Melissa Bowles’s research while affiliated with University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and other places

This research compares how second language learners process two types of written feedback: reformulation and direct correction. On a two‐stage composition‐and‐comparison task, 22 adult learners of English as a second language taking an academic writing course at a large midwestern U.S. university participated in a repeated‐measures study in which they wrote two argumentative essays and received feedback in the form of reformulation on one and direct correction on the other in counterbalanced fashion. During the comparison stage for each essay, learners completed think‐alouds, which were used to gauge how they processed the two types of feedback. The findings reveal that learners processed sentential and paragraph‐level errors more deeply but overlooked surface‐level errors when they received reformulation as feedback; the reverse was the case when they received direct correction. Results therefore suggest that there may not be a one‐size‐fits‐all answer for written corrective feedback but that different errors respond to feedback differently.

Evidence-Based Second Language Pedagogy is a cutting-edge collection of empirical research conducted by top scholars focusing on instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) and offering a direct contribution to second language pedagogy by closing the gap between research and practice. Building on the conceptual, state-of-the-art chapters in The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (2017), studies in this volume are organized according to the key components of ISLA: types of instruction, learning processes, learning outcomes, and learner and teacher psychology. The volume responds to pedagogical needs in different L2 teaching and learning settings by including a variety of theoretical frameworks (sociological, psychological, sociocultural, and cognitive), methodologies (qualitative and quantitative), target languages (English, Spanish, and Mandarin), modes of instruction (face-to-face and computer-mediated), targets of instruction (speaking, writing, listening, motivation, and professional development), and instructional settings (second language, foreign language, and heritage language). A novel synthesis of research in the rapidly growing field of ISLA that also covers effective research-based teaching strategies, Evidence-Based Second Language Pedagogy is the ideal resource for researchers, practitioners, and graduate students in SLA, applied linguistics, and TESOL.

The English Placement Test (EPT) is a process-oriented integrated writing placement test for newly-admitted international students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In order to meet student demand, since 2012 the EPT has been administered in both paper-pencil (on- campus) and computer-delivered (online) versions. Both versions feature a two-draft essay writing process and have identical testing procedures except that the online EPT does not have a peer review session, which is built into the on-campus test. This study examined the comparability of the on-campus and online versions, focusing on essay quality and examinee preference among 26 examinees who took both versions within a week, in counterbalanced order. Essay quality was measured in terms of linguistic (complexity, accuracy, fluency) and rhetorical features (integration of sources, progression of ideas, argument effectiveness). No meaningful differences in essay quality were observed between the two versions, although online essays were slightly longer. Post-test questionnaire responses revealed that a majority of test-takers preferred the online version for its convenience. We discussed the advantages and disadvantages of including peer review in writing placement tests, and we concluded by providing recommendations for evaluating comparability as a part of standard quality control practice in local tests.

This is an ambitious work, covering the whole breadth of the field from its theoretical underpinnings to research and teaching methodology. The Editors have managed to recruit a stellar panel of contributors, resulting in the kind of 'all you ever wanted to know about instructed SLA' collection that should be found on the shelves of every good library. " Zoltán Dörnyei, University of Nottingham, UK The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition is the first collection of state-of-the-art papers pertaining to Instructed Second Language Acquisition (ISLA). Written by 45 world-renowned experts, the entries are full-length articles detailing pertinent issues with up-to-date references. Each chapter serves three purposes: (1) provide a review of current literature and discussions of cutting edge issues; (2) share the authors' understanding of, and approaches to, the issues; and (3) provide direct links between research and practice. In short, based on the chapters in this handbook, ISLA has attained a level of theoretical and methodological maturity that provides a solid foundation for future empirical and pedagogical discovery. This handbook is the ideal resource for researchers, graduate students, upper-level undergraduate students, teachers, and teacher-educators who are interested in second language learning and teaching.

Conversational interaction studies have typically focused either on second language (L2) learners participating in native speaker–nonnative speaker (NS–NNS) dyads or in NNS–NNS dyads. This study analyzes the task-based interactions of 26 naturally occurring learner dyads in an intermediate-level, university Spanish language classroom, 13 of which were matched L2 learner dyads and 13 of which were mixed L2 learner–heritage learner (HL) dyads. Specifically, the study compared the two dyad types to determine whether they differed in their focus on form or in the amount of talk produced during interaction. Results revealed that the two types of dyads were largely similar, although instances of focus on form were more likely to be resolved in a target-like way by mixed L2–HL pairs than by matched L2–L2 pairs, and there was significantly more target language talk in mixed pairs. Interestingly, L2 learners used the target language significantly more with HL learners than they did with other L2 learners, suggesting that different conversational norms may be at play in the two pair types. Furthermore, posttask questionnaire data indicated that L2 and HL learners alike saw the interaction as a greater opportunity for the L2 learner's development than for the HL learner's, calling into question whether classroom contexts like this one meet the needs of HL learners.

Although claims about explicit and implicit language knowledge are central to many debates in SLA, little research has been dedicated to measuring the two knowledge types (R. Ellis, 2004, 2005). The purpose of this study was to validate the use of the battery of tests reported in Ellis (2005) to measure implicit and explicit language knowledge. Whereas Ellis (2005) tested only second-language (L2) learners (of English), this study tested both L2 and heritage language (HL) learners (of Spanish). Results showed that test scores loaded on a two-factor model, as in Ellis (2005), thereby providing construct validity for the tests, on a population of HL learners who have little explicit knowledge by virtue of the environment in which they acquired Spanish.