Home Linguistics & Semiotics Immediate versus delayed prompts, field dependence and independence cognitive style and L2 development
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Immediate versus delayed prompts, field dependence and independence cognitive style and L2 development

  • Ehsan Rassaei EMAIL logo and Hamdollah Ravand
Published/Copyright: January 6, 2023
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
From the journal International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching Volume 62 Issue 2

Abstract

Recent research has provided evidence that corrective feedback (CF) timing can play a significant role in feedback effectiveness. However, given that immediate and delayed feedback are differentially contextualized, little is known about the mediating role of learners’ field dependence/independence (FDI) cognitive style on the effectiveness of immediate and delayed prompts. To this end, the present study examined the effects of immediate and delayed prompts as well as the mediating role of learners’ FDI on the development of English articles by EFL learners. Fifty eight EFL learners were randomly assigned into two treatment conditions as well as a control group. The participants’ FDI orientation was measured through the group embedded figures test (GEFT). The treatment groups differed from each other in terms of whether the participants received prompts immediately after errors were made or at the end of the treatment task. The results obtained from post-tests and delayed post-tests showed that providing prompts immediately following learners’ errors is more effective than delaying them until the communicative activity is over. Furthermore, regression analysis revealed that the effectiveness of immediate prompts, and not delayed prompts, is significantly predicted by learners’ FDI cognitive style.

Keywords: cognitive style; corrective feedback; field dependence/independence; prompts
Corresponding author: Ehsan Rassaei, Faculty of English Language Studies, Majan University College, Muscat, Oman, E-mail:

Appendix A: (A sample story used for the treatment sessions)

Once, there was a poor woman who lived in a lonely house in a village with her two lovely children, Snow and red Rose. While Rose was sociable and jolly, her sister was shy and calm. One winter evening, there was a knock at the door. When Rose opened it, she sprang back in fear. A black bear stood at the door and said “don’t be afraid, I will do you no harm. I am freezing and only want a warm place. “Please let me in”, said the bear, “I need to warm myself, I will leave your house tomorrow morning”. The mother allowed the bear to get in and sit by the fire. Soon, the girls became friendly with the bear. The bear came to the house every evening and warmed himself beside the fire. When spring came, the bear said, “Now I must go away and cannot come back for the whole summer. The bear went to the jungle to find new friends. One day, the bear saw a monkey. The monkey was eating a banana. The bear was hungry and asked the monkey if he has another banana. The monkey gave the bear a banana. The monkey asked the bear where he lived during the winter. The bear told his story to the monkey.

While the bear was telling his story, a fox that was carrying along a box came. The fox and monkey heard the bear story about the kind family. They decided to help the bear to return that woman’s kindness. So they opened the box of the fox and filled it with bananas and put a big beautiful flower on it and took it for the kind woman. They knocked at the door but unfortunately nobody opened the door. It seemed they moved to a new house. They search in the village to find the family. The saw a Shepard and asked him if he knows the family. The Shepard did not know the family. The bear became very sad. A cat saw them and wanted to help. The cat knew the family and showed them the family’s new house. When they knocked at the door, the mother opened the door and became extremely happy when she realized the animals’ kindness.

References

Abraham, Roberta G. 1985. Field independence-dependence and the teaching of grammar. TESOL Quarterly 19(4). 689–702. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586671.Search in Google Scholar

Aljaafreh, Ali & James P. Lantolf. 1994. Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal 78(4). 465–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064.x.Search in Google Scholar

Avolio, Bruce J., Ralph A. Alexander, Gerald V. Barrett & Harvey L. Sterns. 1981. Designing a measure of visual selective attention to assess individual differences in information processing. Applied Psychological Measurement 5. 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168100500105.Search in Google Scholar

Ammar, Ahlem. 2008. Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research 12(2). 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807086287.Search in Google Scholar

Ammar, Ahlem & Nina Spada. 2006. One size fits all?: Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(4). 543–574. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263106060268.Search in Google Scholar

Arroyo, Diana C. & Yucel Yilmaz. 2018. An open for replication study: The role of feedback timing in synchronous computer‐mediated communication. Language Learning 68(4). 942–972. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12300.Search in Google Scholar

