools. She examined the ways in which curricular practices in the
teaching of writing reaffirmed institutional categories and explored the dynamics surrounding
her participants’ resistance to and acceptance of these labels.
Her study was situated in two high schools in the northeast region of the United States.
Over 11 months, she met with her five 14- and 15-year-old participants on a biweekly basis,
conducted classroom observations, and surveyed teachers. She asked about the consequences
of ‘ELL’ (English language learner) identity on academic literacy development and about
how students struggled with their identities as L2 writers on the written page.
Ortmeier-Hooper found the label ‘ELL’, as it was socially constructed within schools, to
be associated with vulnerability, deficiency, and a lack of intelligence. These representations
were evident throughout the school context, including in the school newspaper, in discourses
surrounding school performance on standardized tests, and in language use by students
themselves. She noted that the writing curriculum in her study focused on what she termed
‘survival genres’, the very basics that students needed to pass the federally and state-mandated
tests. ‘Survival genres’ are curricular genres that are directly connected to class-based activities
and classroom instruction (such as the five-paragraph essay), and they emphasize writing-to-
demonstrate rather than writing-to-communicate, such as writing sentences to demonstrate
understanding of a specific grammar rule or term, capitalization, or punctuation. Ortmeier-
Hooper used the term ‘arhetorical writing instruction’ to describe instruction that focused
solely on form and procedure and paid no attention to rhetorical considerations such as
audience, genre, and purpose. She noted that pressure to teach to the test meant that writing
instruction focused primarily on surviving the test, underscoring a sense of ELLs as vulnerable
and cognitively incapable of richer assignments and discourse.
An eye-opening section of this study is Ortmeier-Hooper’s careful analysis of literacy
competencies and what she calls ‘building blocks’ of academic literacies that she observed
participants bringing to their writing. Both in and out of school, students were engaged
in literacy and rhetorical competencies in English; for instance, they demonstrated genre
awareness, rhetorical analysis, and digital literacy. She details vivid examples gleaned from
her participants’ writing: deliberate emulation of stylistic strategies gleaned from L1 books,
storytelling techniques and other cultural literacies, bilingual weblogging (which, in one
example, supported the creation of a hybrid identity and provided access to a social
network of similar adolescents), textual borrowing from pop culture and video games,
competencies shaped by political and social activism, creative arts, and other forms of
literacy and rhetorical savviness. These were not, however, usually picked up and used in the
classroom.
In her well-argued conclusion, Ortmeier Hooper suggests, inter alia, extending theories
that take into account connections between writing and identity, particularly to acknowledge
a more socially situated view of writing, greater attention to the placement and instruction of
U.S. resident L2 students in the first year of college, the establishment and promotion of writing
centers in high schools, and greater support for secondary school teachers in teaching writing.
Furthermore, Ortmeier-Hooper’s work highlights a need for more attention to the education
and training of mainstream secondary English and ELL teachers in current research on
L2 writing and, similarly, a need for more inclusive writing pedagogies and curricula that
highlight an awareness and knowledge of linguistically and culturally diverse student writers.
Like Ortmeier Hooper, Cecil Terrell Jordan (2006) examined the intersection of
composition and ESL. Jordan’s analysis of oral, written, and on-line student writing is
significant for its consideration of the current global context in which meanings of English
are understood to be increasingly multimodal and intercultural in nature.
References
Jordan, C. T. (2006). ESL, ‘comp’ and composition: Terms, assumptions, implications, and new
practices for native and non-native English-speaking students. Ph.D. dissertation, The Pennsylvania
State University.
Ortmeier-Hooper, C. (2007). Beyond ‘English language learner’: Second language writers, academic
literacy, and issues of identity in the U.S. high school. Ph.D. dissertation, University of New
Hampshire.
2.11 Language ideologies and language learning
During 2006–2007, language teaching research saw rich ethnographic studies that
contributed to understandings of how language ideologies intersect with language acquisition.
One example is the work of Peter Sayer (2007), who situated his study in the Mexican state
of Oaxaca. In the context of a major social movement that ballooned out of a teacher’s
strike, Sayer connected teachers’ ideologies about English to local social ideologies and
then to teaching practices. Using participant observation over thirteen months with teachers
in their classrooms, schools, homes, and other social spaces, he specifically looked at how
the teachers constructed themselves as legitimate speakers. With thick description in classic
ethnographic tradition, Sayer depicted the complexity of the social topography he described,
detailing violent clashes between teachers and police that closed the public schools and kept
Sayer from conducting classroom observations for many months. The study departed from
conventional anthropology in Sayers’ attempts to face his own subjectivities, to engage with
ethical challenges of his method, and to grapple with his authority as a blond, blue-eyed,
native speaker of English to represent the perspectives of indigenous Oaxacans.
The primary participants in this study were three focal working-class Oaxacan teachers,
all in their first three years of teaching, all pedagogically committed to communicative
approaches to language teaching. Sayer conducted 128 observations with the three focal
teachers and another 25 with seven non-focal teachers. He carried out 66 interviews, of
which he categorized 25 as formal. After he began his initial data analysis, he developed a
questionnaire in situ, the Language Ideology Inventory, surveying 59 novice teachers in order
to better understand how representative the ideologies of his focal participants were of the
rest of the Oaxacan English teaching force. The most interesting, and yet not surprising,
theme that Sayer identified connected English language teaching ideologies directly to the
phenomenon of U.S. migration, in both a physical, literal sense and also more broadly
conceptualized to include investments and imagined communities that teachers draw upon
in their practice. In this study, teachers’ and students’ visions of an imagined life in the
U.S. shaped classroom teaching content. The teachers connected English to opportunity,
believing that English could open doors for their students, although they simultaneously
expressed concerns about English proficiency becoming commodified and students becoming
cheap laborers for corporate and government interests. The author perceived the spread of
English to be a public goal, understanding the Mexican government to be pursuing a policy
of macroacquisition (Brutt-Griffler 2002) of English, which is attempting to promote the
widespread acquisition of English among its citizens. However, because English is not used
widely within Oaxaca, opportunities for meaningful interaction are not available to language
speakers.
Meanings of legitimacy arose from two areas of concern – the ways in which teachers
justified their professional practice, the spreading of English as a process that expands social
opportunities for language learners, and the ways in which they constructed themselves
as having the cultural and linguistic authority to teach English. Sayer engaged with the
tension between mimicry (Bhabha 1994), which is the longing to emulate the colonizer (in
this case by creating identities of mimic-native-speakers), and the teachers’ desires to act as
legitimate peripheral participants in the community of practice of Oaxacan ESL teachers.
While dominant discourses implied that legitimacy as an English language teacher comes
from time spent in the U.S., Sayer provided examples of the teachers in the study sometimes
being able to redefine a legitimate teacher as one who has the same conditions and constraints
as her students and yet is able to serve as a good language model. He concluded with
connections to the larger project of critical language awareness within TESOL, pointing out
a need for teachers to be supported in developing an awareness of the ideological content
of their practice and in recognizing the multiple ways in which the process of learning
English can either liberate or subjugate language learners (or simultaneously both liberate
and subjugate).
Also fleshing out the ways in which language ideologies intersect with language teaching
were Eunjin Park (2007) and João José Pinheiro Rosa (2006). Park’s study of language
socialization practices in three-generational Korean American families illustrated how
ideologies of deference to authority and recognition of status are transmitted through
informal language teaching in the home. Pinheiro Rosa’s thesis examined the ways in which
Cape Verdeans grapple with their national state of diglossia, with Portuguese remaining a
language of official discourse and Creole lacking official status although it is spoken by the
entire population. Using focus group interviews, life history interviews, archival research and
classroom observations, the author developed a critical analysis of the processes that allow
competence in Portuguese to structure access to social capital. These three dissertations are
effective in highlighting for educators the degree to which processes of language learning are
neither neutral nor disinterested.
References
Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.

Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A study of its development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Park, E. (2007). Language socialization in a Korean American community. Ph.D. dissertation, New
York University.
Pinheiro Rosa, J. J. (2006). Diglossia in Cape-Verde: Discourses, class, race and the promise of education.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Sayer, P. (2007). Legitimate speakers? An ethnographic study of Oaxacan EFL teachers’ ideologies
about English. Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University.
2.12 Conversation analysis and the preschool years
Bethany Muller (2006) observed that while many studies have focused on teacher–
student or parent–child discourse, language learning resulting from child–child interaction
in bilingual contexts has been neglected in the broader literature. Her dissertation
analyzes the functions of four-year-olds’ L2 speech with particular focus on the use of
repetition, attention getting, and private and social speech. One of numerous doctoral
scholars who embedded their research in sociocultural theory during the year under
study (see also provides summaries of doctoral work by Martin-Beltran 2006 (see sec-
tion 2.2 above) and Lee 2006 (see section 2.15 below)), Muller sought to understand how
peer interactions influence the acquisition of Spanish by English-speaking preschoolers in a

dual-immersion elementary school in New Mexico.
Methodologically, Muller’s study brought together conversational analysis and
ethnographic practices as she examined the ways in which language dominance and
language choice shaped peer group interaction among young L2 learners. Her data sources
were observations over three months, teacher surveys, parent home language surveys, and
cooperative group interventions. For this last data source, she directed students to complete
an activity that did not require adult guidance, aiming to understand how features of child
discourse passed from child to child. Data were coded according to such factors as utterance
length, code-switching within utterance unit, function of utterance (for example, expressive,
attentional, private speech), and use of repetition.
Comparing L1 and L2 speech across functions, she found four categories to be specific to
functional speech: attentional, private speech, word play, and expressive functions. Attentional
language was the most popular form of L2 utterance, possibly indicating that the primary
motivation for L2 production in a peer group is to get the attention of another child. She
further noted that ESL speakers used English for both academic and social purposes, while
L2 Spanish was used almost exclusively for academic purposes.
Muller concluded that allowing children to converse in a peer group setting should not
only be permitted but should be viewed as a language learning strategy, a means to expand
L2 pragmatic skills, and an opportunity to provide naturalistic opportunities for L2 use.
She notes a need for attention to the differences between L2 Spanish and L2 English in
the sociohistorical context of the southwestern United States. In noting that functions of
L2 speech differ between older and younger learners, Muller has highlighted the need for
research that explores how best to support language learning of children of different age
groups, an argument underscored by Martin-Beltran’s (2006) doctoral dissertation of 5th
grader peer interaction.
Reference
Muller, B. (2006). Second language acquisition in a Spanish–English bilingual preschool: Conversation

analysis of mixed language peer groups. Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Mexico.
2.13 Phonological acquisition and parsing
Annie Tremblay (2007) conjectured that a robust theory of L2 phonological acquisition needs
to examine both the acquisition of abstract grammatical knowledge and the development
of parsing procedures, in part because the input needs to be parsed before it can feed the
language learning mechanisms. Her exploration of the acquisition and processing of L2 word
stress therefore draws its theoretical framing from two fields that are not typically united for
this purpose, theoretical linguistics and experimental psycholinguistics. Tremblay chose to
study Canadian French learners of English because the two languages differ in their phonetic
realization of stress, both in the prosodic structure that underlies stress placement and in the
role that stress plays in word recognition.
Her 107 participants, who included 29 intermediate, 29 low-advanced, and 18 high-
advanced L2 learners of English and 31 native speakers of English, were recruited from
universities in the Montréal and Ottawa areas. The English learners were all 9 or 10 years
old when they were first exposed to English and reported a wide variation in the amount
of English immersion they had experienced. Participants completed four experiments: (1)
an AXB perception task, which tested the acoustic perception of stress, (2) a nonsense-
word production task, which tested the acquisition of the trochaic (i.e., stressed-unstressed)
foot and the alignment of its head with heavy (i.e., bimoraic) syllables, (3) a cross-modal
word-identification task, which determined whether L2 learners could use stress to recognize
English words, and (4) a vocabulary production task, which tested whether L2 learners’
accurate production of stress is a reliable predictor of their ability to use stress in word
recognition. The native English speakers did not complete the vocabulary production test (4)
because it was assumed that their production of stress would be accurate.
Tremblay found that although the L2 learners could all perceive stress acoustically, and
most had acquired the trochaic foot, they did not align the head of the foot with heavy
syllables. She further found that some of the L2 learners were able to use stress to recognize
words in English. However, those who used an iambic foot in English or who produced
incorrect stress patterns did not use stress to recognize English words, which implies a
relationship between target-like knowledge of foot structure and processing of stress. The
findings highlight the complexity of the interplay between L2 knowledge and L2 processing,
and suggest that the development of parsing procedures may be affected by the acquisition
of prosodic representations.
Reference
Tremblay, A. (2007). Bridging the gap between theoretical linguistics and psycholinguistics in L2
phonology: Acquisition and processing of word stress by French Canadian L2 learners of English.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii.
2.14 Task complexity and interactional approaches
Ana Maria Nuevo’s (2006) study of the effects of task complexity on L2 learning makes a
theoretical contribution to interactional approaches to L2 development. Nuevo noted that
although the literature on task complexity has recently included REASONING DEMAND (or
the extent to which learners are required to reason) as a dimension of task complexity,
empirical work has addressed neither qualitative differences in task performance that result
from differential reasoning demands, nor potential L2 learning opportunities that reasoning
demands may provide. In her dissertation Nuevo examined L2 learning opportunities
that arose from carrying out tasks with varying levels of reasoning demands, which she
defined as the extent to which learners reasoned to attain a task’s goal. Using oral
tasks and grammaticality judgment tests in a pre-test/post-test design, Nuevo measured

