EPISTEMOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND THE MORAL

ENDS OF RESEARCH: WHAT’S IN IT FOR INSTRUCTED SLA RESEARCHERS?

6th Annual BAAL LL&T SIG ConferenceKing’s College – July , 8-9 2010

University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa

LOURDES ORTEGA

Please cite as:

Ortega, L. (2010). Epistemological diversity and the moral ends of research: What’s in it for instructed SLA researchers? Plenary address delivered at the 6th Annual BAAL LL&T SIG Conference. King’s College, London, July 8-9.

Copyright © Lourdes Ortega, 2010

In memoriam

Johannes Eckerth

Thanks to the organizers

Nick Andon Alan Fortune

1. Locating ourselves…

Conference theme: Cognitive-interactional and socio-cultural perspectives:

Compatible, complementary, or incommensurable?

At stake in the formulation of the theme: Issues of

epistemological diversity and its feasibility…

2. My cards on the table…

1. Do we have it?

2. Is it a good

thing?

Epistemological diversity in instructed SLA…

Yes, and Yes!

3. But is it

enough?

Epistemological diversity in instructed SLA…

No: Ethical lens also needed!

3. Epistemological diversity…

…YES, IT IS HERE TO STAY

etic.............................................................emic

general..............................................particular

homogeneous.....................................variable

inherited~birth..........................made~history

Epistemological tensions across social sciencesNativist theories........................Empiricist theories{Biology} ................................................{Sociality}

The Social Turn(Block, 2003)

The social turn has transformedSLA theories

Social respecifications:

L2 interaction:Conversation Analysis

L2 grammar:Systemic-FunctionalLinguistics

L2 cognition:Vygotskian SCT

L2 learning:Language socialization

L2 self:Identity theory

Language ‘faculty’:Usage-based emergentism

This transformation has also transpired into specific

topical areas

ISLA e.g., focus on form via INTERACTION

Interactionhypothesis

CA for SLAVygotskian

SCTUsage-basedemergentism

Co-oriented trouble in talk

Repair

Contingency of unfolding turns

Learning tracked over time in natural interaction data

Interaction offers linguistic input in learnable “islands”:

most frequent, most prototypical, most communicatively useful constructions

Assistance within ZPD (LREs)

(Self-)regulation continuum

Meta-reflection

Conceptual understanding

Tailored-test learning

Negotiation for meaning (NfM moves)

Noticing

Output modifications

Post-test learning

Individual differences

Gass,Mackey, McDonough

Swain, LapkinStorch

Fortune & Thorpe

Markee,Wagner, Seedhouse

N. Ellis &Ferreira-Junior (20009)

ISLA e.g., focus on form via NEGATIVE FEEDBACK

Conversation AnalysisSeedhouse (2004)

Koshik (2002)

Systemic-FunctionalLinguistics

Mohan & Beckett (2001)

Vygotskian SCTAljaafreh & Lantolf (1994)

Storch & Wigglesworth (2010)

Language socializationFriedman (2009)

Identity theoryFiona Hyland?

Lynn Goldstein?

Usage-based emergentismHartshorn et al. (2010)

Cognitive-interactionismRussell & Spada (2006)

Li (2010)Lyster & Saito (2010)

Ferris (2010)

…EPISTEMOLOGICAL DIVERSITY IS ALSO A

GOOD THING

This epistemological multiplicity improves our

theorized understanding of phenomena (validity

advantage)

Koshik’s designedly incomplete utterances

DIU =Recognizable

action (invitation to self-repair)

Self-repair = Co-orientation to DIU

and contingent next action

Lyster’s prompts

Prompt = Move pushing for self-

correction, triggered by

errorUptake =

Successful self-correction or incorporation

ISLA e.g., NEGATIVE FEEDBACK

Koshik (2002, p. 287)He died not from injuries, but drowned after he was left there for 13 hours without any aids.

Lyster (2002, p. 245)Talking about porcupines

Doughty & Varela (1998)

St: I think that the worm will go under the soil.

T: I think that the worm will go under the soil?

St: [no response]

T: I thought that the worm would go under the soil.

St: I thought that the worm would go under the soil.

Clear co-orientation towards corrective

action

teacher “animating”

words (Goffman,

1981) authored by student (cf.

lack of pronoun

reversal -- I/you!)

e.g.: Is this a recast, and how explicit is this?

