Language Teaching

Volume 56, Issue 4, October 2023

Language Teaching（SSCI一区，2022 IF：3.6，排名：16/194）2023年第4期共发文12篇，其中研究性论文8篇，2023 年波特兰美国应用语言学协会会议海报展示精选4篇。研究论文涉及二语教学研究、二语习得研究、语言教育研究、应用语言学研究等方面。主题包括纠正反馈与发音教学、英语媒介授课、语音与听觉训练、土耳其语言教育系统综述、研究伦理学等。欢迎转发扩散！

往期推荐：

刊讯｜SSCI 期刊《语言教学》2023年第3期

刊讯｜SSCI 期刊 《语言教学》 2023年第1-2期

目录

ARTICLES

■ Whose open science are we talking about? From open science in psychology to open science in applied linguistics, by Meng Liu，Pages 443–450.

■ Studies on pre-primary learners of foreign languages, their teachers, and parents: A critical overview of publications between 2000 and 2022, by Marianne Nikolov and Jelena Mihaljević Djigunović, Pages 451–477.

■ Research ethics in applied linguistics, by Katherine Yaw, Luke Plonsky, Tove Larsson, Scott Sterling and Merja Kytö, Pages 478–494.

■Applied linguistics and language education research in Turkey: 2016–2022, by Deniz Ortactepe Hart and Julie Aydınlı, Pages 495–521.

■ How does having a good ear promote successful second language speech acquisition in adulthood? Introducing Auditory Precision Hypothesis-L2, by Kazuya Saito, Pages 522–538.

■ Defining English Medium Instruction: Striving for comparative equivalence, by Heath Rose, Ernesto Macaro, Kari Sahan, Ikuya Aizawa, Sihan Zhou and Minhui Wei, Pages 539–550.

■Methodological innovation in applied linguistics research: Perspectives, strategies, and trends, by Shaofeng Li, Matthew Prior, Shondel Nero, Phil Hiver, Ali H. Al-Hoorie, Akira Murakami, Li Wei and Lourdes Ortega, Pages 551–556.

■ Discussions on the past, present, and future of quantitative research ethics in applied linguistics, by Katherine Yaw, Sible Andringa, Susan Gass, Gregory R. Hancock, Daniel R. Isbell, Jieun Kim, Merja Kytö, Tove Larsson, Luke Plonsky, Scott Sterling and Margaret Wood, Pages 557–561.

■ Supporting students with limited or interrupted formal education (SLIFE): Effective policies, practices, and programs, by Jamie Morgan, Meg Montee and Francesca Di Silvio, Pages 562–565.

■ Relational applied research: A model for re-balancing research relationships for equity in applied linguistics, by Allison Taylor-Adams, Pages 566–569.

■ A general service list for French? Teaching the vocabulary that matters, by Theresa A. Antes, Pages 570–573.

■ Corrective feedback and second language pronunciation instruction: A case study of a nonnative-speaking teacher，by Joshua Gordon, Pages 574-577.

摘要

Meng Liu, Beijing Foreign Studies University, Beijing, China

Extract An extremely timely, thoughtful, and well-informed discussion in applied linguistics and beyond concerning open science. The essay seeks to engage with a broad audience and to dispel some of the persisting myths around open science and would be read fruitfully by many in the field.

Marianne Nikolov, University of Pécs, Hungary

Jelena Mihaljević Djigunović, University of Zagreb, Croatia

Abstract This article offers insights into trends found in 74 empirical studies on teaching and learning a foreign language (FL) in pre-primary schools in 25 countries. The emerging picture is like that of primary-school programs: most are implemented in English, mostly owing to parents’ enthusiasm rather than evidence on long term FL benefits. Researchers focus on measurable outcomes in the FL rather than embedding studies in what early childhood education and language policies aim for: developing children not only in a FL, but also in their first language and emotional, cognitive, and social domains. A short literature review on how children learn languages and what necessary conditions include, is followed by the evidence empirical studies offer along themes found in them. Research has revealed encouraging results as well as weaknesses, whereas most authors frame their findings in positive terms. Overall, the younger the children the slower their rate of FL development. The field is dominated by FL experts; it would benefit from early childhood expertise to shift it towards the whole child. Although the increase in research is significant, more is necessary to build a model of pre-primary FL programs. A table available online complements the text.