interaction-driven learning opportunities and development of English past tense and locative
prepositions. Her 113 participants, adult immigrant English learners in an intermediate-
advanced integrated skills ESL course, were separated into three groups within intact class
groupings. Participants in the first group carried out high-complexity tasks, those in the second
group, low-complexity tasks, and the third group no tasks. Nuevo examined the relationship
between task complexity and L2 learning opportunities, and subsequently L2 development.
Learning opportunities that she measured were: interactional modifications, other
repetition (imitation), self-repair, noticing a linguistic deficiency, hypothesis formulation, and
metalinguistic talk. She measured L2 development through oral tasks and acceptability
judgment pre-tests, post-tests, and delayed post-tests. Nuevo noted that learners used more
recasts, metalinguistic talk, comprehension checks, and other repetitions and took up more
recasts in the low-complexity narrative tasks than in the high ones. Learners engaged in high-
complexity tasks tested more hypotheses and used more comprehension checks than those in
low-complexity tasks. The high-complexity group’s development of locative prepositions, as
measured through the oral production test, was significantly higher than the control group’s,
although a parallel improvement did not occur on the grammaticality judgment test. There
was no significant improvement between groups in the past tense on either the oral production
test or the grammaticality judgment test.
These findings suggest that task complexity may be a determining factor in learning
opportunities afforded in task-based interaction and therefore hold important implications
for language teaching, particularly task-based teaching. Nuevo’s detailed descriptions are
a starting point for teachers who want to explore what L2 learning opportunities occur
more frequently under different task complexity conditions. Detailed examples support and
illustrate Nuevo discusses the theoretical implications of her study which include refinement
of the cognition hypothesis (Robinson 2005) in a way that accounts for interlocutor role and
understanding of how task condition affects the amount of negotiation under different task
complexity conditions.
References
Nuevo, A. M. (2006). Task complexity and interaction: L2 learning opportunities and development.
Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University.
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in acomponential framework
for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics 43.1, 1–32.
2.15 Private speech
Jina Lee’s (2006) study examined L2 learners’ use of private speech, looking not only at
private speech as a mediational tool but also at dialogic aspects of private speech. Her seven
participants, five women and two men students enrolled in an intermediate biology class at a
Midwestern university, were all in their early or mid-twenties. She video- and audio-recorded
each of them as they studied alone for three hours in preparation for an exam in a private
room. One video camera captured study materials, another the larger picture including the
participant. The two video-recordings were digitized into picture-in-picture format to allow
Lee detailed observation of the data. Lee then watched each video with the participant while
interviewing her or him. She audio-recorded and transcribed the recall sessions, then used
conversation analysis to analyze them.
In her analysis of participants’ private speech, she observed her participants using self-
regulatory functions, notably establishing meanings to themselves, mental rehearsal to retrieve
verbal data, monitoring and planning their own activity, and expressing feelings. Her
participants appeared to be using language alteration not as a socially embedded code-
switching behavior but rather as a mediational tool. Lee illustrated ways in which private
speech is dialogic. For instance, her participants used interactional discourse structures such
as question–answer sequences, repair sequences, and reactive sequences, demonstrating that
an individual in private speech can take on the role of both addressor and addressee. She
concluded that private speech originates from social speech. This study is significant in
supporting understanding of L2 learners’ private speech as a dynamic mediational tool in L2
literacy. Lee recommends that language teachers encourage private speech as a mediational
tool in classrooms, and she suggests that observing students’ private speech may be one way
for teachers to inform themselves about their students’ individual learning.
Reference
Lee, J. (2006). Talking to the self: A study of the private speech of adult bilinguals. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Wisconsin–Madison.
3. Conclusion
The research reviewed was rich and diverse, raising significant questions and often offering
satisfying analyses. Doctoral work during 2006–2007 has made important contributions to
understandings of how languages are taught and learned and has furthered our dexterity
with research methodologies, broadening our understandings of how to go about addressing
these questions.
I noticed that some trends in the broader literature on language teaching and learning were
not reflected within my examination of doctoral work. For instance, with greater attention
to issues of race in the mainstream media and in academic journals in recent years, I
expected to see more work examining the relationship between race and language. Similarly,
I expected that doctoral work would reflect trends within educational research for analysis
of the ways identities, especially linguistic identities, are constructed within web-based social
networking and other computer-mediated communication contexts. Because decolonization
efforts are tightly linked to language choice, learning, and teaching, I was surprised not to read
more work describing and analyzing postcoloniality, both in the United States and globally.
Multimodality, also a popular topic in educational research, was surprisingly scarce within
doctoral dissertations in 2006–2007. These are all subjects that I would urge new doctoral
students to consider as they make decisions about their future lines of research.
In addition, I expected to see more work focusing explicitly on the effects of globalization
on language teaching. However, I was impressed by the degree to which many doctoral
scholars were attentive to the connections between their locally situated research questions
and global theoretical contexts. One major trend that emerges through the study is new
scholars’ mindfulness of the ways in which complex global relationships shape the everyday
practice of individual language teachers and learners.
Acknowledgements
My thanks to the dissertation authors who carefully reviewed my descriptions of their work and
offered suggestions. My appreciation also to faculty at numerous institutions who discussed
trends in recent doctoral research with me. I am indebted to Graeme Porte for his careful
guidance. Special thanks to Suresh Canagarajah for helping me to brainstorm my approach
to this project.
SUHANTHIE MOTHA is an Assistant Professor in the Department of English at the University of

Washington in Seattle. Her work explores the intersection of identity, knowledge, and power in the
context of TESOL teacher education. Her publications have appeared in TESOL Quarterly, Modern
Language Journal, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, TESL Canada Journal, Educational Practice and Theory,
and Peace and Change Journal. In addition, she has published several book chapters.
Lang. Teach. (2009), 42:2, 257–272
doi:10.1017/S026144480800565X
Research in Progress
BAAL/CUP seminars 2008
Conceptualising ‘learning’ in applied linguistics
School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, Newcastle University, UK;

19–20 June 2008
The seminar was coordinated by Paul Seedhouse, Steve Walsh, Chris Jenks and Alan Firth,
and about 30 people attended. The objectives of the seminar were to
• explore and unpack the different conceptions of ‘learning’ involved in research on learning
and teaching a language;
• develop awareness of how different conceptions of ‘learning’ originate in different
paradigms, methodologies and epistemologies;
• develop awareness of how conceptions of ‘learning’ vary according to the particular aspect
of language or communication which is being learnt or taught;
• produce a conceptualisation of learning to which members of different schools of SLA will
be able to subscribe;
• apply this conceptualisation of learning to a range of data involving learning and teaching
a language;
• to explore notions of learning in non-institutional settings.
Themes which emerged in papers and discussions were:
• Why do conceptions of ‘learning’ vary in research on learning and teaching a language?

• How do different conceptions of ‘learning’ relate to different paradigms, methodologies
and epistemologies?
• Which conceptions of ‘learning’ are most appropriate to learning which aspect of a
language?
• Is it possible to produce a conceptualisation of ‘learning’ to which members of different
schools of SLA will be able to subscribe?
• New perspectives and approaches to ‘learning’.
• How can conceptions of ‘learning’ be applied to data?
In the field of applied linguistics there are currently a number of differing conceptions
of ‘learning’ in relation to learning and teaching a language. In the cognitive psychology
tradition of SLA, ‘learning’ tends to be conceptualised as a change in individual cognitive
state. Changes, often in relation to syntax, may be tested and quantified. Pienemann (2005),
for example, suggests that an individual who is observed to correctly produce a syntactical
item twice in speech with lexical and morphological variation may be assumed to have learnt
258 RESEARCH IN PROGRESS
that item. In the social or socio-cultural tradition of SLA, by contrast, ‘learning’ tends to be
conceptualised rather differently and offers a holistic perspective of language learning. The
focus tends to be on the processes of language learning and on socially-distributed cognition
rather than on discrete items as products.
And yet these two conceptions of ‘learning’ are not mutually exclusive and it should
be possible to develop a perspective which incorporates the best insights and procedures
from both traditions. Conceptions of ‘learning’ involved in research on language teaching in
particular tend to vary according to which aspect of a language is being taught. If the focus
is on introducing new syntactical structures to students, the conception of ‘learning’ may
logically focus on whether individual students are able to actively produce these structures
correctly. By contrast, if the teaching focus is on developing the ability to communicate and to
participate in social interaction, the conception and evaluation of ‘learning’ will necessarily
be different. In vocabulary learning, mastering a word ‘completely’ may require knowledge
of its orthographical and phonological form, meanings, grammatical behaviour, associations,
collocations, frequency and register (Schmitt & McCarthy 1997).
The seminar aimed, then, to produce a conceptualisation of ‘learning’ in applied linguistics
which is able to explicate and incorporate variation according to (i) the aspect of a
language or communication which is being taught, and (ii) the paradigms, methodologies
and epistemologies being employed. A key feature of the seminar was that it was attended by
representatives of many different positions within applied linguistics and SLA. The fruitful
discussion showed that it was possible to achieve a broad consensus on the elements to
be included in a conceptualisation of learning, and this will be developed in the resultant
publication. A book proposal has already been submitted to a major publisher and is under
consideration. The proposal is based on the papers presented at the seminar as well as on
chapters which will be written by invited authors.
Plenary speeches
In his plenary paper, Rod Ellis (University of Auckland) explored different approaches to
theory evaluation in SLA and suggested that the very nature of SLA as an applied discipline
should lead us to accept and welcome theoretical pluralism. The position adopted in this paper
is that of ‘epistemic relativism’ (Lantolf 1996). This differs from ‘judgmental relativism’ in that
instead of viewing all knowledge as equally valid, it claims that theories can be distinguished
‘in terms of their relevance and adequacy for attaining particular goals’ (Lantolf 1996: 734).
Ellis argued that theories should be evaluated in relation to the context in which they were
developed and the purpose(s) they were intended to serve.
Diane Larsen-Freeman (University of Michigan) suggested that there are many ways to
conceptualise learning in applied linguistics. One way that has occupied center stage for
some time is to see language teaching as presenting linguistic forms and language learning
as a process of taking them in: The ‘having’ view. A second conceptualisation adopts a
more functional approach to language. Language teaching is more about guiding students
to get their message across, and language learning is developing discursive routines through
participation in communities: the ‘doing’ view. Larsen-Freeman made the case for language as
BAAL/CUP SEMINARS 2008 259
a complex adaptive system, in which every use of language changes the language resources of
the learner/user and the changed resources are then potentially available for the next speech
event. This view suggests a unity not only between doing and having, between real-time
processing and development, but also between language use and language evolution.
Papers
Vivian Cook (Newcastle University) considered what is meant by ‘second language learning’
and how this relates to an independent discipline of SLA research. He asked the following
questions: What is the language in second language learning? What is the second in second
language learning? What is learning in second language learning? and Where does SLA
research come in?
Simona Pekarek Doehler (Université de Neuchâtel) discussed how notions of CA-for-SLA
are articulated to current thinking about language and cognition in other fields. She presented
an analysis of French L2 data, showing how a fine-grained study of learners’ activities can
shed light on both learning as a product (i.e. levels of competence) and learning as a process
(i.e. the socio-cognitive-linguistic mechanisms that underlie change across time).
Constant Leung (King’s College London) explored some of the conceptual and analytical
issues involved in the use of interactional discourse data to explore the notion of learning in
the mainstream school classroom with particular reference to ethnolinguistic minority pupils
who are learners of English as an additional/second language (EAL).
Manfred Pienemann (Newcastle University) outlined a cognitive view on language
learning, demonstrating that there are cognitive constraints on language learning that cannot
be eliminated or ‘turned off’ by factors external to the learner. One such set of constraints is
due to the very nature of real-time language processing in the human mind. Many aspects
of language processing are carried out by automatic processors that cannot be controlled or
monitored by the conscious mind.
Florence Myles (Newcastle University) discussed theory building in SLA research, and
in particular how and whether the different schools of research can or need to talk to one
another. Her aim was to draw an overarching conceptual map of the field. She suggested
that all approaches have a contribution to make to a better understanding of the process of
L2 learning, but that it is imperative to be clear about the precise domain of application of
each theoretical paradigm.
Melinda Whong (Leeds University) argued that the absence of a unified conceptualisation
of learning can be seen as rooted in the absence of a unified perspective on language. The
paper explored a theory of language learning that is based on a theory of language, both
of which are actively trying to unify strands of thought from the range of sub-disciplines in
linguistics and SLA. These, in turn, provide a principled basis for English language teaching.
Sian Etherington (University of Salford) considered two studies of aspects of applied
linguistics learning, discussing how this learning takes place in each context and building
from these observations towards a more generalised picture of how learning in applied
linguistics may occur. The affective aspects of learning and individuals’ reactions to these
were critical elements of the discussion.
Mick Randall (British University in Dubai) examined the interrelationship between

