CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 196

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

LONGITUDINAL RESEARCH IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: RECENT TRENDS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Ortega, Lourdes, Iberri-Shea, Gina·2005·Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
DOI 10.1017/s0267190505000024
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Both common sense and expert knowledge tell us that learning a language other than the mother tongue is a complex process that happens through and over time. Time, indeed, is a construct implicated in many of the problems that second language acquisition researchers investigate. The purpose of this chapter is to survey longitudinal SLA research published in the last three years and to offer a critical reflection of best current longitudinal practices and desirable directions for future longitudinal SLA research. We highlight recent trends in longitudinal SLA research, paying particular attention to broad design choices and foci of research organized around four trends in SLA longitudinal investigation, and we describe key exemplary studies under each trend. We close by reflecting on some of the challenges and opportunities that await these longitudinal research programs in the future.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0267190505000024

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Skehan P. 2002.Theorising and updating aptitude.In P. Robinson (Ed.),Individual differences and instructed language learning(pp. 69–93).Philadelphia, PA:John Benjamins. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Han Z.-H. 2002.A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output.TESOL Quarterly,36,543–572.
  3. Cook V. (Ed.).2002.Portraits of the L2 user.Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters. · DOI
  4. Light R. , & Pillemer D. 1984.Summing up: The science of reviewing research.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press. · DOI
  5. Belz J. A. , & Kinginger C. 2002.The cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecollaborative language learning: Two case studies.The Canadian Modern Language Review,59,189–214.
  6. Han Z.-H. 2004.Fossilization in adult second language acquisition.Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Schmidt R. 1983.Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence.In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.),Sociolinguistics and language acquisition(pp. 137–174).Rowley, MA:Newbury House.
  8. Gebhard M. 2002.Fast capitalism, school reform, and second language literacy practices.The Canadian Modern Language Review,59,15–52.
  9. Peirce B. N. 1995.Social identity, investment, and language learning.TESOL Quarterly,29,9–31.
  10. Maxwell J. A. 2004.Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education.Educational Researcher,33 (1),3–11.
  11. Singer J. D. , & Willett J. B. 2003.Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence.New York:Oxford University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Entwisle D. R. , Alexander K. L. , & Olson L. S. 2002.Baltimore Beginning School study in perspective.In E. Phelps , F. F. J. Furstenberg , & A. Colby (Eds.),Looking at lives: American longitudinal studies of the twentieth century(pp. 167–193).New York:Russell Sage Foundation.
  13. Rogoff B. 1995.Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship.In J. V. Wertsch , P. D. Rio & A. Alvarez (Eds.),Sociocultural studies of mind(pp. 139–164).New York:Cambridge University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  14. Jackson J. 2002.Reticence in second language case discussions: Anxiety and aspirations.System,30,65–84. · DOI
  15. Robinson P. 2001.Task complexity, cognition and second language syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA.In P. Robinson (Ed.),Cognition and second language instruction(pp. 287–318).New York:Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  16. Kobayashi M. 2003.The role of peer support in ESL students' accomplishment of oral academic tasks.The Canadian Modern Language Review,59,337–368.
  17. McCafferty S. 2002.Gesture and creating zones of proximal development for second language learning.The Modern Language Journal,86,192–203.
  18. Pavlenko A. 1998.Second language learning by adults: Testimonies of bilingual writers.Issues in Applied Linguistics,9 (1),3–19.
  19. Lightbown P. , Halter R. , White J. , & Horst M. 2002.Comprehension-based learning: The limits of “do it yourself.”The Canadian Modern Language Review,58,427–464.
  20. Collier V. P. 1989.How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second language.TESOL Quarterly,23,509–531.
  21. Karmiloff-Smith K. , & Karmiloff-Smith A. 2001.Pathways to language: From foetus to adolescent.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press. · DOI
  22. Loschky L. , & Bley-Vroman R. 1993.Grammar and task-based methodology.In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.),Tasks and language learning(pp. 123–167).Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.
  23. Marx N. 2002.Never quite a “native speaker:” Accent and identity in the L2- and the L1.The Canadian Modern Language Review,59,264–281.
  24. Ortega L. 2003.Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing.Applied Linguistics,24,492–518. · DOI
  25. Ishida M. 2004.Effects of recasts on the acquisition of the aspectual form -te i-(ru) by learners of Japanese as a foreign language.Language Learning,54,311–394. · DOI
  26. Keck C. , Iberri-Shea G. , Tracy N. , & Wa-Mbaleka S. (forthcoming).Investigating the empirical link between interaction and acquisition: A quantitative meta-analysis.In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.),Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching.Philadelphia, PA:John Benjamins.
  27. Watson-Gegeo K. A. 2004.Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward a language socialization paradigm for SLA.The Modern Language Journal,88,331–350.
  28. Perdue C. , Benazzo S. , & Giuliano P. 2002.When finiteness gets marked: The relation between morphosyntactic development and use of scopal items in adult language acquisition.Linguistics,40,849–890. · DOI
  29. Kramsch C. (Ed.)2002.Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives.London:Continuum.
  30. Kim D. , & Hall J. K. 2002.The role of an interactive book reading program in the development of second language pragmatic competence.The Modern Language Journal,86,332–348.
  31. Lally C. G. (Ed.)2001.Foreign language program articulation: Current practice and future prospects.Westport, CT:Bergin & Garvey.
  32. Phelps E. , Furstenberg F. F. J. & Colby A. (Eds.).2002.Looking at lives: American longitudinal studies of the twentieth century.New York:Russell Sage Foundation.
  33. Doughty C. , & Williams J. 1998.Pedagogical choices in focus on form.In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.),Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition(pp. 197–261).New York:Cambridge University Press.
  34. Vavrus J. 2002.Postcoloniality and English: Exploring language policy and the politics of development in Tanzania.TESOL Quarterly,36,373–398.
  35. Leki I. 2001."A narrow thinking system:" Non-English-speaking students in group projects across the curriculum.TESOL Quarterly,35,39–67.
  36. Byrnes H. 2002.Toward academic-level foreign language abilities: Reconsidering foundational assumptions, expanding pedagogical options.In B. L. Leaver & B. Shektman (Eds.),Developing professional-level language proficiency(pp. 34–58).New York:Cambridge University Press · DOI
  37. Lantolf J. P. & Thorne S. L. (forthcoming).Sociocultural theory and the sociogenesis of second language development.New York:Oxford University Press
  38. Johnson B. 2001.Toward a new classification of nonexperimental quantitative research.Educational Researcher,30 (2),3–13.
  39. Lantolf J. P. , & Genung P. B. 2002.“I'd rather switch than fight”: An activity-theoretic study of power, success, and failure in a foreign language.In C. Kramsch (Ed.),Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives(pp. 175–196).London:Continuum.
  40. Collins L. , Halter R. H. , Lightbown P. M. , & Spada N. 1999.Time and the distribution of time in L2 instruction.TESOL Quarterly,33,655–680.
  41. Cooper H. , & Hedges L. V. (Eds.).1994.The handbook of research synthesis.New York:Russell Sage Foundation.
  42. Tashakkori A. , & Teddlie C. (Eds.).2002.The handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ortega, L., & Iberri-Shea, G.
Venue
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2005-03
Volume
25
Pages
26-45
ISSN
  • 0267-1905
  • 1471-6356
DOI
10.1017/s0267190505000024
Cited by
196
References
5
Language
en
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 142 d)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review