Ausburn, Lynna J. & Floyd B. Ausburn. 1978. Cognitive styles: Some information and implications for instructional design. ECTJ 26. 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02766370.Search in Google Scholar

Chapelle, Carol & Cheryl Roberts. 1986. Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language. Language Learning 36. 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1986.tb00367.x.Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

Davis, J. Kent & Kathryn F. Cochran. 1989. An information processing view of field dependence- independence. Early Child Development and Care 43(1). 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443890430110.Search in Google Scholar

DeKeyser, Robert M. 2001. Automaticity and automatization. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, 125–151. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524780.007Search in Google Scholar

DeKeyser, Robert (ed.). 2007. Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511667275Search in Google Scholar

Doughty, Catherine. 2001. The cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, 206–257. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524780.010Search in Google Scholar

Egi, Takako. 2010. Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. The Modern Language Journal 94(1). 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00980.x.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod. 2016. Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research 20(3). 405–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816628627.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod, Shawn Loewen & Rosemary Erlam. 2006. Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(2). 339–368. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263106060141.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod & Carsten Roever. 2021. The measurement of implicit and explicit knowledge. Language Learning Journal 49(2). 160–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018.1504229.Search in Google Scholar

Erlam, Rosmary & Shawn Loewen. 2010. Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral French interaction. Canadian Modern Language Review 66(6). 877–905. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.66.6.877.Search in Google Scholar

Frank, Bernard M. 1983. Flexibility of information processing and the memory of field-independent and field-dependent learners. Journal of Research in Personality 17(1). 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(83)90063-6.Search in Google Scholar

Fu, Mengxia & Shaofeng Li. 2021. The associations between implicit and explicit language aptitude and the effects of the timing of corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 43(3). 498–522.10.1017/S0272263121000012Search in Google Scholar

Fu, Mengxia & Shaofeng Li. 2022. The effects of immediate and delayed corrective feedback on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 44(1). 2–34. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263120000388.Search in Google Scholar

Goo, Jaemyung. 2012. Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34. 445–474. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263112000149.Search in Google Scholar

Goodenough, Donal R. 1976. The role of individual differences in field dependence as a factor in learning and memory. Psychology Bulletin 83. 675–694. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.83.4.675.Search in Google Scholar

Guisande, M. Adelina, M. Fernanda Páramo, Carolina Tinajero & Leandro S. Almeida. 2007. Field dependence-independence (FDI) cognitive style: An analysis of attentional functioning. Psicothema 19(4). 572–577.Search in Google Scholar

Guo, Xinyue & Yingli Yang. 2018. Effects of corrective feedback on EFL learners’ acquisition of third-person singular form and the mediating role of cognitive style. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 47(4). 841–858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-018-9566-7.Search in Google Scholar

Hoffman, Suzanne Q. 1997. Field dependence/Independence in second language acquisition and implications for educators and instructional designers. Foreign Language Annals 30. 222–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1997.tb02344.x.Search in Google Scholar

Hansen, Jacqueline & Charles Stanfield. 1981. The relationship of field dependent-independent cognitive styles to foreign language achievement. Language Learning 31. 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1981.tb01389.x.Search in Google Scholar

Jang, Sung-Soo. 2011. Corrective feedback and language anxiety in L2 processing and achievement. English teaching 66(2). https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.66.2.201106.73.Search in Google Scholar

Jolly, Eric J. & Richard Reardon. 1985. Cognitive differentiation, automaticity, and interruptions of automatized behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 11(3). 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167285113006.Search in Google Scholar

Jonassen, David H. & Barbara Grabowski. 1993. Individual differences and instruction. New York: Allen & Bacon.Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, Janice, Suzanne Prior & Artuso Mariangela. 2000. Field dependence as a factor in second language communicative production. Language Learning 50(3). 529–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00137.Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, Janice & Teresa Rosano. 1993. Relation of cognitive style to metaphor interpretation and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics 14. 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1017/s014271640000953x.Search in Google Scholar