linguistic theory, psychological models of language, and learning theory. Connectionism
and Corpus Linguistics would suggest that the establishment of strong links between surface
language elements is an essential for effective use of language. This would suggest that the
mechanisms for language learning should return to more associative learning techniques and
pay attention to the way that surface features of language interconnect.
Steve Walsh & Paul Seedhouse (Newcastle University) considered a number of the
conceptual and methodological problems involved in analysing how L2 learning is related
to classroom interaction. The first part of the paper argued that the conceptualisation of
‘learning’ developed in this seminar needs to incorporate the process of learning as embodied
in classroom interaction. The second part of the paper then offered a conceptualisation of
classroom interactional competence (CIC), which we define as teachers’ and learners’ ability
to use interaction as a tool for mediating and assisting learning.
Finally, Alan Firth & Chris Jenks (Newcastle University) explored L2 learning in the
Internet chat community of ‘Skypecasts’TM , and reflected on the implications of Skypecast
interactions for our understanding and conceptualisations of L2 learning and L2 competence.
They argued that the findings permit a reconceptualisation of established notions of L2
competence and L2 learning.
References
Lantolf, J. P. (1996). Second language theory building: Letting all the flowers bloom! Language Learning
46, 713–749.
Pienemann, M. (2005). An introduction to Processability Theory. In M. Pienemann (ed.), Cross-linguistic
aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam & New York: John Benjamins, 1–60.
Schmitt, N. & M. McCarthy (eds.) (1997). Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Paul Seedhouse
Newcastle University, UK
Paul.Seedhouse@newcastle.ac.uk
Integration and achievement in a multilingual Europe: Languages

for learning and life
University of Leeds, UK; 18–19 June 2008
Delegates to the seminar came from seven different countries and worked in a wide range
of contexts: local authorities, regional agencies, universities and schools. The discussion
throughout, both in and out of sessions, reflected the wide range of experience and expertise
present. The seminar opened with a keynote lecture by Professor Christine Helot of the
University of Strasbourg, focusing on how to educate teachers for plurilingualism. The
speaker considered political and socio-cultural barriers to implementing a multilingual
curriculum within the European and the French contexts in particular. Highlighting the
crucial importance of terminology, a colleague questioned Professor Helot’s use of the term
‘immigrant minority languages’. The explanation was that the term ‘community languages’
used in Britain simply makes no sense in France where it is against the constitution to
have ‘communities’. In her conclusion, Professor Helot suggested principles which should
underpin education for plurilingualism in multilingual societies:
• glorified native speaker competence is no longer the ultimate goal;

• language teaching should be directed towards a competence encompassing the mother
tongue, the national language, regional and minority languages, and non-European
languages;
• competence across languages is the goal: not a juxtaposition of distinct competencies, but
a skills-oriented complex competence in language use.
Following the keynote, two workshop choices were offered. The first, Learning to Read in
a Minority Language: Letters and Literature, was presented by Dr Tina Hickey (University
of Dublin). She looked at the difficulty of teaching reading in a minority language, Irish.
Even though it uses the same script as English, Irish has a very different orthography, and
most children in Ireland must learn this L2 soon after acquiring initial literacy in English. In
her presentation, Dr Hickey considered the need to teach not only basic L2 reading SKILLS
to these learners, but also to consider increasing pupils’ WILL to read in this language. The
second seminar, New Opportunities for Language Learning across the Curriculum, was led
by Kathy Wicksteed of the Association for Language Learning. She presented the main aims
of the Key Stage 2 Languages Strategy in the National Curriculum, where language learning
features under ‘developing intercultural understanding’, ‘knowledge about language ’and
‘language learning strategies’. As the main opportunities for learning languages, the following
were suggested: exploring communication with native speakers within the school community,
making links with English, using materials and topics that may be of personal interest and
taking languages beyond the classroom. The emphasis on providing opportunities for learners
to talk about ‘things that matter to them’ promises a better use of what Cummins (2001)
terms the ‘maximum identity investment principle’. It has the potential for more consistent
practices that are inclusive of learners’ backgrounds, home languages and the wider histories
of their communities. After the workshops, delegates had a choice of three discussion groups:
Family and community learning and their links with mainstream schools; Inside classrooms:
Teaching, learning and curriculum; and Teacher education and development. Attendees
were asked to consider the implications of the themes of the seminar for them in the three
interconnected dimensions of research, policy and practice. The day finished with a plenary
speech.
The keynote on day two, presented by Professor Eve Gregory (Goldsmiths, University of
London) gave an insight into the experiences of several children whose multilingual skills
were put to use in schools. Professor Gregory’s presentation, which included video clips of
multilingual learners, created a buzz amongst the delegates. A particularly captivating story
was of a boy who took part in her research twenty years ago and whom she recently met
to reflect on his experiences as a young learner. She concluded with recommendations for
developing multilingual skills in mainstream classrooms.
Following this, there was again a choice of two workshops: Multilingual Classroom
Practices: Learning from the Children, presented by Professor Dominique Portante & Carola
Mick (University of Luxembourg) and Bilateral Exchanges in Teacher Training: Developing
Multilingualism and Intercultural Competence, led by Claudine Kirsch (Goldsmiths,
University of London). Portante and Mick jointly presented some of the complexities of the
institutional trilingualism in Luxembourg, focusing on how teachers work on homogenising
the trilingualism of schooling and legitimising all languages. Pictures of the classrooms shown
clearly reflected a multilingual community of learners. Kirsch’s workshop focused on the
PGCE (Post-Graduate Certificate of Education) Primary course with a specialism in Foreign
Languages that Goldsmiths has successfully run for five years. Student teachers on this
course teach abroad for a month. Kirsch discussed the ways in which bilateral exchanges can
help students develop their language skills and their ability to act sensitively and culturally
appropriately in the classroom.
After a break, everybody joined their discussion groups for the last time, and the seminar
closed with a plenary. Notes from the discussion groups were later on kindly recorded by Dr
Jean Conteh, available from her at j.conteh@leeds.ac.uk.
Reference
Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society (2nd edn.). Ontario,
CA: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Jean Conteh
University of Leeds, UK
j.conteh@leeds.ac.uk
What do primary teachers need to understand, and how? Developing an applied

