Received: 18 October 2017

DOI: 10.1111/flan.12322
| Accepted: 8 December 2017

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Why haven’t we solved instructed SLA? A

sociocognitive account

Paul D. Toth1 | Kara Moranski2

Challenges
 The authors challenge us to consider how these four principles influence our beliefs and
practices:
 All language use is purposeful, but not all language use is meaningful.
 We learn by doing.
 Metalinguistic knowledge (still) matters.
 Social contexts co-construct development.

1 Temple University
2 University
Translating current principles of language learning into
of Pennsylvania
effective classroom practice requires a nuanced understand-
Paul D. Toth (PhD, University of ing of the cognitive and social factors that shape how
Pittsburgh) is Associate Professor of
Spanish Linguistics, Temple University,
learners engage in instructional activity. In this paper, we
Philadelphia, PA. identify four principles that represent a current theoretical
consensus in the field, which we hope will guide
Kara Moranski (PhD, Temple University)
is a Lecturer in Foreign Languages, practitioners as they assess their work: (1) All language
University of Pennsylvania, use is purposeful, but not all language use is meaningful; (2)
Philadelphia, PA.
we learn by doing; (3) metalinguistic knowledge (still)
matters; and (4) social contexts co-construct development.
We then critique a common assumption that teachers can
seamlessly implement pedagogical recommendations from
available professional development opportunities and
materials. Although the methods and techniques proposed
through professional development may provide examples
for implementation, only a deep personal understanding of
principles can inform how they are most effectively realized
in any local context. It is therefore the responsibility of
teacher education and professional development providers

© 2018 by American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages

Foreign Language Annals. 2018;51:73–89. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/flan | 73
74
| TOTH AND MORANSKI

to better articulate justifications for their recommendations

and explore flexible adaptations in their application. It is
also incumbent on researchers and theorists to better
understand the realities of practitioners so that the principles
they espouse will translate more readily into meaningful
recommendations for practice.

KEYWORDS
beliefs and philosophy, best practices, foreign/second language teacher
preparation, in-service and professional development, pedagogy

1 | INTRODUCTION
Since its inception in 1967, Foreign Language Annals has sought to “serve the professional interests of
classroom instructors, researchers, and administrators” by publishing scholarly work with “clear and
significant implications for foreign language learning at all levels of instruction” (ACTFL, n.d., para. 1-2).
A review of the past 50 years of publications in the journal shows empirical and theoretical work addressing
this mission from a variety of perspectives, but always with the goal of better understanding how to help
language learners grow. The road from theory and research to practice, however, is fraught with uncertainty
and unexpected outcomes. Some recommendations for best practices that appeared in this journal have not
withstood the test of time, such as calls for the use of amateur radio, cassette tapes, and super-8 films for
second language (L2) speaking practice (Irving, 1976; Richmond, 1978). Others have required significant
creative adaptation to local contexts, such as Guntermann’s (1979) taxonomy of communicative language
functions. Furthermore, a cultural divide between the concerns of theorists and practitioners has often
threatened meaningful communication between the two communities, thus making a two-way flow of
support difficult (Marsden & Kasprowicz, 2017). It is no wonder, then, that fundamental questions about
the relationship between the principles and practice of effective pedagogy continue to be a focus of
investigation and debate.
Although most language educators espouse autonomous, purposeful communication as their
primary objective, after 50 years we still have not “solved” instructed second language acquisition
(ISLA) with a means of faithfully and consistently implementing recognized best practices across
K–16 contexts. Although recent work on identifying high-leverage teaching practices for L2
instruction have begun to providing useful resources (Davin & Troyan, 2015; Glisan & Donato, 2017;
Hlas & Hlas, 2012), even experienced practitioners encounter obstacles that impede the
implementation of optimal practices in their local contexts. This reflects the complexity of the
challenges that teachers face and the wide array of variables that shape the course of language learning.
Research on teacher cognition has revealed that contextual variation stems not only from the local
circumstances of schools and classrooms, but also from individual teachers’ attempts to reconcile
pedagogical principles with their own personal experiences (Donato & Davin, 2017). When attempting
to implement recommended practices, even teachers with ideal lesson plans struggle with the moment-
by-moment decisions that sustain learners in meaningful interaction (Davin & Troyan, 2015). Thus,
TOTH AND MORANSKI
| 75