Lantolf, James P. & Steven L. Thorne. 2006. Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Huifang. 2018. Recasts and output-only prompts, individual learner factors and short-term EFL learning. System 76. 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.05.004.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Shaofeng. 2020. What is the ideal time to provide corrective feedback? Replication of Li, Zhu & Ellis (2016) and Arroyo & Yilmaz (2018). Language Teaching 53(1). 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1017/s026144481800040x.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Shaofeng, Rod Ellis & Yan Zhu. 2019. The associations between cognitive ability and L2 development under five different instructional conditions. Applied PsychoLinguistics 40(3). 693–722. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716418000796.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Shaofeng & Saeed Roshan. 2019. The associations between working memory and the effects of four different types of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 45. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.003.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Shaofeng, Yan Zhu & Rod Ellis. 2016. The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. The Modern Language Journal 100(1). 276–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12315.Search in Google Scholar

Long, Mike. 1991. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In Kees de Bot, Ralf Ginsberg & Claire Kramsch (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective, 39–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.2.07lonSearch in Google Scholar

Long, Mike. 1998. Focus on form in task-based language teaching. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL 16(2). 35–49.Search in Google Scholar

Lyster, Roy. 2004. Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26. 399–402. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263104263021.Search in Google Scholar

Lyster, Roy & Hirohide Mori. 2006. Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(2). 269–300. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263106060128.Search in Google Scholar

Lyster, Roy & Leila Ranta. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19(1). 37–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263197001034.Search in Google Scholar

Mahvelati, Elahe Hamed. 2020. Field-dependent/field-independent learners’ information processing behavior in an implicit learning task: Evidence from Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 49. 955–973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-020-09712-9.Search in Google Scholar

McLaughlin, Barry, Tami Rossman & Beverly McLeod. 1983. Second language learning: An information‐processing perspective 1. Language and learning 33(2). 135–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00532.x.Search in Google Scholar

Meguro, Yoichi. 2020. The effects of individual differences in field dependence/independence and analogical reasoning for L2 instruction. System 94. 102296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102296.Search in Google Scholar

Messick, Samuel. 1984. The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational practice. Educational Psychologist 19. 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461528409529283.Search in Google Scholar

Miyake, Akira, Alexander H. Witzki & Michael J. Emerson. 2001. Field dependence–independence from a working memory perspective: A dual-task investigation of the hidden figures test. Memory 9(4–6). 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210143000029.Search in Google Scholar

Nassaji, Hossein. 2020. Assessing the effectiveness of interactional feedback for L2 acquisition: Issues and challenges. Language Teaching 53(1). 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444819000375.Search in Google Scholar

Netz, Hadar & Orna Fogel. 2019. Input-providing vs. output-pushing corrective feedback in dyadic tutoring sessions. System 87. 102159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102159.Search in Google Scholar

O’ Brien, Terrance P., Susan M. Butler & Leonhard E. Bernold. 2001. Group embedded figures test and academic achievement in engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education 17(1). 89–92.Search in Google Scholar

Oltman, Philip K., Evelyne Raskin & Herman A. Witkin. 1971. Group embedded figures test. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Search in Google Scholar

Quinn, Paul. 2014. Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Toronto: University of Toronto.Search in Google Scholar

Quinn, Paul & Tatsuya Nakata. 2017. The timing of oral corrective feedback. In Hossein Nassaji & Eva Kartchava (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications, 35–47. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315621432-4Search in Google Scholar

Quinn, Paul. 2021. Corrective feedback timing and second language grammatical development: Research, theory, and practice. In Hossein Nassaji & Eva Kartchava (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching, 322–340. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108589789.016Search in Google Scholar

Rassaei, Ehsan. 2015. Recasts, field dependence/independence cognitive style, and L2 development. Language Teaching Research 19(4). 499–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541713.Search in Google Scholar

Rassaei, Ehsan. 2022. The effects of recasts on L2 grammar: A meta-analysis. The Language Learning Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2022.2097298.Search in Google Scholar

Sato, Masatoshi & Shawn Loewen. 2018. Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets. Language Learning 68(2). 507–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12283.Search in Google Scholar

Sheen, Younghee. 2007. The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition, 301–322. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Sheen, Younghee. 2008. Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning 58. 835–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00480.x.Search in Google Scholar