linguistics curriculum for pre-service primary school teachers
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK; 29–30 May and 1–2 September 2008
The seminars brought together 55 delegates working in the fields of Applied Linguistics,
Initial Teacher Education, Speech and Language Therapy, English Literature, Psychology,
Educational Psychology and Teaching English as an Additional Language as well as staff
working for children’s charities, Local Authority Quality Improvement and National Policy
Development units in both England and Scotland.
The seminars were designed to encourage debate about the applied linguistics
understandings that are most helpful to primary school teachers in designing and teaching the
language and literacy curriculum, in working with pupils with identified speech and language
needs, and in working with other professionals such as educational psychologists and speech
and language therapists. Participants were invited to consider what would be most helpful for
primary-school teachers to understand about applied linguistics perspectives, and how this
understanding could best be developed. These seminars are possibly the first UK opportunity
for such a wide range of people to discuss these issues. Discussion came not only from the
different professional concerns and research perspectives but also from differences in how
Scotland and England make, implement and monitor language and literacy education policy.
The two seminars were designed to run as a conversation, and the papers in the second
seminar developed themes and issues raised in the first, as well as introducing new themes of
their own. The first seminar made the case for how applied linguistics perspectives can, and
do, inform the curriculum and pedagogy in primary schools. Professor Debra Myhill (Exeter
University) began by reporting on her research on Writers as Designers. She summarised
some of the research on young writers’ linguistic development – their lexical choices, syntactic
features, and thematic variety – arguing that linguistic knowledge is necessary for good writers
but not sufficient: good writers need also to have access to a thinking repertoire from which
they design, craft and shape texts that meet their communicative goals. In doing this, the
relationship between the writer, the text and context is central, and teachers need to draw on
knowledge from all these perspectives.
Papers by Dr Maggie Vance (Sheffield University) and Dr Rosie Flewitt (Open University)
offered two very different ways to analyse the issues facing children with identified
communication difficulties. Vance explained the speech and language therapist’s analytic
approach, highlighting the insights that a diagnostic view of semantic, syntactic and
phonological knowledge can offer. Flewitt presented an analysis from the perspective of
linguistic ethnography, showing how the individual and institutional dynamics of the context
affect how a child negotiates her way into literacy, how she is considered by the adults around
her and how this affects their assessments. Separately, each paper demonstrated implications
for assessment and pedagogy but together they painted a rich picture of the breadth and
depth of knowledge that should inform primary teaching.
Dr Gemma Moss (Institute of Education, University of London) reported her research on
children’s discourse around books, showing the importance of attending to how children and
young people position themselves in relation to literacy and how this shapes both what they
learn and how they learn it. In doing so, she made a powerful case for teacher education to
go beyond discussion of the teaching content of literacy to consider the cultural and social
identities of children and young people as readers, and how these interact with local and
institutional contexts to determine reading engagement.
The paper by Dr Alison Sealey (University of Birmingham) outlined the potential of
corpus-based approaches to inform the early-years literacy curriculum and to revolutionise
the teaching of grammar in schools.
Professor Kate Nation (Oxford University) made the case for attending much more closely
to children’s comprehension, and the need for both researchers and teachers to notice and
understand comprehension difficulties and the importance of the relationship between oral
and written comprehension.
Professor Angela Creese (University of Birmingham) spoke about bilingual pedagogy and
her research in community schools, challenging assumptions about language-switching and
optimal instructional usage. Dr Carolyn Letts (Newcastle University) reported from an ESRC
seminar series on communication impairment and children learning English as an additional
language. She spoke of the assessment challenges when the child’s home language may not
be known, and debunked the myths that still surround dual language use, pointing out that
children restricted to one language were invariably restricted to English – usually their weaker
language. She also noted that there were fewer direct references to English as an Additional
Language in the new QTS (Qualified Teacher Status) standards for England.
The second seminar began with a paper by Professors Terezinha Nunes & Peter Bryant
(University of Oxford), who provided a data-rich account of the knowledge-base children need
in learning to spell and read words, outlining the different situations in which morphological
knowledge was useful and their research evidence that children’s awareness of grammar
and morphology is a predictor of their later ability to represent morphemes systematically.
Their data provides a powerful critique of the ‘simple’ model of reading (the model of early
literacy promoted in the National Literacy Strategy of England), which encourages teachers
to consider comprehension and phonology as separate and, at least in the early literacy
curriculum, independent processes.
Dr Viv Ellis (University of Oxford) & Jane Briggs (University of Brighton), in their paper
‘Teacher education: What applied linguistics needs to understand about what, how and where
beginning teachers learn’, contextualised the debates about linguistic content-knowledge in
a different way. By positioning teacher education as an academic discipline in its own right
and providing an analysis of what we know about how teachers’ understandings develop
and change, they effectively re-framed the linguistic perspectives and firmly addressed the
‘and how’ part of the seminar title. Mary Hartsthorn (I CAN; www.ican.org.uk) continued
the theme of how to develop teacher knowledge and outlined The Speech, Language and
Communication Framework developed by The Communication Trust. The framework is
an online audit tool that individuals and institutional managers can use to assess their skills
and knowledge of language and communication, and identify staff training and development
opportunities that will enable them to contribute to the ‘Every Child Matters’ agenda.
Professor Henrietta Dombey (University of Brighton) provided an illustration of how one
teacher education course builds student teachers’ knowledge about language alongside
an understanding of how to teach this important aspect in schools. She emphasised the
importance of students understanding how effects are achieved through written language as
well as the patterns of progression in phonological awareness and the opaque relationship
between phonemes and graphemes in English. Re-visiting Ellis & Briggs’s theme about how
student teachers learn, she argued that students should demonstrate the relevance of this
knowledge to their role as primary teachers.
Professor Jane Medwell (University of Warwick) presented her research on what teacher
trainees DO know, and how they use this knowledge when teaching writing. In her study,
more experienced teachers with a secure knowledge-base were more likely to take account of
features of the overall text and respond to them whereas less experienced teachers responded
to lexical and syntactic features.
Sue Ellis & Dr Elspeth McCartney (University of Strathclyde) addressed a different
kind of question, namely, how to support children in mainstream classes whose speech
and language difficulties were most evidenced as literacy difficulties. Their research-based
approach outlined a model of language support for teachers that was embedded in the
institutional system of the primary school.
Three papers argued for a different kind of content in teacher education programmes.
Professor Greg Books (The University of Sheffield) presented a passionate and closely-argued
APPLIED LINGUISTICS AT BIRKBECK 265
case for introducing student teachers to the International Phonetic Alphabet in his paper,
‘Supporting accurate phonics teaching’. Dr Elspeth Jajdelska (University of Strathclyde)
presented her research on the history of reading, suggesting that there was a revolution in the
way texts were written in the eighteenth century in response to a surge in fluent, silent reading.
She argued that understanding the history of this process can give teachers a useful narrative
with which to understand continuing issues in text comprehension, including punctuation and
sentence structure and made a plea for spaces in the crowded teacher education programmes
for students to study such potentially useful historical analyses. Vivienne Smith (University
of Strathclyde), in her paper ‘The text of picture books’, pointed out that picture book
illustrations had received more critical attention than the literary affordances of the words.
She suggested an analysis of the written text in terms of its pedagogic functions, literary
quality and the ideological functions and assumptions of language that would provide a more
secure knowledge-base for teachers.
The final seminar paper was given by Dominic Wyse (University of Cambridge), which
summarised the incremental shifts of curricula control for schools and teacher education
between the 1980s and the present in England. He examined the influence of globalisation
and the increasing role of politicians in determining the model of understanding that has
been adopted and called for greater scrutiny of the extent to which such models theorise
understanding, are based on research evidence and reflect coherent theories of language in
use. He argued that meta-linguistic knowledge is of limited value. For him, experience with
the processes of reading and writing together with the ability to reflect on these in relation to
children’s learning, is the most valuable form of ‘subject knowledge’.
The seminars generated much fruitful discussion. They did more than identify the potential
contribution of applied linguistics to the curriculum and pedagogy of the primary school;
they contextualised this in terms of teacher education and of what the research tells us about
how such knowledge is best developed. Delegates came from very different disciplines and
had different immediate concerns, but the debates showed a genuine desire to develop a
breadth of understanding and to contextualise the issues in different ways. The discussions
found common ground as well as differences, and have provided a foundation for future
collaborative projects.
Sue Ellis, Elspeth McCartney & Jill Bourne
University of Strathclyde, UK
sue.ellis@strath.ac.uk
Research in Applied Linguistics at Birkbeck, University of London

Background
The Department of Applied Linguistics and Communication at Birkbeck was established in

1965 by Professor Michel Blane, making it the first university department in England to focus
on the study of applied linguistics. It has recognition from the Economic and Social Research
Council (ESRC) of Great Britain for research training and studentships. The Department has
a well-established Centre for Multilingual and Multicultural Research, houses the International
Journal of Bilingualism (published by Sage) and produces its own web journal the Birkbeck Studies
of Applied Linguistics (http://bisal.bbk.ac.uk).
Over the years, Birkbeck’s Department of Applied Linguistics and Communication has not
only developed a distinctive academic identity but also helped to redefine the field of applied
linguistics as a science of human sociality. We are best known for our research in the areas of
codeswitching and other language contact phenomena, language development and disorder
from a cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspective, intercultural communication, discourse
analysis, language and emotion, and language and identity. We have also developed new areas
of research and teaching in communication studies focussing on the human, interpersonal
and social dimensions of communication. Unlike many of the applied linguistics departments
across the world, our work does not deal directly with language teaching, although it clearly
has implications for educational policy and practice.
Research themes
The special character of the research at the Department of Applied Linguistics and
Communication at Birkbeck derives from our strong belief that the diverse phenomena
of multilingualism are, linguistically speaking, the rule rather than the exception, and that it
is through rigorous, critical examination of these phenomena that the nature and functions
of language more generally can be understood. Our research problematises the concept
of ‘the language user’ and questions assumptions, constructs and methodologies derived
from the monolingual situation. Our staff represent a unique combination of expertise in
sociolinguistics, neurolinguistics, clinical linguistics, language acquisition, syntax, phonology,
discourse and pragmatics, with all working in more than one of these fields. Our research is
typically cross-linguistic, seen in our studies of Alsatian, Arabic, Cantonese, Dutch, English
(especially L2 varieties), French, Cypriot Greek, Italian, Japanese, Mandarin, Punjabi,
Spanish and Taiwanese. Individual members’ research, while necessarily concentrating in
specific areas, addresses shared conceptual, theoretical and methodological concerns and
challenges established paradigms. Our research is organised around three principal areas:
socio-interactional linguistics, language learning, and clinical linguistics and neurolinguistics.
Socio-interactional linguistics
A collaborative group focuses on the interactional architecture of human sociality on the

themes of the Diaspora, Migration and Identity Programme and of multilingual practices in
complementary schools. We have developed critical approaches to language maintenance and
language shift, and initiated a new research agenda for areas such as L1 development in L2
context, trilingual interaction, autochthonous linguistic minorities and European immigrant
languages in the UK, and multilingual practices in complementary schools for minority ethnic
children. Zhu Hua is researching inter-generational conflict talk in immigrant families (Zhu
2008). An overarching theme of Li Wei’s work is critical examination of assumptions behind
APPLIED LINGUISTICS AT BIRKBECK 267
traditional rational choice models of bilingual and multilingual behaviour. His research (Li
2002, 2005) focuses on linguistic choices bilinguals and multilinguals make as part of their daily
communicative practice. Instead of using models based on abstract notions of ‘rationality’
or ‘identity’, he has tried to develop a ‘Common Sense’ approach which is informed by
ethnomethodology.
With respect to the conceptual and methodological problems in the analysis of ‘grammar’
in codeswitching, Malcolm Edwards and Penelope Gardner-Chloros have argued against
approaches which postulate two discrete, interacting grammars, and for an alternative,
interdisciplinary approach in which the role of the speaker is central (Edwards & Gardner-
Chloros 2003, 2007). Methodological innovation has been achieved in a database of bilingual
texts for researchers (Gardner-Chloros 2008).
With respect to socio-pragmatics and ethnography, relational talk is examined under the
notion of RAPPORT-BUILDING, which integrates various proposals for the study of small talk
and phatic communication in a series of studies by Marı́a Elena Placencia. She examines
particular sets of service encounter interactions to throw light on how relational talk is
co-constructed by customers and service providers, and how it is used by participants to
bring to the fore different social identities, shift frames of participation, and achieve different
interactional goals (Placencia 2004, 2007). These various domains of pragmatic variation
are examined at the sub-national level investigating service encounter interactions in two
varieties of Ecuadorian Spanish – Andean and Coastal Spanish (Placencia 2008).
Language learning
Our research in this area questions fundamental assumptions regarding language

learning mechanisms. Jean-Marc Dewaele’s research has developed a nuanced analysis of
psychological variables such as extraversion in L2 production and of the complex interactions
between situational, socio-biographical and psychological variables in SLA. He has also
pioneered a new field of research in emotion and SLA, working intensively on a database on
bilingualism and emotions collected via a web questionnaire. Dewaele (2004, 2006, 2008)
has explored the individual differences in the perception multilinguals have of the emotional
strength of expression as it relates to self-perceived language dominance, context of the L2
acquisition, age of onset of L2 learning and degree of socialization.
Marjorie Lorch, in collaboration with Heather McDowell, has been investigating the
implications of writing systems for models of SLA acquisition, focussing on the effects of
acquiring a non-alphabetic L1 writing system (Chinese) on key aspects of L2 acquisition of
English such as reading processes, spelling and metalinguistic awareness (McDowell & Lorch
2008).
Clinical linguistics and neuro-linguistics
Language and communication disorders in children and adults are the focus of another strand
of our research. Our work problematises the notion of ‘norm’ in child language development.
Lorch recently published a significant case study, in collaboration with Keith Atkin, of a child
with autism and hyperlexia developing language in a unique manner which challenges current
models of language acquisition, word learning and literacy (Atkin & Lorch 2006).
Zhu, in collaboration with Dodd, explores phonological issues in child language
development. She adopts a cross-linguistic perspective that also includes speech- and
language-disordered children to demonstrate the inadequacy of standard models of
phonological development. She has studied phonological acquisition and disorder of Chinese-
speaking children, including children with hearing impairment, and developed the notion
of Phonological Saliency to account for cross-linguistic similarities and differences in early
sound acquisition (Zhu 2002; Zhu & Doold 2006).
Lorch (2007) uses Applied History as an approach to examine how current theoretical
and clinical assumptions regarding polyglot aphasia and memory disorder emerged from
the interaction of socio-political and economic forces and scientific assumptions. Critical
examination of this process yields novel questions and insights leading to new strategies for
hypothesis development.
Our research in all three areas shares a common concern with methodology. Our staff
has developed a number of major assessments for language and communication disorders
and transcription, including the world-famous DEAP: Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation &
Phonology, and corpus analysis systems for multilingual speech data such as LIDES (Language
Interaction Data Exchange System). A number of staff have edited and contributed to The
Blackwell guide to research methods in bilingualism and multilingualism, a flagship volume of Wiley-
Blackwell published in 2008.
Activities
In the coming years, we intend to enhance our national and international standing as a centre
of excellence in multilingual and multicultural research through high-quality research output
and increased collaborations with researchers in London and worldwide. We are creating
an interdisciplinary research network and forum on human sociality, utilising expertise in
the Bloomsbury area of London and beyond. We ran a highly successful Round Table on
Applied Linguistics in the spring of 2007 and plan to launch an annual Bloomsbury Round
Table, in collaboration with University College London, Institute of Education, School of
Oriental and African Studies, and King’s College London, in 2009.
Birkbeck College Applied Linguistics website:
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/llc/subjects/applied_linguistics.
References
Atkin, K. & M. Lorch (2006). Reading without speech: Hyperlexia in a 4-year-old boy with Autistic
Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Neurolinguistics 19, 253–269.
COLLOQUIUM ON CHILD L2 AND SLI 269
Dewaele, J.-M. (2004). The emotional force of swearwords and taboo words in the speech
of multilinguals. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development (special issue) 25.2–3, 204–
222.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2006). Expressing anger in multiple languages. In A. Pavlenko (ed.), Bilingual minds:
Emotional experience, expression, and representation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 118–151.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2008). The emotional weight of ‘I love you’ in multilinguals’ languages. Journal of
Pragmatics 40, 1753–1780.
Edwards, M. & P. Gardner-Chloros (2003). When the blueprint is a red herring: Assumptions
behind grammatical approaches to code-switching. Transactions of the Philological Society 102, 103–
129.
Edwards, M. & P. Gardner-Chloros (2007). Compound verbs in code-switching: Bilinguals making do?
International Journal of Bilingualism 11.1, 73–91.
Gardner-Chloros, P. (2008). Bilingual data: Criteria for its classification. In W. Li & M. Moyer (eds.),
The Blackwell guide to research methods in bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell, 53–72.
Li, W. (2002). ‘What do you want me to say?’ On the Conversation Analysis approach to bilingual
interaction. Language in Society 31, 159–180.
Li, W. (2005). ‘How can you tell?’ Towards a common sense explanation of conversational code-
switching. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 375–389.
Lorch, M. (2007). Bilingualism and memory: Early 19th century ideas about the significance of polyglot
aphasia. Cortex 43, 658–666.
McDowell, H. & M. Lorch (2008). Phonemic awareness in Chinese L1 readers of English: Not simply
an effect of orthography. TESOL Quarterly 403, 495–513.
Placencia, M. E. (2004). Rapport-building activities in corner shop interactions. Journal of Sociolinguistics
8, 215–245.
Placencia, M. E. (2007). Entre lo institucional y lo sociable: Conversación de contacto, identidades
y metas múltiples en interacciones en la peluquerı́a. Revista Internacional de Lingüı́stica Iberoamericana
(RILI) 5.1, 139–161.
Placencia, M. E. (2008). Pragmatic variation in corner shop transactions in Ecuadorian Andean and
Coastal Spanish. In K. P. Schneider & A. Barron (eds.), Variational pragmatics. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 307–332.
Zhu, H. (2002). Phonological development in specific contexts: Studies of Chinese-speaking children. Clevedon:
Zhu, H. (2008). Duelling languages, duelling values: Codeswitching in bilingual intergenerational
conflict talk in diasporic families. Journal of Pragmatics 40, 1799–1816.
Zhu H. & B. Dodd (eds.) (2006). Phonological development and disorders: A multilingual perspective. Clevedon:
Marjorie Lorch & Li Wei

