The relationship between SLA research and language pedagogy: Teachers’ perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is currently a substantial body of research on second language (L2) learning and this body of knowledge is constantly growing. There are also many attempts in most teacher education programs around the world to inform practicing and prospective L2 teachers about second language acquisition (SLA) research and its findings. However, an important question in this context has been to what extent SLA research has been able to influence L2 teaching. There is extensive discussion and debate among SLA researchers about the applicability of L2 research to language teaching. However, there is little empirical research in this area. This research was conducted to shed some light on this issue by examining how English language teachers perceive the relationship between SLA research and language teaching and to what extent they believe the findings of SLA is useful and relevant for L2 pedagogy. Data were collected from 201 teachers of English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) by means of a written questionnaire. Analyses of data revealed that most teachers believed that knowing about SLA research is useful and that it can improve L2 teaching. However, a high percentage indicated that the knowledge they gain from teaching experience is more relevant to their teaching practices than the knowledge they gain from research. The majority indicated that they have easy access to research materials, but very few stated that they read research articles, with the most common reasons being lack of time, difficulty of research articles, and lack of interest. The article concludes with discussion and suggestions about how to improve the perceived gap between L2 research and pedagogy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".