IT FOLLOWS ALSO THAT

I BELIEVE IN COMMENSURABILITY

Incommensurability

Kuhn (1962), because different paradigms create different worlds, and inhabitants of different worlds

don’t share common ground.

But others have worked hard at crafting the possibility of

commensurability

Gage (1989), Kamil (1995), Stanovich (1990)

Greene & Caracelli (1997), Tashakkori &

Creswell (2007)

Ascendancy of mixed-methods research

in education, health, social sciences

Cease-fire pieces after paradigm wars in education and literacy

Dunn & Lantolf (1998)

Habermasiancommunicative rationality and communicative action (e.g., 1983)

“When two metaphors compete for attention and incessantly screen each other for possible weaknesses, there is a much better chance for producing a critical theory of learning”

(Sfard, 1998, p. 11)

Pluralism is to be valued on both moral and epistemic grounds: Engagement with, rather than dismissal of, multiple views and voices produces better/more valid knowledge and it also produces more useful/ethically responsible knowledge

Kenneth Howe (2003; House & Howe, 1999)

…BUT EPISTEMOLOGICAL DIVERSITY IS NOT

ENOUGH

L2 learning

Language

Social context

Agency Identity

More fully theorized, improved understanding of constructs that are central to social theories of SLA

But what about the

social value and social

ends of our research? …

L2 learning

Language

Social context

Agency Identity

What about…

Power………………………..........Social

transformation

AN ETHICAL LENSIS ALSO NEEDED

4. Moral Ends of Research…

(Ortega, 2005)

Instructed SLA researchers must grapple with ethics and values

“to be truly ethical, educational researchers must be prepared to defend what their research is for”

“social and educational research is (ought to be) framed by self-consciously chosen moral-political ends”

(Howe & Moses, 1999, p. 56, p. 38)

… For me, issues of educational relevance and social responsibility must be at the foreground of any reconceptualizations of instructed SLA research

“in the ultimate analysis, it is not the methods or the epistemologies that justify the legitimacy and quality of human research, but the moral-political purposes that guide sustained research efforts”

(Ortega, 2005, p. 438)

But to be able to entertain this position, we must

reject three assumptions (Ortega, 2005)

Assumed fact-value dichotomy:

theory and knowledge building, the goal of research

practical applications, a posteriori,

independent from theory building

“basic”

“applied”

Weberian “technicis

m”

Reject!

Assumed neutrality of “facts”:

Knowledge can…

… and must be neutral, objective

“(post)positivism”

Assumed neutrality of “facts”:

Knowledge can…

… and must be neutral, objective

“(post)positivism”

Reject!

Assumed “irrationality” of values:

Values are a matter of personal choice…

…they escape rational scrutiny

“emotivism”(MacIntyre, 1984)

Assumed “irrationality” of values:

Values are a matter of personal choice…

…they escape rational scrutiny

“emotivism”(MacIntyre, 1984)

Reject!

And instead of technicism, positivism,

and emotivism, we must embrace three new assumptions about

research, knowledge, and values

Values and ethics… What are they?

“… knowing about ways of acting and interacting with responsibility to others and ways of making knowledge (i.e., people's knowing) of value to the world in which we live”

Scarino (2005, pp. 33-34)

Values and ethics… What are they?

“… knowing about ways of acting and interacting with responsibility to others and ways of making knowledge (i.e., people's knowing) of value to the world in which we live”

Scarino (2005, pp. 33-34)

Ethically responsive research?

Research that “makes knowledge (i.e., people's

knowing) of value to the world in which we live”

5. What’s in it for instructed SLA researchers?

People’s knowing in the world we live in that can be impacted

by ISLA research:All actors and stake-holders in

educational worldsLearnersTeachers

AdministratorsPolicy makersWider society

Questions ISLA researchers must ask themselves:

2. How are the ideals of educational relevance

and social responsibility served by adopting

diverse epistemological and ontological perspectives on

additional language learning?

1. What ISLA knowledge can be of value to

whom?

3. Under what conditions does research about

language instruction contribute socially and educationally

valuable knowledge?