Birkbeck, University of London, UK
m.lorch@bbk.ac.uk, li.wei@bbk.ac.uk
Colloquium – Comparing Child L2 and SLI (Specific Language

Impairment): Crosslinguistic Perspectives
Presented at the Second Language Research Forum, the University of Hawaii at Manoa,
USA; 19 October 2008
This half-day colloquium, organized by Theres Grüter (Stanford), was held as part of SLRF
(Second Language Research Forum) 2008 at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, with the
aim of bringing together researchers from the fields of second language acquisition and
communication disorders who are investigating the recently observed similarities between
children acquiring an L2 and children with SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT (SLI).1 Over
the past fifteen years, several research studies have shown that errors made by children
learning an L2 are remarkably similar to those made by (monolingual) children with SLI
in their FIRST language (Håkansson & Nettelbladt 1993, 1996; Paradis & Crago 2000,
2004). These surprising parallels raise a number of theoretical and clinical concerns. In
particular, given these similarities, diagnosing SLI in children who can only be formally
tested in their L2 – typically, children from immigrant families – is an extremely difficult task
for speech-language pathologists, yet one they are increasingly confronted with in today’s
growing multilingual environments (Kritikos 2003). In consequence, immigrant children are
at an increased risk for both over- and under-diagnosis of language disorders, each of which
is likely to have unfavorable consequences for the child’s academic and social development
(Genesee, Paradis & Crago 2004). The further exploration of the similarities between
these two groups, and crucially, the potential identification of clear DIFFERENCES between
the two, thus presents a priority for research in both L2 learning and communication
disorders.
In this colloquium, representatives of six independent research groups from France,
Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States addressed the
following questions, based on their own on-going research:
• Are similarities between child L2 and SLI observed CROSSLINGUISTICALLY?

• What DOMAINS OF LANGUAGE seem to be particularly (in)vulnerable in child L2 and SLI
crosslinguistically?
• Are there aspects of grammatical development that clearly DISTINGUISH child L2 learners
from children with SLI?
• What are the implications of these similarities (and potential differences) for theoretical
accounts of both (child) L2 acquisition and developmental language disorders?
Monika Rothweiler & Solveig Chilla (Hamburg/Bremen), presenting data from the
acquisition of German sentence structure, showed that children whose first significant
exposure to German was after the age of four did indeed resemble German children with
SLI. However, this was not the case for children who began learning German before the
age of four, arguing that AGE OF ONSET must be taken into consideration in the comparison
between the two populations.
Theo Marinis, Vicky Chondrogianni & Halit Firat (Reading) demonstrated that English
children with SLI and Turkish children learning English as an L2 with similar vocabulary
levels both performed poorly on a measure assessing the comprehension of English pronouns,
whereas only the latter had problems with the interpretation of reflexives, an effect that was
shown to be attributable to the children’s L1. However, the L2 group was considerably younger
than the SLI group, raising the question whether the L2 learners might eventually outgrow
1 SLI is a congenital developmental disorder typically diagnosed when a child presents with a significant delay in language
ability relative to age-norms, in the absence of auditory, neurological and socio-emotional impairments, and with non-
verbal intelligence within the normal range. The prevalence of SLI in the pre- and early-school-year population has been
estimated at 5–7% (Tomblin et al. 1997; for further detail, see Leonard 1998).
COLLOQUIUM ON CHILD L2 AND SLI 271
their difficulties. This led to a discussion regarding the basis on which child L2 learners and
children with SLI should be compared (e.g., age, length of exposure, vocabulary/language
level), with a consensus emerging that, ideally, both age- and language-based comparisons
should be performed.
Maureen Scheidnes, Sandrine Ferré, Martin Haiden, Philippe Prévost & Laurie Tuller
(Tours) showed that French children with SLI and English children learning French as an
L2 both avoid more complex wh-questions in their production, yet their comprehension of
these constructions appears to be unimpaired, suggesting that Computational Complexity
(Jakubowicz 2005) affects language production in both groups.
Gabriela Simon-Cereijido & Vera Gutiérrez-Clellen (San Diego) examined narrative
samples from English-speaking children with SLI and Spanish-speaking children learning
L2 English with regard to the correct use of three-argument verbs (e.g., put). They observed
that while both groups performed more poorly than typically developing English-speaking
children, the difference reached significance only for the SLI group (p = .03), but not for the
L2 group (p = .06), suggesting verb/argument use as a potential difference between the two.
Finally, two groups of researchers, Antje Orgassa, Jan de Jong, Anne Baker & Fred
Weerman (Amsterdam) and Sharon Armon-Lotem & Joel Walters (Bar Ilan) reported on
child L2 learners diagnosed with SLI (L2-SLI). Orgassa and colleagues, looking at verbal
and adjectival inflection in Dutch, found that their L2-SLI group performed more poorly
than both monolingual Dutch children with SLI and typically developing child L2 learners of
Dutch, suggesting a CUMULATIVE EFFECT of L2 and SLI. However, no such cumulative effect
was found by Armon-Lotem & Walters, in a comparison between monolingual Hebrew-
speaking children with SLI and English-speaking children with SLI learning Hebrew as an
L2, in their use of verbal inflection and prepositions. Yet Armon-Lotem & Walters observed
an interesting between-group difference with regard to error TYPES: only children with SLI
(monolingual and L2), but not typically developing L2 learners, were found to omit obligatory
prepositions in Hebrew, suggesting that this may be a clinical marker for SLI in both L1 and
L2 learners of Hebrew.
References
Genesee, F., J. Paradis & M. Crago (2004). Dual language development and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism
and second language learning. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Håkansson, G. & U. Nettelbladt (1993). Developmental sequences in L1 (normal and impaired) and
L2 acquisition of Swedish syntax. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 3, 3–29.
Håkansson, G. & U. Nettelbladt (1996). Similarities between SLI and L2 children: Evidence from
the acquisition of Swedish word order. In J. Gilbert & C. Johnson (eds.), Children’s language (vol. 9).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 135–151.
Jakubowicz, C. (2005). The language faculty: (Ab)normal development and interface constraints.
Presented at GALA, Siena, Italy, September 2005.
Kritikos, E. P. (2003). Speech language pathologists’ beliefs about language assessment of
bilingual/bicultural individuals. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 12, 73–91.
Leonard, L. B. (1998). Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Paradis, J. & M. Crago (2000). Tense and temporality: Similarities and differences between language-
impaired and second language children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 43, 834–
848.
Paradis, J. & M. Crago (2004). Comparing L2 and SLI grammars in child French: Focus on DP. In
P. Prévost & J. Paradis (eds.), The acquisition of French in different contexts: Focus on functional categories.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 89–108.
Tomblin, B., N. Records, P. Buckwalter, X. Zhang, E. Smith & M. O’Brian (1997). Prevalence of
specific language impairment in kindergarten children. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research
40, 1245–1260.
Theres Grüter
Stanford University, USA
tgruter@stanford.edu
Lang. Teach. (2009), 42:2, 273–283
doi:10.1017/S0261444808005661
Comparative Book Review
Qualitative inquiry: New alternatives for the applied linguist
Marzieh Tafaghodtari Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa, Canada

Mhass050@uottawa.ca
PATRICIA A. DUFF, Case study research in applied linguistics. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2008.
Pp. ix + 233. ISBN 978-08058-2359-2 (paperback).
ZOLTÁN DÖRNYEI, Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Pp. 336. ISBN 978-019-442258-1 (paperback).
JOSEPH MAXWELL, Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. London: Sage, 2005.
Pp. xiv + 175. ISBN 0-7619-2608-9 (paperback).
KEITH RICHARDS, Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
Pp. xxv + 323. ISBN 1-4039-0135-4 (paperback).
In the scientific community of L2 research, where a quantitative direction still dominates,