putting new approaches into practice in any one classroom requires nuanced thinking, creativity, and a
sensitivity to real-time contingencies that cannot be prescribed.
Against this backdrop of a bewildering set of variables, we seek in this article to identify four
consensus-based principles concerning the nature of language learning which might guide practitioners
when implementing pedagogical recommendations. We identify deficiencies in the conventional
wisdom about how abstract principles are incorporated into concrete practice, and we argue that
effective L2 pedagogy requires teachers to continually revisit the relationship between principles and
practice, assessing what optimal learning experiences look like in their local contexts. By discussing
the factors that affect how core principles are enacted in specific circumstances, we hope to empower
teachers to engage wisely with future methodological proposals so that they can continue to translate
new recommendations effectively into their own work with learners.

2 | LANGUAGE LEARNING AS A MULTI-LAYERED PROCESS

We begin conceptually by mapping out the cognitive and social terrain of variables that affect
classroom language learning. Figure 1 depicts these factors as existing within ever-widening circles of
mutual influence, where each layer denotes a larger contextual space where cognitive and social factors
reside. In the smallest space at the center of the diagram, cognitive and linguistic processes within
individuals shape how meaning is derived from the stream of information in the environment, while
also determining how individuals formulate plans for action. Then, within an individual's immediate
surroundings, the second inner-most ring represents the space where learners, teachers, and peers carry
out joint activity in the present moment. The two-way arrows at the circle boundaries show that these
interactions both influence and are influenced by the psycholinguistic processes of individual
participants. Thus, a lesson where learners’ use of the second language (L2) consists of one-word
answers will necessarily not engage the same depth of cognitive processing as one where learners
exchange meaningful information in the L2 or take into account cultural perspectives other than their
own. However, just because learners are given open-ended opportunities to create in the L2 does not
mean that they will be able to deploy all of the grammatical and lexical resources that a teacher intends.
This is especially true if their cognitive capacity to do so is not sufficiently developed, or if relevant
prior knowledge is not effectively engaged (Ellis, 2008; Pienemann & Lenzing, 2015).

FIGURE 1 Cognitive and social factors in classroom language learning

76
| TOTH AND MORANSKI

Beyond psycholinguistic processes, the third outer-most circle shows that moment-by-moment
classroom interactions will also be shaped by the participants’ established roles and expectations
within them. These roles and expectations do not come not from psycholinguistic processing, but rather
from the broader, collective history of interactions in that context. For example, if a teacher has
consistently used fill-in-the blank work as a vehicle for L2 use, learners’ role as one-word respondents
will be familiar enough that they will understand how to “do” participation in this context, even though
it diverges significantly from interaction beyond the classroom (Seedhouse, 2004; Seedhouse &
Walsh, 2010). Initial uses of open-ended tasks that cast learners as creative L2 users may require
adjustment, and even evoke consternation if participants are unfamiliar with how to contribute
successfully in such interactions.
Finally, the outer-most ring shows that participants’ roles and expectations are often shaped by
sociocultural norms beyond the classroom itself. In places where immersive, meaningful L2
instruction is not the norm, even classrooms where participants have adapted to the roles and
expectations of these recommended practices may face opposition from colleagues, curriculum
administrators, or community stakeholders. On the other hand, adoption of curricular guidelines like
the ACTFL World-Readiness Standards (National Standards in Foreign Language Learning Project,
2015) within a school community may put pressure on classrooms to adapt their participant roles
and expectations accordingly, even if these implementations still diverge from an ideal result. The
arrows at the circle boundaries, pointing in two directions, suggest that developments in one
classroom may also influence larger school communities so that successful changes in one place
may induce change in others.