HALF-FULL GLASS…

I. THE SOCIAL TURN IN SLA HAS MADE ISLA RESEARCHERS

MORE AWARENESS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF

CONTEXTUALIZATION AND EDUCATIONAL RELEVANCE

Biggest impact of epistemological diversity on ISLA research thus far:

Labs vs. classrooms

Foster (1998):Ecological validity of lab findings?Need to report individual-level dataGass, Mackey, & Ross-Feldman (2005)

Nicholas et al. (2001):Context leads to differential effects: “recasts appear to provide more useful input to learners in the laboratory setting than in the classroom setting” (p. 749)Li (2010): lab k=14 d=1.09 vs. class k=11 d=0.47

Questioning generalizabilityas goal for ISLA

Spada (2005, p. 334):

“Almost all L2 classroom research is carried out in intact classrooms and thus random assignment of participants to different treatment groups is not feasible. But even if that were possible, it seems highly unlikely that the results of studies would be directly applicable to other contexts given the considerable diversity that exists across populations of learners, teachers, schools, and communities. Thus, striving for generalizability—at least in terms of its classic formulation by Campbell and Stanley (1966)— may not be a reasonable or appropriate goal for L2 classroom research”

Gradually including perspectives of those researched

Learner perspectives:Philp (2009): Social-cognitive factors in TBLT, “muddying the waters”Teacher perspectives:Erlam (2008): Successful conditions for bridging the gap between research and teachingAmmar & Spada (2006): Matching teachers’ natural teaching styles to instructional treatments

Continued worries about the educational relevance of research

Hatch’s (1978) dictum to “apply with caution”

TESOL Quarterly’s published Symposium on Research and Its Pedagogical Implications:

Han (2007): “researchers need be ever mindful that as much as their studies are generalizable, pedagogy is largely local” (p. 392)

Calls to nevertheless strive for educational relevance of ISLA research

R. Ellis’s (2010) “educational” perspective on the relevance of SLA research

Chapelle’s (2007) reminder that “professional [research-based] knowledge has never been in greater demand” (p. 405)

Belcher’s (2007, p. 399) three ways to strive for educational relevance in L2 research:

“considering pedagogy early in one’s research plans (long before the implications are written up)”“conceiving of research

problems asnested in a number of research and real world contexts” “contemplating the needs

of an audience that includes those eager to make the most of our field’s partial knowledge on Monday morning”

Make relevant by design

Respect teachers as research audience and users

Contextualize

II. THE NEW SOCIAL THEORIES HAVE DEFINITELY

STRENGTHENED OUR UNDERSTANDING OF

LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING

Biggest criticism of social turn: The cognitive is not enough

ISLA research “exaggerates cognitive phenomena and underestimates the institutional, political, and interpersonal constraints that teachers must deal with”

(Clarke, 1994, p. 16)

Each of the existing social-theoretical lenses has taught us ethically useful insights on ISLA phenomena that none of the existing cognitive lenses could help us unpack…

Ethically useful insightsVygotskian SCT

Agentivity and consciousness:

L2 learning is not something that happens to people; L2 learning is something people make happen through intentional social interaction and co-construction of reflected-upon knowledge

Mediation, ZPD

languaging (Swain, 2006)concept-based

instructional praxis (Lantolf, 2008)

Ethically useful insightsConversation Analysis

L2 users are not deficient users:

Doing communication is a social accomplishment that is distributed across interactants and arises locally in the turn-by-turn deployment of co-orientations and witnessable, recognizable actions

Radical emic perspective, co-orientation

Let-it-pass (Firth, 1996)

Suspension of categories “nativeness”, “error”…

No content, no reality, unless co-oriented

Usage-based emergentismEthically useful insights

Importance of individual & variability:

What’s to be explained, centrally, is each individual’s learning as a complex and adaptive system constantly being shaped and shaping the social environment

Co-adaptation, soft-assembly, unknowableness and interconnectedness of systems

Non-teleological grammar learning: No end, no state, no ladder (Larsen-Freeman, 2005)

Language socializationEthically useful insights

More realistic and also more complex learning goals: L2 learning is about much more than just learning “language”…

Kyle, acquirer of L2 Indonesian (DuFon, 2006, p. 117):

vocabulary pedas = ‘spicy’, asin = ‘salty’speech acts enak = ‘delicious’, hambar ‘tasteless’

“My eating behavior has changed. Now I eat a lot in the morning, plus my eating etiquette has changed. Things that taste good taste really good. I kind of look at the food differently, with more respect”

Systemic-FunctionalLinguistics

Ethically useful insights

Learning grammar is about learning to mean, and meanings are social and personal, built on linguistic repertoires

From an ESL teacher’s journal, cited with permission:

Once I had a student who kept saying “I came from Korea.” I tried to correct her grammar by saying “if you are originally from Korea, you should use present tense when you refer to it.”She said “Since I don’t want to go back to Korea and identify myself with American, I’d rather say I came from Korea and wish to be an American one day.”