qualitative tradition has led a quiet life. Even though the value of qualitative inquiry is
increasingly recognized in different domains of social sciences, qualitative research still
remains peripheral within L2 communities, a fact well reflected by the limited number
of recent books dedicated to qualitative inquiry in the field of applied linguistics. In the
last few years, however, the field of L2 research has experienced some paradigmatic meta-
reflections. Whether reality can be revealed scientifically or it is an illusion, or ‘it is something
metaphorically in between’ (Morgan & Ramanathan 2005: 154) are all concerns which have
formed and informed L2 research and practice in competing ways. One consequence of such
meta-reflections has been a new understanding that considers qualitative and quantitative
paradigms as ‘overstated binaries’ (Duff 2006: 66), which are less than useful unless viewed
as a matter of a continuum (Dörnyei 2007, under review in this paper).
These meta-reflections, together with the latest methodological advances in the broader
field of social sciences, have provided the impetus for this review, which attempts to compare
four recent additions to qualitative inquiry, three from the field of applied linguistics and the
fourth from the broader field of education. On the market there are some excellent step-by-
step recipe books to guide readers through stages involved in a research project. However,
most of the books that are focused to this extent do not appear to be engaging, for their
narratives are too frequently disrupted by heavily-jargoned lists and descriptions. Fortunately,
the authors of the work under review have come up with four volumes that that are free
from these weaknesses, and therefore have been selected for review here. The criteria for
selecting the books also included engagement with a wide range of topics at the technical,
274 COMPARATIVE BOOK REVIEW
philosophical and socio-political levels of inquiry (Greene 2007). All provide descriptions and
explanations which make it possible to assess their suitability for L2 researchers of varying
levels (i.e., novice, experienced, etc.). All the authors are leading scholars either in the field of
L2 or in the broader field of education and have made remarkable contributions to L2 and
educational research.
After a brief overview of each book, the review will focus on the insights that can be gained
from each book as to the possibility of conceptualizing qualitative inquiry independently of
quantitative research and to the usefulness of such an effort. The review will also study the
degree to which the books engage the ‘how-to’ question of qualitative research as well as the
influence of different theoretical perspectives on qualitative designs and the interpretation
of qualitative data. Richards’ text will be presented first, for it focuses on qualitative
inquiry broadly. Dörnyei’s book complements Richards’ as it proposes reconciliation between
qualitative and quantitative paradigms, and, therefore, will be discussed next. The review
will move on to Duff’s book for its focus on a specific type of qualitative methodology,
i.e., case study. Maxwell’s book presents the design component of qualitative research, and
therefore will be presented last. Finally, the review will offer some concluding remarks on
both limitations and attractive features of the books discussed.
Qualitative inquiry in TESOL is an intriguing addition to a body of work focused on qualitative
research in applied linguistics. Richards, who specializes in the analysis of professional
interaction and qualitative research methods, has crafted 323 pages of engaging text,
particularly appealing to those interested in the practical aspects of qualitative inquiry. One
of the most interesting features of the book is its explicit focus on its target audience, which
has been accomplished by concentrating on the development of research skills that could
be ‘mapped onto a typical suite of teacher education and research programs’ (p. xxi). This
makes it possible for the researchers and practitioners to situate their own skills in relation to
three different levels of skills development (i.e., novice, intermediate and advanced) as they
proceed through the book. The book includes six chapters and an epilogue, structured on
the basis of three parts: (I) orientation to qualitative inquiry, (II) data collection techniques,
and (III) project planning and execution. The six chapters are divided into the three levels,
each of which may be read as a stand-alone element yet linking naturally to other levels. Each
chapter begins with a preview and ends with a very useful reading guide for further study.
According to the writer, the text is an instructive response to the common misconceptions
in the field that (a) research and teaching are mutually exclusive, and (b) qualitative inquiry is
soft and can make do with a few interviews and perhaps a dash of transcribed talk (pp. xix–xx).
Perhaps what makes Richards’ text different from the others reviewed here is that the writer
makes an explicit attempt to substantiate the link between teaching and research early on.
Nevertheless, what might have been helpful is some additional thinking from Richards on the
conditions under which the gap between teaching and research has been aggravated in the
field. In addition to his argument that such a break does exist, he would have better assisted
readers by raising the significance of interrelationships between inquiry and pedagogy and
the consequences of such interrelationships for the field of applied linguistics.
Richards also argues for the value of qualitative inquiry in social sciences by pointing to
the existing tensions between qualitative and quantitative research traditions as well as their
relative underlying assumptions. This very valid point, however, is caught up in a narrative
which, at times, is reminiscent of the ‘paradigm war’ (Smith 1983), where any reconciliation
MARZIEH TAFAGHODTARI: QUALITATIVE INQUIRY 275
between the two traditions was perceived as impossible. A more accurate picture of the
current landscape of inquiry enterprise in social sciences should also be reflective of some
of the ongoing dialogues between the supporters of both traditions as well as a new line of
inquiry, i.e., mixed-methods research.
The first part of the book (i.e., orientation to qualitative inquiry) focuses on the nature
of qualitative research by discussing issues such as essential characteristics of research and
paradigmatic tensions in social sciences. The concepts and the issues presented here are very
constructive, particularly in familiarizing readers with the current options in the qualitative
paradigm; however, it is rather a disappointing start, falling far short of the promise for an
instructive text. These sections at times read more like a crash summary of what exists in
the literature without engaging with any very critical conceptions. In a cursory review of
the foundational issues in research, for example, critical notions such as epistemology and
ontology are rushed, while axiology is seen off in only one short sentence on page 36. The
writer wraps up the foundational discussions with a note on the role of paradigmatic options
arguing that ‘no researcher begins a project by deciding on a paradigm and working things
out from this at increasing levels of detail’ (p. 41). While this might hold for some of the studies
conducted in the field, it does not necessarily reflect the nature of other researchers’ decision
making processes. In fact, a recent trend in engagement with paradigmatic discourses in
published textbooks, articles and unpublished dissertations counters Richard’s argument
for leaving paradigmatic issues only at the level of awareness. Moreover, some researchers’
concerns over the dangers of ‘methodolatry’– a privileging of methods over all other inquiry
considerations – invite us to take such claims with caution (see e.g., Crotty 1998; Curt
1994).
Part 2, the core of the book, focuses on data collection techniques of interviewing and
observation as well as analyzing spoken interaction. This is perhaps where the writer
explicitly addresses the how-to question of qualitative inquiry. The chapters on interviews and
observation, for example, incorporate concrete examples from the author’s own research, the
work of other researchers and imaginary scenarios. One very useful feature of both chapters
is the use of checkpoint boxes for developing interview and observation skills, which are also
very important in keeping readers interested in the material presented. The discussions on
spoken interaction also highlight very practical topics such as details of successful recording,
successful data transcription and data analysis from three different qualitative perspectives,
e.g., conversation analysis, interactional sociolinguistics, and critical discourse analysis. Less
experienced researchers particularly might find helpful the comparisons based on the ways
in which different analytical traditions approach data. One caveat, however, is that Richards
does not include any analytical techniques other than formulating categories and patterns.
This might lead some novice researchers to believe that categorizing is the only way in which
qualitative researchers conduct analysis.
The final part of the text presents procedures that help researchers ‘plan, implement
and write up a project’ (p. 231). Very helpful visual representations of the steps involved in
planning, implementing and presenting the results of a research project are included in this
part (e.g. pp. 234, 242, 280), the value of which is equally dependent on those who agree as well
as those who disagree with the author’s perspective in this regard. While Figure 6.1 (p. 271),
on aspects of analysis, partially demonstrates the ways in which some research elements inter-
act, the inclusion of the rest of the components could have highlighted the non-linear nature of
the inquiry process. The final section briefly concerns significant issues pertaining to judging
quality in a research project, such as validity and reliability. While surface discussions of
these issues are the most prevalent approach in many research methodology books, Richards
could have presented a more cogent text by providing detailed exposition of such topics.
In the epilogue, the writer briefly discusses the need for recognition and representation
of the complexities inherent in matters of research and education in TESOL as well as the
importance of respect for different inquiry paradigms. It is rather curious that Richards makes
an attempt to return to the issue of the relationship between teaching and research at this
point, whose relevance to the rest of the chapters does not seem to be well developed. This
is not to undermine the significance of this relationship, but rather to suggest that a more
explicit focus on the issue, and possibly organization of chapters in this regard would have
made the text accord with the promise of its introductory pages. It would also be interesting to
see some thinking from Richards on the possibility of any reconciliation between qualitative
and quantitative research paradigms – a notion which is the focus of Dörnyei’s text, to which
we now turn.
Research methods in applied linguistics addresses the steps involved in undertaking qualitative,
quantitative and mixed-methods research. While the volume is not exclusively dedicated to
qualitative inquiry, its review can be particularly relevant as it provides the context for the
argument that quantitative and qualitative research paradigms are not extremes but form a
continuum. Dörnyei’s writing is consistently reflective and never becomes too insistent. The
book covers all the topics that one expects from a research textbook including paradigmatic
issues, research ethics, data collection and analysis, computer-aided data analysis as well
as writing and reporting research results. Practical guidance provided in these areas is
extremely useful in helping both graduate students and beginner researchers in planning
and implementing rigorous qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods studies. The writing
is instructive and clear, making it a very helpful textbook for research faculty, too. Although
the title of the book suggests a focus on applied linguistics, much of it would prove useful for
any social researcher.
Dörnyei has organized his text into fourteen chapters, structured on the basis of five parts.
This structure reflects the chronology of the research process, working through key issues in
research methodology, data collection, data analysis, reporting research results and summing
up. The writer, whose ‘best known studies involve the use of research methods associated
with quantitative social psychology’ (p. 47), demonstrates explicit support for equal status
and respect for qualitative, quantitative as well as other possible alternative methodologies
(e.g., mixed methods) in the field of applied linguistics. However, in his admiration for
all possible options in the current landscape of inquiry, Dörnyei leaves his readers with
some contradictions while falling back on terminology mainly associated with quantitative
discourse. For instance, on his own paradigmatic stance, he writes ‘in accordance with my
overall beliefs about research methodology, I try to assume a genuinely unbiased position
throughout the book’ (p. 47). While some readers might feel that ‘assuming an unbiased
position’ is a bias in its own right, they might also find it strange that the writer makes a
not-so-successful attempt to distance himself from the research tradition to which he has
devoted most of his academic career. This said, however, Dörnyei’s attitude throughout the
book should be welcomed as it signals a paradigm shift in our field.
Part 1 of the book focuses on key topics in research methodology ranging from qualitative
and quantitative distinctions to quality criteria for, and ethical issues in, research. The first
two chapters are not only important in providing an overview for the framework used in the
book. They are also essential for an understanding of the current ontological, epistemological,
axiological, methodological and rhetorical issues associated with qualitative, quantitative and
mixed methods. The discussions on the contested positions regarding the QUAL–QUAN
differences are particularly useful for novice researchers. However, this section would have
been more appealing to more experienced researchers if Dörnyei had fully engaged with
these issues. For example, throughout part 1, as well as other parts of the book, the writer
introduces pragmatism as the single underlying assumption of mixed-methods research.
This might disappoint those readers who are more familiar with the current literature
on mixed methodology. In addition, in the preface to the book, the writer states that
‘I have learnt that I now qualify to be a “pragmatist” as a researcher’ (p. 9). This, a
clear departure from ‘an unbiased position’, is also left at the level of terminology rather
than an in-depth discovery. For one, the writer fails to acknowledge that pragmatism is an
umbrella term which shelters a range of diverse, and at times competing, orientations towards
philosophical thought; he also does not assist his readers to understand whose tradition
his pragmatic approach follows (e.g., that of Richard Rorty, Hillary Putnam, Charles C.
Peirce, John Dewey, or Gille Deleuze). As we read further into the book, this limitation
becomes more conspicuous by the writer’s attitude to adopting epistemological orientations:
‘my first general recommendation is indeed very general: adopt a pragmatic approach and
feel free to choose the research method you think will work best in your inquiry’ (p. 308).
The problem with such statements is that what they do at best is conflate pragmatism
into undisciplined relativism. In addition, Dörnyei does not seem to make a meaningful
connection between different aspects of inquiry (e.g., designs, data collection and analysis,
etc.) and the foundational questions raised in part 1. However, it is fair to state that readers
wanting to follow up theoretical debates in more depth are guided elsewhere with a wealth of
references.
Part 2 outlines topics of relevance in qualitative data collection and classroom research,
including a brief review of sampling strategies and data collection techniques (chapter 6) as
well as classroom observation (chapter 8). Reading this part might be frustrating for those
expecting to find something beyond what already exists in other research textbooks in the
field (e.g., Mackey & Gass 2005). Dörnyei could have presented a more compelling text if he
had taken account of many other critical topics still absent from similar textbooks, including
issues of gender and race entering the field as well as strategies and challenges in recruiting
and retaining respondents. For many experienced qualitative researchers, this is a serious
omission. Moreover, it is curious that compared to other volumes written by the same author,
this text rarely takes advantage of visual representations of summaries, which could have
helped to keep readers more interested in the materials presented.
In part 3 (chapter 10), Dörnyei provides a very accessible description of qualitative data
analysis including the different coding methods and processes, writing memos, vignettes,
interview profiles and forms of data display. As in Richards’ book, Dörnyei’s presentation of
these analytical tools is limited to a straightforward coding system. In part 4 (chapter 13), which
covers issues relevant to presentation of research results, Dörnyei highlights the differences
between qualitative and quantitative research reports. The writer himself admits that he
holds a more conservative position when it comes to the presentation of qualitative research
findings. He suggests that this conservative stance is pragmatic in that he has ‘never heard
of, say, a poem being accepted for a post-graduate dissertation/thesis in applied linguistics’
(p. 294). While the statement appears to be accurate, at least to this reader, what is disregarded
here is any future possibility of unorthodox qualitative reports in the field of applied linguistics.
The writer might well remember a time when even the most conservative qualitative studies
could hardly find the key to unlocking the editorial gates. Dörnyei further emphasizes this
conservative stance by suggesting that ‘in many ways the quantitative writing format can
be seen as the default in the social sciences’ (p. 290). The book finishes with some general
recommendations to researchers with regard to adopting a pragmatic approach towards
method selection while taking account of the relevant practical and personal considerations
such as available resources as well as personal style and experience. What remain untold
here, however, are the consequences of such a pragmatic attitude for the individual scholars