Katherine Yaw, University of South Florida, Tampa, USA

Luke Plonsky, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, USA

Tove Larsson, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, USAUppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Scott Sterling, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, USA

Merja Kytö, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Extract For many researchers in the social sciences, including those in applied linguistics, the term ETHICS evokes the bureaucratic process of fulfilling the requirements of an ethics review board (e.g., in the US, an Institutional Review Board, or IRB) as a preliminary step in conducting human subjects research. The expansion of ethics review boards into the social sciences in the early 2000s has led applied linguistics as a field to experience what Haggerty (2004) termed ETHICS CREEP, a simultaneous expansion and intensification of external regulation of research activities. The aims of these ethical review boards are: (a) to evaluate the types and risk of harm to participants as a result of research activities, (b) ensure that participants can give informed consent to be part of the research activities, and (c) provide oversight on researcher procedures to maintain participant anonymity/confidentiality (Haggerty, 2004).

Deniz Ortactepe Hart, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

Julie Aydınlı, Ankara Social Sciences University, Anakara, Turkey

Abstract This systematic review of 170+ journal articles showcases the current trends and developments in Turkey-based applied linguistics and language education research between 2016–2022. The current review presents similarities to the previous reviews (Alptekin & Tatar, 2011; Aydınlı & Ortaçtepe, 2018) in terms of trends and practices that indicate a vibrant research scene and a community of practice in Turkey within language education and applied linguistics research. While certain research areas such as instructional technologies remain widely popular among Turkey-based scholars, there has been growing interest in multiculturalism, social justice language education, critical pedagogy, and culturally responsive teaching. It was also clear in our analysis that the demands by the Higher Education Council for academic promotion exacerbated some of the already-existing challenges also noted in the previous reviews. Some of the concerns include pre- and post-test study designs that focus on practical concerns and outcomes rather than on processes that would lead to conceptual or theoretical development; and lack of engagement with broader (inter)disciplinary debates. We hope that this review will help establish conversations among fellow scholars in terms of future directions that applied linguistics and language education research in Turkey can take in order to contribute to the larger discussions in the field.

Kazuya Saito, University College London, London, UK

Abstract In this paper, I first provide a brief review of how scholars have conceptualized, tested, and elaborated aptitude frameworks relevant to second language (L2) speech learning. Subsequently, I introduce an emerging paradigm that assigns a fundamental role to domain-general auditory processing (i.e., having a good ear) in L1 speech acquisition and proposes that the same faculty acts as a cornerstone of L2 speech learning (i.e., the Auditory Precision Hypothesis-L2). This hypothesis predicts that learners with more precise auditory processing ability will be able to make the most of every input opportunity, which will result in more advanced L2 speech proficiency. To close, I will provide suggestions on how scholars can assess L2 students’ auditory processing ability (e.g., our team's offline test deposited at L2 Speech Tools for Researchers & Teachers [http://sla-speech-tools.com/]) and discuss how the results can be used to maximize learners’ L2 speech learning opportunities via optimal, profile-matched training programs (e.g., explicit vs. incidental training; naturalistic vs. classroom learning; phonetic vs. auditory training).

Heath Rose, Ernesto Macaro, Kari Sahan, Ikuya Aizawa, Sihan Zhou, Minhui Wei, EMI Oxford Research Group, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Extract English Medium Instruction (EMI) has been defined as ‘the use of the English language to teach academic subjects (other than English itself) in countries or jurisdictions where the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English’ (Macaro, 2018, p. 19). This definition has proved to be controversial but has underpinned the work of our research group, from whose collective perspective this article is written. Debates have centred on the role that English language development plays in EMI contexts, and whether this current definitional scope is too narrow in its exclusion of English medium educational practices in Anglophone settings. Pecorari and Malmström (2018), for example, observe that some members of the EMI research community interpret EMI more broadly to include ‘contexts in which English is a dominant language and in which English language development is supported and actively worked for’ (p. 507). Similarly, Baker and Hüttner (2016, p. 502) state that excluding Anglophone contexts from EMI is ‘unhelpful’ by failing to include the experiences of multilingual students in Anglophone universities who learn through their second language (L2). A focus on multilingualism is also one of the driving forces behind the emergence of new terminology that seeks to shift focus towards the contexts of education, rather than instruction and pedagogy. Dafouz and Smit (2016), for example, prefer the term English-Medium Education in Multilingual University Settings (EMEMUS), because the ‘label is semantically wider, as it does not specify any particular pedagogical approach or research agenda’ (p. 399).

期刊简介

官网地址：

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-teaching

推  荐

今日小编：宋村村

  审     核：心得小蔓

转载&合作请联系