Not about learning/correcting the grammar rule for –ed past

tense or idiomaticity but about “meaning

to others”

Expanding meaning-making

repertoire: “If you ‘want to

mean this’ and to ‘be read by others,’ you

can use originally”

Identity theoryEthically useful insights

L2 learning is about power and contested identities“When a language learner interacts with a member of the target language group […] [s/he] is asking to what extent [s/he] will be able to impose reception on [the] interlocutor […] Thus, language learners are not only learning a linguistic system; they are learning a diverse set of sociocultural practices, often best understood in the context of wider relations of power”

Norton & Toohey (2004, p. 115)

In sum, the epistemological expansion of SLA has infused new key ethical insights into research…

BUT ALSO HALF-EMPTY GLASS…

I. ISLA RESEARCH PRACTICES LAG

BEHIND THE NEWEST

THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDINGS

Yes, there is increasing

recognition that the relevant phenomena

are complex and social, e.g., in

research on negative feedback

F. Hyland (1998, pp. 277-278)

Error correction is never just about language!

Samorn, Thai graduate student over 30 years old, doing a degree in business:

“At the first time I think that my writing is good because friends always say that it’s good. But my teacher say that I have to have a lot of writing because it’s not so good and at the first time I feel confident of my writing because I think that my grammar- my tense and my plural and verb use with plural, with singular is OK. But when the feedback come out, teacher doesn’t look enough in that grammar. The grammar is not the most important thing for her, so she check in the coherence, in introduction, in something else. And I haven’t got good marks so I think that I am poor in everything of writing. [....] I think that my grammar is good but I didn’t get any comments that ‘oh your grammar is good, but you still have to, you still have to correct about something like this’ But all the comments come that my writing is not so good, so I feel that everything is poor. [....] I think that at least she should admire me some points. [... ] From that time I discouraged a lot and I feel don’t like writing.”

Error correction is

always social and relational

(Goldstein, 2004; Hyland & Hyland, 2006)

Whether they are always able to act

upon it appropriately, good

teachers have always known this!

“In giving feedback, we simultaneously offer a representation of ourselves as teachers and as individuals, revealing our beliefs about language, learning, writing, and personal relationships. We can be impersonal, critical, and autocratic, or informed, sympathetic, and helpful, and controlling this representation of self can be crucial to maintaining interaction with students and providing feedback that will be taken seriously”

Hyland & Hyland (2006, p. 207)

Study of Rose, a French FL teacher, giving feedback and grading her students’ writing :

In the act of judging performance, she is confronted, albeit intuitively or subconsciously, with the responsibility of determining how to use her knowledge of criteria and standards and, simultaneously, how also to consider her students as young, sentient beings, her relationship with them, the consequences of her actions and judgments, and ethical concerns that pertain. She has to seek to find "equilibrium among justice, caring and truthfulness" (Oser, 1994, p. 104) as she judges their work.

Scarino (2005, p. 37)

Do we translate these insights into

our research practices when

investigating error correction/negative

feedback?

… the bulk of current research continues with

business as usual?!

But…

Despite all the epistemological

expansion we have witnessed in

negative feedback research…

Conversation AnalysisSeedhouse (2004)

Koshik (2002)

Systemic-FunctionalLinguistics

Mohan & Beckett (2001)

Vygotskian SCTAljaafreh & Lantolf (1994)

Storch & Wigglesworth (2010)

Language socializationFriedman (2009)

Identity theoryFiona Hyland?

Lynn Goldstein?

Usage-based emergentismHartshorn et al. (2010)

Cognitive-interactionismRussell & Spada (2006)

Li (2010)Lyster & Saito (2010)

Ferris (2010)

It has not revolutionarized how

we investigate feedback, and

teachers giving feedback…

“Inconsistency” of teacher corrective behavior (Chaudron, 1988; R. Ellis, 1990; Lee,

2004; Zamel, 1985) = most likely a byproduct of decontextualized analyses? No research on this, still

In fact, rapidly widening gap in

negative feedback research…?