and graduate students in the field of applied linguistics.
As demonstrated by the review so far, both Richards and Dörnyei examine and present
qualitative research in broad terms; in contrast, Duff’s Case study research in applied linguistics is
more focused in scope. This 223-page book is unique in the field of applied linguistics in that
it is dedicated to one specific type of qualitative methodology, i.e., case study. The references
used in the text provide a scholarly bibliographical source, worthy of separate publication
as an annotated listing. The author, whose familiarity with the methodological terrain of
qualitative inquiry is apparent throughout the book, has an established reputation in the field
as a qualitative researcher. The book can serve as an effective resource for qualitative research
professors in their preparation of course modules as well as for graduate students and more
experienced researchers in the field of applied linguistics.
Duff has organized her text into six chapters. In chapter 1, a readable and accessible
introduction to the book, she holds that the purpose of her book is ‘threefold: (1) to help readers
understand methodological foundations of case study research as one type of qualitative
research, (2) to examine seminal case studies in the area of L2 teaching, learning and use, in
order to illustrate the approach across thematic areas, and (3) to provide some guidance, on
a more practical level, about how to conduct, evaluate and write up case studies in applied
linguistics’ (p. 1). All of these have been achieved through detailed explanations of relevant
concepts and concrete examples of case studies from diverse areas of applied linguistics
including child language acquisition, bilingualism, individual differences, sociolinguistics,
language socialization, language identity, investment and gender, among others. What makes
the text particularly interesting is a full narrative description of life experiences of a language
learner, called ‘Jim’. These narratives, together with some analyses of Jim’s oral English
language development, are very constructive as they highlight reflexivity at the core of
decision making in qualitative inquiry. In a critique of her earlier analyses of Jim’s oral
English language development, Duff writes ‘while my original publications provide some
information about his history and current situation as a new Canadian, they did not present
his life history in full or his ambivalence about learning English; his shifting identities and
roles as a father, spouse, worker, Cambodian-Canadian, refugee, son, war veteran and student
(among others)’ (p. 16).
Duff’s text also focuses on some of the current conceptualizations of case study research in
different domains of social sciences including education, psychology, sociology, and political
sciences. The historical overview is written in an easily digestible and refreshingly jargon-
free fashion. However, the discussions would have been more beneficial, especially to less
experienced researchers, if the writer had shared some of her reflections on the strengths
and limitations of each conceptualization. In addition, presenting dictionary definitions
of case study, without addressing the ways in which each definition has been contested,
could oversimplify what is otherwise a sophisticated research tradition. These discussions are
followed by a brief summary of theoretical and methodological characteristics of qualitative
research as well as the current tensions in the qualitative paradigm regarding issues of
ontology, epistemology and methodology. Here, notions such as sample size, generalizability,
objectivity versus subjectivity, trustworthiness, credibility and the role of theory – all vital
to the understanding of any research methodology – are briefly touched upon. While more
detailed discussions of some of these concepts are provided in the sections that follow, other
equally important issues are not fully discussed elsewhere in the text.
The writer also offers a solid summary of case studies in different areas of applied linguistics,
including child language acquisition and bilingualism, performance analysis, individual
differences, autobiographies, identity, gender, immigration and virtual communities. This, a
unique contribution of the volume, illustrates the development and maturing of this research
tradition in applied linguistics; it also presents novice researchers with a wide range of
possibilities regarding the application of case-study methodology.
Next, Duff introduces her model of ‘the overall processes of how to conduct case studies and
other forms of qualitative research’ (p. 100). The visual presentation of the overall processes
modeled in detail is a useful tool in highlighting the ways in which different components
of inquiry connect. The use of two-way arrows in the model emphasizes interrelatedness
among the different components; however, the visual display of these components, together
with some later explanations throughout the chapter, could signal a linear succession of
research steps. Many qualitative researchers believe that a qualitative design does not lend
itself to a previously-developed logical strategy, which can be then implemented faithfully.
According to Maxwell (see below), a qualitative study ‘does not begin with a pre-determined
stating point or proceed through a fixed sequence of steps’ (p. 3). One way to improve the
visual representation, for instance, would be positioning research questions in the heart (mid
section) of the model. In addition, it is rather curious that the discussions of ‘defining and
operationalizing constructs’ seem to reduce the role of conceptual or theoretical frameworks
to a ‘definition of terms’ rather than the development of theoretical concepts through very
commonly-used strategies such as concept mapping. This is a serious oversight for which the
remaining parts of the text do not compensate.
The author also devotes some of the text to a synthesis of important issues in data analysis
and interpretation, including different types of analyses (iterative, cyclic and inductive),
validity threats as well as criteria for evaluating case studies. The section on different
approaches to transcription and their role in interpretive and analytic processes, and the
relevant examples (e.g., transcription protocols) provide a very practical guide for data analysis
purposes, particularly for novice and more experienced researchers. One caveat is that the
discussions on criteria for evaluating case studies appear to be much briefer than what they
deserve. For example, Duff rightly recommends that sufficient evidence be provided for
interpretations and conclusions that are drawn, but does not discuss how much evidence is
‘sufficient evidence’, neither does she engage the current controversies in this regard. Similar
to Richards and Dörnyei, Duff does not go beyond a description of validity threats to include
some practical strategies for overcoming such threats.
Overall, Duff has been able to both offer a balance of conceptual and practical guidance
and skillfully engage with different levels of inquiry (epistemology, ontology and methodology)
throughout the book. This latter feature distinguishes her text from the other volumes
reviewed here. Unlike Dörnyei, however, Duff’s text has not been crafted in light of the
possibility of reunion between qualitative and quantitative paradigms.
In Qualitative research design: An interactive approach, Maxwell underscores that his purpose is ‘to
present an approach that both captures what qualitative researchers really do, and provides
guidance for those embarking for the first time on designing a qualitative study’ (p. xi). This
has been achieved through a clear presentation of the ‘how-to’s of qualitative research design –
especially how to connect with a research paradigm, to create a concept map and develop
research questions, to select site and participants and negotiate research relationships, as
well as to write research proposals. The author, drawing mainly on his extensive experience
both as a qualitative researcher and a professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education,
offers a genuinely readable text, built upon plenty of real-world examples. The practical
checklists, exercises, stories and scripts, together with the analogies with quantitative research,
are extremely useful in helping both graduate students and novice researchers conduct
qualitative research. Experienced researchers, too, can find the book helpful, especially in
writing proposals for funding. While the writer is straightforward about the realist perspective
from which the book has been written, it is fair to say that much of the text is useful for
qualitative researchers broadly.
Since Maxwell defines his target audience as graduate students and researchers from
diverse disciplines, he makes an explicit attempt to keep multidisciplinarity as a key feature
of the text; however, the content of the book (including the conceptualizations and examples)
seems to be significantly informed by the field of education. Some examples from bilingual
education and culture (e.g., pp. 28–29) can be particularly appealing to researchers in applied
linguistics too.
Maxwell’s 175 pages of text are divided into seven chapters based on an interactive
approach: a model for qualitative research design (chapter 1); goals: why are you reading
this study? (chapter 2); conceptual framework: what do you think is going on? (chapter 3);
research questions: what do you want to understand? (chapter 4); methods: what will you
actually do? (chapter 5); validity: how might you be wrong (chapter 6); and, finally, research
proposals: presenting and justifying a qualitative study (chapter 7). The book concludes with
a useful example of a qualitative proposal.
The first chapter introduces readers to Maxwell’s interactive model of qualitative research
design with its interconnected and flexible structure, encompassing goals, conceptual
framework, research questions, methods and validity. While readers might not find
the components of the model particularly innovative, the way the relationships among
the components are conceptualized is unique. The writer, however, cautions against
understanding the connections among the different components of the model as ‘rigid rules
or fixed implications’ (p. 5). He uses a rubber band metaphor to explain both the flexibility
and the constraints of the components: ‘[t]hey can stretch and bend to some extent, but they
exert a definite tension on different parts of the design’ (p. 6). A strong feature of the book is
that the text walks novice researchers through a systematic process of creating coherent and
workable relationships among the components of the model. As such, Maxwell’s approach
appears to be more cogent when compared to what has been presented by Duff on similar
topics.
The rest of the chapters have been written in a dialogic, jargon-free style which makes
the reading of the book a pure joy. In chapter 2, the writer focuses on personal goals
and experiences and the importance of taking account of the ways in which such issues
shape qualitative studies. In this chapter, the writer also maps out the differences between
quantitative and qualitative inquiries. While the writer is consistently respectful of both
paradigms, he does not seem to be making any explicit attempts to encourage reconciliation
between the two traditions.
Another strong aspect of the book is that the writer shows the way in which a qualitative
conceptual framework is developed through a connection with a research paradigm at
both general (i.e., philosophical positions such as positivism, pragmatism) and specific
levels (i.e., different traditions in qualitative research such as interpretivism, critical theory,
post-modernism). The arguments in these sections encourage researchers’ creativity and
self-discovery through concept mapping by using both traditional (e.g., blackboards) and
technologically-advanced tools (e.g., computer programs such as Inspiration). While the
writer suggests using connections among concepts, he appropriately cautions against getting
caught up in a ‘no-risk’ map, in which all the concepts are too abstract and there are two-
directional arrows everywhere.
In addition, Maxwell expands on the purposes that research questions can accomplish in a
research design and provides some suggestions for the ways of developing appropriate and pro-
ductive research questions. However, he makes it clear that understanding research questions
as the starting point and primary determinant of inquiry design does not ‘adequately represent
the interactive and inductive nature of qualitative research’ (p. 65). In qualitative research,
well-constructed and focused questions are the heart of inquiry and are the result of an inter-
active design process. The text also includes a very useful memo-writing exercise which helps
the researchers connect their tentative research questions with other inquiry components.
One limitation of the volume could be the writer’s attitude towards specific aspects of
qualitative methods. Although Maxwell provides some useful guidance regarding different
components of qualitative methods (e.g., establishment of research relationships, site and
participant selection, data collection and data analysis), he still holds that ‘the appropriate
answer to almost any question about the use of qualitative methods is “it depends”’ (p. 79).
Moreover, readers might find the relevant sections frustrating as they offer nothing more
than what other research textbooks offer. In addition, the section on qualitative data analysis
is surprisingly short and limited to a number of analytic options (i.e., memos, categorizing
strategies such as coding and thematic analysis, and connecting strategies such as narrative
analysis). Maxwell could have assisted his readers better by providing some guidance as to
the context in which each option might work best as well as some concrete examples of these
analytic options.
In the final part of the book, the research design presented in chapter 1 is nicely mapped
onto a model for the structure of research proposals. The structure model and the subsequent
detailed elaborations of its components are presented alongside a sample proposal, which
provide a practical organizational tool for clearly communicating the research design and
its justification. What is missing from Maxwell’s text is an explicit link between the practical
steps involved in qualitative research design and the theoretical and philosophical aspects of
qualitative paradigm scholarship, including varieties of critical perspectives, or theories based
upon hermeneutics, phenomenology, post-structuralism, etc.
In conclusion, all four books have taken very creative and practical approaches to
expanding on different aspects of qualitative inquiry. All four authors have successfully covered
multi-dimensionality and openness in most of their discussions, and therefore have revealed
their breath and depth of understanding of not only qualitative inquiry but research in
general. A major strength is that researchers of different levels can benefit from the plunge
into qualitative inquiry provided by these writers; however, Richards’ specific attention to
research skills development remains a unique contribution. In my view, by providing practical
guidance and detailed descriptions of data collection and analysis, the authors introduce
qualitative inquiry as a rigorous and systematic practice; to this end, all four texts should
be recommended as essential preparatory readings. While all of the writers have dedicated
a full section, if not a chapter, to foundational issues in qualitative inquiry, Duff has been
more successful than the other authors in meaningfully engaging these issues throughout the
book. The four volumes also highlight the differences between qualitative and quantitative
paradigms; however, only Dörnyei’s discussions are explicitly supportive of considering the
two traditions along a continuum. I still have a nagging caveat: contrary to Maxwell’s text,
which offers a novel approach to qualitative design, I am not convinced that the three books
from the field of applied linguistics genuinely introduce any new themes that have not been
explored previously in other domains of social sciences. Perhaps what we need most in our
field is engagement with what the neopragmatist Richard Rorty calls for: an initiation of
unorthodox conversation through a criticism of our comfortable assumptions to shake us
loose and to develop new and more creative approaches to thought (Rorty 1979: 370–377).
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the Language Teaching readers for their insightful comments, which
improved the earlier version of this review.
References
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. Melbourne: Allen & Unwin.
Curt, B. (1994). Textuality and tectonics: Troubling social and psychological research. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Duff, P. (2006). Beyond generalizability: Contextualization, complexity, and credibility in applied
linguistics research. In M. Chalbound, C. Chapelle & P. Duff (eds.), Inference and generalizability in
applied linguisitics: Multiple perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 65–95.
Greene, J. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mackey, A. & S. Gass (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Morgan, B. & V. Ramanathan (2005). Critical literacies and language education: Global and local
perspectives. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25, 151–169.
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Smith, J. (1983). Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify the issue. Educational
Researcher, 12.3, 6–13.
MARZIEH H. TAFAGHODTARI is a full-time lecturer with the School of Languages, Literature, and
Cultures, the University of Maryland, USA, and a Ph.D. candidate in Education, Teaching, Learning,
and Evaluation, at the University of Ottawa. Her research is on mixed methodology, the development of
second language academic oral literacy, second language listening, metacognition and second language
program evaluation. Her publications include articles in the journals Perceptual and Motor Skills, Language
Learning and Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation. She is currently co-authoring (with Hossein Farhady
and Mohammad Imanian) the book Basic concepts in language testing (Rahnama, to appear in 2009). Her
teaching experience includes graduate and undergraduate research and evaluation courses in Canada
and Iran, Persian language courses in the USA and English as a second/foreign language in Iran.
Lang. Teach. (2009), 42:2, 285–286
doi:10.1017/S0261444808005673
Publications Received
Books
PAOLO E. BALBONI, Operational models for language education. Perugia: Guerra