Swain, Merril. 1993. The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review 50(1). 158–164. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.50.1.158.Search in Google Scholar

Swain, Merril. 2000. The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition, 97–114. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tinajero, Carolina & M. Fernanda Páramo. 1998. Field dependence-independence cognitive style and academic achievement: A review of research and theory. European Journal of Psychology of Education 13. 227–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03173091.Search in Google Scholar

Varnosfadrani, Azizollah Dabaghi. 2006. A comparison of the effects of implicit/explicit and immediate/delayed corrective feedback on learners’ performance in tailor-made tests. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Auckland, NZ: University of Auckland.Search in Google Scholar

Witkin, Herman A. & Donald R. Goodenough. 1981. Cognitive styles: Essence and origins. Field dependence and field independence. Psychological Issues 51. 1.Search in Google Scholar

Witkin, Herman A., Philip K. Oltman, Evelyn Raskin & S. A. Karp. 1971. Group embedded figures test manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.10.1037/t06471-000Search in Google Scholar

Yang, Yingli & Roy Lyster. 2010. Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32. 235–263. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263109990519.Search in Google Scholar

Zare, Mostafa, Zohreh Gooniband Shooshtari & Alireza Jalilifar. 2020. The interplay of oral corrective feedback and L2 willingness to communicate across proficiency levels. Language Teaching Research 26(6). 1158–1178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820928967.Search in Google Scholar

Zhao, Youngbin & Rod Ellis. 2020. The relative effects of implicit and explicit corrective feedback on the acquisition of 3rd person-s by Chinese university students: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research 26(3). 361–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820903343.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2022-07-14
Accepted: 2022-12-01
Published Online: 2023-01-06
Published in Print: 2024-06-25

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Consolidating EFL content and vocabulary learning via interactive reading
  4. Understanding salient trajectories and emerging profiles in the development of Chinese learners’ motivation: a growth mixture modeling approach
  5. Multilingual pedagogies in first versus foreign language contexts: a cross-country study of language teachers
  6. Classroom assessment and learning motivation: insights from secondary school EFL classrooms
  7. Interculturality and Islam in Indonesia’s high-school EFL classrooms
  8. Collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting: the role of task complexity
  9. Spanish heritage speakers’ processing of lexical stress
  10. Effectiveness of second language collocation instruction: a meta-analysis
  11. Understanding the Usefulness of E-Portfolios: Linking Artefacts, Reflection, and Validation
  12. Syntactic prediction in L2 learners: evidence from English disjunction processing
  13. The cognitive construction-grammar approach to teaching the Chinese Ba construction in a foreign language classroom
  14. The predictive roles of enjoyment, anxiety, willingness to communicate on students’ performance in English public speaking classes
  15. Speaking proficiency development in EFL classrooms: measuring the differential effect of TBLT and PPP teaching approaches
  16. L2 textbook input and L2 written production: a case of Korean locative postposition–verb construction
  17. What does the processing of chunks by learners of Chinese tell us? An acceptability judgment investigation
  18. Comparative analysis of written corrective feedback strategies: a linear growth modeling approach
  19. Enjoyment in language teaching: a study into EFL teachers’ subjectivities
  20. Students’ attitude and motivation towards concept mapping-based prewriting strategies
  21. Pronunciation pedagogy in English as a foreign language teacher education programs in Vietnam
  22. The role of language aptitude probed within extensive instruction experience: morphosyntactic knowledge of advanced users of L2 English
  23. The impact of different glossing conditions on the learning of EFL single words and collocations in reading
  24. Patterns of motivational beliefs among high-, medium-, and low-achieving English learners in China
  25. The effect of linguistic choices in note-taking on academic listening performance: a pedagogical translanguaging perspective
  26. A latent profile analysis of Chinese EFL learners’ enjoyment and anxiety in reading and writing: associations with imaginative capacity and story continuation writing performance
  27. Effects of monolingual and bilingual subtitles on L2 vocabulary acquisition
  28. Task complexity, task repetition, and L2 writing complexity: exploring interactions in the TBLT domain
  29. Expansion of verb-argument construction repertoires in L2 English writing
  30. Immediate versus delayed prompts, field dependence and independence cognitive style and L2 development
  31. Aural vocabulary, orthographic vocabulary, and listening comprehension
  32. The use of metadiscourse by secondary-level Chinese learners of English in examination scripts: insights from a corpus-based study
  33. Scoping review of research methodologies across language studies with deaf and hard-of-hearing multilingual learners
  34. Exploring immediate and prolonged effects of collaborative writing on young learners’ texts: L2 versus FL
  35. Discrepancy in prosodic disambiguation strategies between Chinese EFL learners and native English speakers
  36. Exploring the state of research on motivation in second language learning: a review and a reliability generalization meta-analysis
  37. Japanese complaint responses in textbook dialogues and ordinary conversations: learning objects to expand interactional repertoires
https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2022-0137
Keywords for this article
cognitive style; corrective feedback; field dependence/independence; prompts