“The studies of written CF designed by SLA researchers examine whether written CF facilitates long-term acquisition of particular linguistic features, and, if so, how. […] In contrast, L2 writing researchers start with the question of whether written CF helps student writers to improve the overall effectiveness of their texts and to develop as more successful writers”

Ferris (2010, p. 188)

“… four recent studies (Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener and Knoch, 2008; Ellis et al., 2008; Sheen, 2007) … apparently contradict Truscott’s position on the basis of empirical evidence, but unfortunately bear little relation to current contextualized writing pedagogy”

Bruton (2009, p. 601)

Long-term acquisition of linguistic forms, ties with experimental research

Supporting good writers and effective texts, pedagogically grounded research

“basic”

“applied”

Tension felt, rooted in Weberian

“technicism”?

II. THE POPULATIONS THAT CAN BENEFIT FROM

ISLA RESEARCH CONTINUE TO BE

SEVERELY RESTRICTED

Although, slowly, we are beginning to research new learner populations

UG SLA’s new interest in heritage learners: Montrul (2009), Montrul & Bowles (2008)

Educational SLA’s new interest in learners with interrupted schooling and/or limited alphabetic print: Bigelow (2010), Tarone et al. (2009)

Cognitive-interactionist SLA’s new interest in young learners: Philp, Oliver, Mackey (2008)

2010 BAAL LL&T SIG Conference: David Block on social class and L2 learning; Tom Morton on working-class secondary school CLIL students; Ros Mitchell on 5- and 7-year-olds learning French

But by and large, the populations researched (and served by) ISLA researchers

are “pastoral” (Ortega, 2005)

involving:Middle-classHighly literateCollege-based or college-boundWith limited experience of linguicism or other forms of oppressionOften, raised with one language onlyPursuing elective bilingualism

Very large learner populations are ignored (e.g., 0.5 million international students in US universities vs. 4.5 million L2 English users in k-12 public schools)

If we don’t investigate them, we don’t serve them

When we serve them and research them, our methods and research are challenged and changed for the better (Bigelow & Tarone, 2004)

Representativeness of the knowledge available about L2 learning and teaching?

Quality/completeness of knowledge?

Serious consequences:

Ethics

Validity

III. TEACHER EFFICACY BLIND

SPOTS ARE YET TO BE FULLY

ADDRESSED EMPIRICALLY BY

ISLA

Teacher efficacy:

“beliefs about the power… to produce a positive effect on students” -- informed by experiences, by professional knowledge, and by (commonsensical) macro-societal beliefs, and also influenced by students, institutional context, and teacher sense of self

Ball & Lardner (1997, p. 13, 18)

Teacher efficacy blind spots, e.g.

aptitude

nativenessag

e

Non-native speaking teacher, cited with permission: While I am not a native Spanish speaker, I have a fairly decent authentic Spanish accent; however, I have heard Spanish teachers who speak with thick American, especially Southern accents. I am not questioning their abilities as a teacher, but I would be curious to know if students who have native Spanish speakers (or native English speakers for ESL) teachers acquire a native-like accent. My question is: “Are the students I teach at a disadvantage for obtaining a native-like accent because their teacher is not a native?” “Will they speak like I speak?”

e.g., nativeness

What research can be designed to produce relevant findings that help teachers reframe harmful ideologies?

Age: Muñoz (2006) In EFL contexts, younger is NOT better

Good examples of ethically useful research in these areas

Aptitude: Skehan (2002), Robinson (2002) aptitude is multidimensional, treatable construct

Nativeness: Seidlhofer (2004), Jenkins (2005) ELF is a systematic variety amenable to study

IV. SOCIAL APPROACHES DO NOT INHERENTLY

ENHANCE THE SOCIAL VALUE OF

RESEARCH

Acquisitionof

knowledge/skills

Participationin

communities/processes

Formal linguistic SLA

Skills acquisition theory

Functional-linguistic SLA

Cognitive interactionism

Identity theoryLg socializationCA-for-SLAVygotskian SLASystemic-Functional Ling.

Usage-based emergentism

Sfard (1998)Pavlenko & Lantolf

(2000)

Cognitive epistemolog

ies

Social epistemolo

giesReject!