Edizioni, 2007. Pp. 56. ISBN 978-88-557-0064-1 (pbk).
This book deals with a very complex issue, that of the ‘method’, i.e., the level at which the
theories and the philosophy enunciated by the ‘approach’ take organizational shape and
create certain contexts wherein class activities can occur. The operational models discussed
here are the curriculum, the space of didactic interaction, the module, the teaching unit and
the learning unit.
MICHELE DALOISO, Early foreign language teaching. Perugia: Guerra Edizioni, 2007.
Pp. 64. ISBN 978-88-557-0068-9 (pbk).
This book is a reflection of the increasing interest being shown in the early learning of
foreign/second languages in formal contexts, i.e. in the primary school curriculum or, with
ever more frequency, in the infant school. Since the early 1980s the Venetian School has
carried out research and produced models for early FL teaching. Daloiso consults cognitive,
psychological, linguistic and educational sciences in order to develop an epistemological
interdisciplinary model of early language teaching.
STEPHAN GRAMLEY & VIVIAN GRAMLEY (EDS.), Bielefeld introduction to applied

linguistics. Bielefeld: Aisthesis Verlag, 2008. Pp. viii + 392. ISBN 978-3-89528-706-1
(pbk).
This book is designed to provide a wide-ranging and substantial overview of the field for
beginning students. It comprises twenty-seven well-documented contributions based on
some of the most salient topics in research and teaching at the Department of Linguistics
and Literature at Bielefeld University, in Germany. The book is divided into four major
sections which discuss research involving the user/learner (teaching/learning aids; learning
processes and methods of gauging them); mental processes (language acquisition and loss);
studies involving the linguistic code (metaphor, translation, empirical methods, approaches
to texts); and the language community (bilingualism and code-switching, language policy,
pragmatics, speaker groups and their languages). Each contribution offers – on sometimes
varying levels of detail – a starting point for the young student and provides a useful selection
of literature for further reading. Many of the chapters include exercises based on the material
presented.
286 PUBLICATIONS RECEIVED
MANUEL JIMÉNEZ RAYA, TERRY LAMB & FLÁVIA VIERA, Pedagogy for autonomy in
language education in Europe: Towards a framework for learner and teacher
development. Dublin: Authentik, 2007. Pp. 79. ISBN 978-1-905275-10-6 (pbk).
Produced by the EuroPAL SOCRATES project, this book addresses the needs of teachers
who wish to develop their role as facilitators of language learning at a time when learner
autonomy is becoming a prominent goal in formal education systems across Europe. Chapters
focus on the context, the learner and the teacher in mapping pedagogy for autonomy. A final
chapter operationalises the principles presented in the book to integrate with a global focus
on the idea of learner-centredness. The printed book is in English. Translations into Spanish,
Portuguese, French and German are provided on the accompanying CD-ROM.
BLANTON PRICE LITTLE, Foundation course: The basics of English for Italian
university students. Montadori Università, 2008. Pp. xviii+222, ISBN 978-88-88242-87-
3 (pbk).
This course is based on an innovative theoretical structure which encourages the development
of student autonomy by building a solid foundation as rapidly as possible so that the genuinely
motivated student can continue his or her learning process independently in different
directions for different purposes and with a plurality of methods. Translated into the syllabus
levels currently established by the Council of Europe, this means that the evolution of the
student into a phase of conceptual and functional independence should normally take place
between levels A2+ and B1. In more traditional terms, this means that this coursebook can
be used with a wide range of ability levels. The target audience for the book is a homogeneous
group of mother-tongue Italian university students, which means that lessons can easily be
divided into two parts: one based on practical language tasks in English, and another one
which presents the theory section in Italian and permits the students to study more subtle
aspects of English in a reasonably concentrated period of time.
Journal
International Journal of Translation. Bahri Publications, 1749A/5, 1st Floor,

Gobindpuri Extension, P.O. Box 4453, Kalkaji, New Delhi 110019, India. ISSN 0940-9819.
Vol. 19.2 (2007), pp. 5–102.
A special issue devoted to translation and philosophy, edited by Alexander Kozin (Freie
Universität Berlin), featuring empirical work which reflects how philosophy has informed
the discipline of translation from its very inception. For the authors featured in this issue
translation is not an abstraction but a phenomenon which presupposes the immediacy
of an encounter as a matter of ethics (Alexander Kozin), aesthetics (Michael LeVan), the
uncanny (Tanja Staehler), the just (Eileen Brennan), and the psychic (Celine Surprenant).
Several important themes play off each other in this issue: the ethics of the face-to-face
encounter, equity without equivalence, the aesthetics of encountering difference, translation
hermeneutics, and translation and psyche. With these themes the authors hope to expand
and simultaneously encourage philosophical examinations of translation.
Lang. Teach. (2009), 42:2, 287
doi:10.1017/S0261444808005685
Forthcoming in Language Teaching

State-of-the-art Articles
Richard Johnstone Annual review of research in 2007

Alan Waters on managing innovation in English language education
Daniela Perani & Jubin Abutalebi on the neural basis of second language processing
and acquisition
Robert Vanderplank on television and language laboratories in foreign language learning
A Language in Focus
Johannes Eckerth, Karen Schramm & Erwin Tschirner on L2 German (part two)
Ernesto Macaro on L2 Italian
Marta Antón on L2 Spanish
Yoshiko Mori & Junko Mori on L2 Japanese
A Country in Focus
Ruanni Topsie Tupas & Rani Rubdy on Singapore

Larissa Aronin on Israel
Christiane Dalton-Puffer, Renate Faistauer & Eva Vetter on Austria
Plenary Speeches
Tracey Derwing & Murray Munro Putting accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles to
communication
James P. Lantolf Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and
assessment
Gerard Westhoff A priori assessment of language learning tasks by practitioners
Ph.D./Ed.D. Theses Reviews
Emma Marsden & Suzanne Graham on England

Lindsay Brooks on Canada
Research Timelines
Batia Laufer on instructed L2 vocabulary learning

Ellen Bialystok on cognitive development in bilingual children
James Lantolf on sociocultural theory and SLA
Elaine Horwitz on L2 language anxiety
Bilingualism
Language and Cognition
Bilingualism: Language and Editors

Cognition David W. Green, University College London, UK
is available online at: Ping Li, University of Richmond, USA
journals.cambridge.org/bil Jürgen M. Meisel, Hamburg University, Germany
To subscribe contact Carmen Silva-Corvalán, University of Southern California, USA
Customer Services
in Cambridge: Bilingualism is an international peer-reviewed journal
Phone +44 (0)1223 326070 focusing on bilingualism from a cognitive science perspective.
Fax +44 (0)1223 325150
Areas covered include: bilingual language competence,
Email journals@cambridge.org
peception and production, bilingual language acquisition in
in New York:
children and adults, neurolinguistics of bilingualism in normal
Phone (845) 353 7500
Fax (845) 353 4141 and brain-damaged subjects, and non-linguistic cognitive
Email processes in bilinguals.
subscriptions_newyork@cambridge.org
Price information is available at:

journals.cambridge.org/bil
Free email alerts

Keep up-to-date with new material –
sign up at journals.cambridge.org/register
For a free online sample visit:

journals.cambridge.org/bil

LT 42.2

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

LT 42.2

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Lang. Teach.

Call for Papers

Replication Research Studies

Language Teaching invites submissions of previously unpublished articles based on LITERAL,

LITERAL (OR EXACT) REPLICATION is the exact duplication of a previous methodologically

Trends in qualitative research in language teaching since 2000

Keith Richards Warwick University, UK

2. The field of qualitative research

2.1 What is qualitative research?

Holliday (2007: 1) notes that it is traditional to begin by distinguishing QR from quantitative

2.2 The landscape of qualitative research

3. Review of trends in qualitative research since 2000

4. Qualitative research contributions to research since 2000

4.1 Approaches to teaching

Researchers have continued to build on QR’s important contribution to our understanding of

4.2 Identity and socialisation

4.4 Other developments

5. Quality in qualitative research

5.1 Checklists and standards

or a period of autobiographical navel-gazing can never generate faithful renderings of the

5.2 Issues of quality in published work

5.3 Lines of response to quality issues

6.1 Research in general

6.2 Qualitative research in general

6.3 Ethnography and fieldwork

6.5 Data analysis

6.7 Classroom research

6.8 Other methods

6.9 Other aspects

7. Conclusion: prospects and challenges

Appendix: Online resources

Asian EFL Journal

Educational Research and Reviews

English Teaching Practice and Critique

Forum: Qualitative Social Research

The Qualitative Report

Association for Qualitative Research (Australia)

Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory Practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching.

Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. London: Sage.

Tsui, A. B. M. (2007). Complexities of identity formation: A narrative inquiry of an EFL teacher.

The use of statistics in L2 acquisition research

Shawn Loewen & Susan Gass Michigan State University, USA

Figure 1 Statistical use in SLA: 1948–2006.

trilingual setting (Lapp, Norwegian, English), noting the need to understand

appropriate sampling, control of intervening variables, reliable

article, covers a wide range of topics involved in conducting research,

Multilingual education policy and practice: Ten certainties

Nancy H. Hornberger University of Pennsylvania, USA

2. What do we know about contexts – and spaces – for multilingual education?

I begin with a vignette from a bilingual classroom in Andean South America:

This vignette points to two certainties about multilingual education.

In addition to local communities, local educators at primary, secondary, and tertiary

3. What do we know about media – and modalities – of multilingual education?

This vignette points to two more certainties about multilingual education.

3.1 Fourth certainty: Models of multilingual education instantiate linguistic and

5 Reprinted from Hornberger (2006: 287–288).

3.3 Sixth certainty: Communicative modalities encompass more than

The multimodal, multilingual, mutual comprehension among the Amazonian Indigenous

4. What do we know about the development – and transfer – of language and

6 Reprinted, with modification, from Hornberger (1998: 440).

5. What do we know about content – and identities – in multilingual education?

This vignette points to three final certainties.

7 Reprinted from Hornberger & Johnson (2007: 256).

Hornberger, N. H. (1998). Language policy, language education, language rights: Indigenous,