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Consolidating EFL content and vocabulary learning via interactive reading
  4. Understanding salient trajectories and emerging profiles in the development of Chinese learners’ motivation: a growth mixture modeling approach
  5. Multilingual pedagogies in first versus foreign language contexts: a cross-country study of language teachers
  6. Classroom assessment and learning motivation: insights from secondary school EFL classrooms
  7. Interculturality and Islam in Indonesia’s high-school EFL classrooms
  8. Collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting: the role of task complexity
  9. Spanish heritage speakers’ processing of lexical stress
  10. Effectiveness of second language collocation instruction: a meta-analysis
  11. Understanding the Usefulness of E-Portfolios: Linking Artefacts, Reflection, and Validation
  12. Syntactic prediction in L2 learners: evidence from English disjunction processing
  13. The cognitive construction-grammar approach to teaching the Chinese Ba construction in a foreign language classroom
  14. The predictive roles of enjoyment, anxiety, willingness to communicate on students’ performance in English public speaking classes
  15. Speaking proficiency development in EFL classrooms: measuring the differential effect of TBLT and PPP teaching approaches
  16. L2 textbook input and L2 written production: a case of Korean locative postposition–verb construction
  17. What does the processing of chunks by learners of Chinese tell us? An acceptability judgment investigation
  18. Comparative analysis of written corrective feedback strategies: a linear growth modeling approach
  19. Enjoyment in language teaching: a study into EFL teachers’ subjectivities
  20. Students’ attitude and motivation towards concept mapping-based prewriting strategies
  21. Pronunciation pedagogy in English as a foreign language teacher education programs in Vietnam
  22. The role of language aptitude probed within extensive instruction experience: morphosyntactic knowledge of advanced users of L2 English
  23. The impact of different glossing conditions on the learning of EFL single words and collocations in reading
  24. Patterns of motivational beliefs among high-, medium-, and low-achieving English learners in China
  25. The effect of linguistic choices in note-taking on academic listening performance: a pedagogical translanguaging perspective
  26. A latent profile analysis of Chinese EFL learners’ enjoyment and anxiety in reading and writing: associations with imaginative capacity and story continuation writing performance
  27. Effects of monolingual and bilingual subtitles on L2 vocabulary acquisition
  28. Task complexity, task repetition, and L2 writing complexity: exploring interactions in the TBLT domain
  29. Expansion of verb-argument construction repertoires in L2 English writing
  30. Immediate versus delayed prompts, field dependence and independence cognitive style and L2 development
  31. Aural vocabulary, orthographic vocabulary, and listening comprehension
  32. The use of metadiscourse by secondary-level Chinese learners of English in examination scripts: insights from a corpus-based study
  33. Scoping review of research methodologies across language studies with deaf and hard-of-hearing multilingual learners
  34. Exploring immediate and prolonged effects of collaborative writing on young learners’ texts: L2 versus FL
  35. Discrepancy in prosodic disambiguation strategies between Chinese EFL learners and native English speakers
  36. Exploring the state of research on motivation in second language learning: a review and a reliability generalization meta-analysis
  37. Japanese complaint responses in textbook dialogues and ordinary conversations: learning objects to expand interactional repertoires
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2026 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 20.1.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/iral-2022-0137/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button