Similar epistemologies do not always result in similar ethics

Gould(rev. ed. 1996)

Herrstein &Murray (1994)

Gould (1981)

Same epistemologies & methodologies, different moral ends:

In fact, within similar epistemologies, there may be more “critical” or

transformation-oriented research and more “a-critical” research streams

“… within an overarching interpretivist framework… Postmodernists and transformationists differ about the possibility of a general moral-political grounding for social research, the postmodernists being highly suspicious, even dismissive, of this idea. As such, the postmodernists eschew general moral-political commitments and thus carry over that feature of the fact/value dogma from the old divide [within a positivist framework]”

Howe (2007, p. 577)

In education:

In SLA, e.g., critically oriented LS theory

“Criticalist approaches [to Language Socialization, as opposed to a-critical Language Socialization research] in SLA examine language learning through postcolonial and postmodern theoretical lenses where issues of power, privilege, and sociopolitical history are central rather than incidental to the analysis, and where the research is positioned to serve subaltern communities in crisis as well as to advance scholarly discourse”

(Bronson & Watson-Gegeo, 2008, p. 46)

So, there is no inherent or natural ethical value in a given epistemology or

methodology.

Ethical choices in research emerge out of consciousness, agency, and

deliberative rationality.

Regardless of epistemological predilection and methodological

approach, all value choices embedded in any given piece of SLA

research must be articulated and defended anew.

6. In conclusion

Assumptions:

Instructed SLA research should be ethically responsive

research, that is, research that makes “knowledge (i.e.,

people's knowing) of value to the world in which we live”

Position:

“amplifying a ‘critical moment’ in SLA […] will require researchers to assess what they have left out as well as what they have included in their data sets and procedures. They must grapple with questions of accountability and responsibility to the communities they are studying as well as to their own communities-of-practice when they assess the explanatory power and impact of their final interpretations”

Bronson & Watson-Gegeo (2008, p. 49)

Incumbent upon all ISLA researchers:

How well are we, instructed SLA

researchers, faring in terms of producing knowledge that is

socially and educationally

valuable?

And are we capable of disciplinary

dialogue about what would be “of value” to the world we live

in?

Pending questions:

Thank Youlortega@hawaii.edu

References Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and

second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-483.

Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and the acquisition of English possessive determiners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.

Ball, A. F., & Lardner, T. Dispositions toward language: Teacher constructs of knowledge and the Ann Arbor Black English case. College Composition and Communication, 48, 469-485. [Online pdf retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/~arnetha/pdf/DispositionsArt97.pdf]

Belcher, D. (2007). A bridge too far? TESOL Quarterly, 41, 396-399. Bigelow, M. H. (2010). Mogadishu on the Mississippi: Language, racialized

identity, and education in a new land. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Bigelow, M., & Tarone, E. (2004). The role of literacy level in second language

acquisition: Doesn’t who we study determine what we know? TESOL Quarterly, 38, 689-700.

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 1-17.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409-431.

Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Bronson, M. C., & Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2008). The critical moment: Language socialization and the (re)visioning of first and second language learning. In P. A. Duff & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education. Volume 8: Language socialization (2nd ed., pp. 43–55). New York: Springer.

Bruton, A. (2009). Improving accuracy is not the only reason for writing, and even if it were. . . System, 37, 600–613.

Chapelle, C. (2007). Pedagogical implications in TESOL Quarterly? Yes, please! TESOL Quarterly, 41, 404-406.

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Clarke, M. (1994). The dysfunctions of the theory/practice discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 9-26.

Doughty, C. J., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

DuFon, M. A. (2006). The socialization of taste during study abroad in Indonesia. In M. A. DuFon & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 91-119). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Dunn, W. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (1998). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and Krashen’s "i + 1": Incommensurable constructs, incommensurable theories. Language Learning, 48, 411-442. Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. Modern Language Journal, 93, 370-385.

Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. Modern Language Journal, 93, 370-385.

Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Ellis, R. (2010). Second language acquisition, teacher education and language pedagogy. Language Teaching, 43, 182-201.

Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., Takashima, H., 2008. The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System 36, 353–371.

Erlam, R. (2008). What do you researchers know about language teaching? Bridging the gap between SLA research and language pedagogy. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 2, 253-267.

Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181– 201.

Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On 'lingua franca' English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237-259.

Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 1-23.

Friedman, D. A. (2009). Speaking correctly: Error correction as a language socialization practice in a Ukrainian classroom. Applied Linguistics, 31, 346–367.

Gage, N. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A “historical” sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4-10.

Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55, 575-611.

Goffman, I. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Goldstein, L. M. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: Teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 63-80.

Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.

Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man (rev. ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Co.

Greene, J. C., & Caracelli V. J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. In J. C. Greene & V. J. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (pp. 5–18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Habermas, J. (1983). Moralbewusstsein und kommunikatives Handlen [Moral consciousness and communicative action]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Surhkamp Verlag.

Han, Z. (2007). Pedagogical implications: Genuine or pretentious. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 387-393.

Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 84-109.

Hatch, E. (1978). Apply with caution. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2, 123-143.

Herrnstein, R., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: The Free Press.

House, E. R., & Howe, K. R. (1999). Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Howe, K. (2003). Closing methodological divides. Toward democratic educational research. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Howe, K. (2007). The is and the ought of bridge-building in educational research: A response to Professor Smeyers. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 26, 577–578.

Howe, K., & Moses, M. (1999). Ethics in educational research. Review of Research in Education, 24, 21-60.

Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255-286.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing and interpreting teacher written feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 206-224). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Jenkins, J. (2005). Implementing an international approach to English pronunciation: The role of teacher attitudes and identity. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 535-543.

Kamil, M. L. (1995). Critical issues: Some alternatives to paradigm wars in literacy research. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 243–261.

Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35, 277-309.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962/1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lantolf, J. P. (2008). Praxis and L2 classroom development. ELIA: Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada, 8, 13-44.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2005). Second language acquisition and fossilization: There is no end, and there is no state. In Z.-H. Han & T. Odlin (Eds.), Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition (pp. 189-200). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285-312.

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.

Lyster, R. (2002). Negotiation in immersion teacher–student interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 237–253.

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265– 302.

MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue: A study in moral theory (2nd ed.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Mackey, A., & Fujii, A. (2009). Training learners to be more effective interactors. Paper presented at invited Colloquium on Tasks and the interaction hypothesis, convened by Alison Mackey. 3rd Biennial Task-Based Language Teaching conference, Lancaster, September 13-16.

Mohan, B., & Beckett, G. H. (2001). A functional approach to research on content-based language learning: Recasts in causal explanations. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 133-155.

Montrul, S. (2009). Heritage language programs. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language teaching (pp. 182-200). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Montrul, S., & Bowles, M. (2008). Negative evidence in instructed heritage language acquisition: A study of Differential Object Marking. In M. Bowles, R. Foote & S. Perpiñán (Eds.), Selected papers from SLRF 2007 (pp. 252-262). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Muñoz, C. (Ed.). (2006). Age and the rate of foreign language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719-758.

Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (Eds). (2004). Critical pedagogies and language learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ortega, L. (2005). For what and for whom is our research? The ethical as transformative lens in instructed SLA. Modern Language Journal, 89, 427-443.

Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re) construction of selves. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 155-177). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Philp, J. (2009). Muddying the waters: Exploring inter-relationships between social and cognitive factors in task-based interaction. Paper presented at invited Colloquium on Tasks and the interaction hypothesis, convened by Alison Mackey. 3rd Biennial Task-Based Language Teaching conference, Lancaster, September 13-16.

Philp, J., Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2008). Second language acquisition and the younger learner: Child's play? Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Robinson, P. (2002). Learning conditions, aptitude complexes, and SLA: A framework for research and pedagogy. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 113–133). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133-164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Scarino, A. (2005). Introspection and retrospection as windows on teacher knowledge, values and ethical dispositions. In D. J. Tedick (Ed.), Second language teacher education: International perspectives (pp. 33-52). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Seedhouse, P. (2004). The Interactional architecture of the language classroom: A Conversation Analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209-239.

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-283.

Skehan, P. (2002). Theorising and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 69-93). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Spada, N. (2005). Conditions and challenges in developing school-based SLA research programs. Modern Language Journal, 89, 328-338.

Stanovich, K. E. (1990). A call for an end to the paradigm wars in reading research. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 221–231.

Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners' uptake, processing, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303-334.

Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95-108). London: Continuum.

Tarone, E., Bigelow, M., & Hansen, K. (2009). Literacy and second language oracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Editorial: The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 3-7.

Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79-101.

Please cite as:

Ortega, L. (2010). Epistemological diversity and the moral ends of research: What’s in it for instructed SLA researchers? Plenary address delivered at the 6th Annual BAAL LL&T SIG Conference. King’s College, London, July 8-9.

Copyright © Lourdes Ortega, 2010