3 | WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT LANGUAGE LEARNING

Over the past 50 years, the prevailing theoretical consensus on the nature of language learning has
evolved dramatically. Social and contextual factors that were once set aside due to the profession’s
stronger interest in investigating universal psycholinguistic processes are now at the leading edge of
research into teaching effectiveness (Block, 2003; Hall, 2009; Lantolf & Poehner, 2014; Toth & Davin,
2016). The mid-twentieth-century views of language that focused exclusively on L2 structure and
justified a grammar-centered curriculum have been replaced with a context-sensitive view of language
as purposeful activity, for which its formal properties are considered a means to an end, rather than ends
in themselves (Richards & Rodgers, 2014; Shrum & Glisan, 2016). Recognizing that communicative
proficiency does not readily follow from an exclusive focus on grammar, late-twentieth-century
theorists called for a communicative approach that deemphasized explicit grammar instruction while
integrating cultural competencies into instructional objectives (K. Johnson, 1982; Terrell, 1977). Still,
many practitioners wondered how these new understandings of language learning could be translated
into sensible classroom practices: How could learners engage in creative, meaningful communication
without first mastering the grammatical system? How could low-proficiency learners succeed in a
setting of near total L2 immersion? In the decades since, researchers and professional organizations
have sought to address these questions through carefully crafted proficiency descriptors and
curriculum standards (ACTFL, 2012; Council of Europe, 2001; National Standards in Foreign
Language Learning Project, 2015). However, unequivocal answers for fundamental questions about
how to integrate communication, grammar, culture, and content are still hard to find. With the
momentum of history and published materials behind them, many current practitioners continue
implementing traditional practices that use the L2 primarily in grammar-focused, mechanical
exercises from a bygone era.
TOTH AND MORANSKI
| 77

Meanwhile, weak lines of communication and a poor mutual understanding between the K–12 and
postsecondary communities have led innovators in both places to pose separate solutions to common
problems. Postsecondary circles abound with calls for task-based language teaching (Long, 2015),
dynamic assessment (Poehner, 2008), and processing instruction (VanPatten, 2015a), while K–12
practitioners call for organic language teaching (Organic World Language, 2017), total physical
response storytelling (Ray & Seely, 2012), and comprehensible input classrooms (Bex, 2016). Such a
divergence of proposals might lead one to believe that we are working in different worlds and on
separate issues. Proposals vary widely in their adherence to research- and theory-based principles;
some are faithful representations while others are improvised solutions to pressing local challenges.
Nonetheless, we are all trying to “solve” instructed SLA in our own classrooms through reflection on
our experiences, hoping to discern relevant principles of language learning to guide our professional
practice.
We therefore seek to distill from currently accumulated research and theory several core principles
that teachers might bear in mind while evaluating their present practices and planning for the future.
Although every classroom brings together a unique group of learners with individual histories, talents,
and wisdom, a suitable starting point for such reflection might center on what we believe to be true
about language learning, regardless of context.

3.1 | Principle 1: All language use is purposeful, but not all language use is
meaningful
One key concept that the past 50 years of research on L2 development has revealed is that every
use of language involves the following: (1) an interwoven mix of phonological, lexical, and
grammatical forms; (2) their potential meaning within an L2 communicative system; and (3) their
purposeful use for activity in the world (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014; Larsen-Freeman, 2003).
There is therefore no such thing as “isolating” grammatical forms from purposeful use, because
even mechanical drills deploy language for a purpose (i.e., rehearsing grammatical paradigms). The
problem with such practice is not that it lacks purpose but rather that this type of L2 use engages
vastly different sociocognitive processes within and among learners from those required to use
language for meaningful communication. Indeed, research has conclusively demonstrated that
mechanical drills do not readily help learners achieve purposeful L2 use because the development
of complex skills requires practice that closely reflects the target behavior (DeKeyser, 1998;
Lightbown, 2008; Wong & VanPatten, 2003). Some classroom studies have shown that, when
communicative questions are posed to elicit target forms rather than exchange real information,
many learners disengage out of confusion or frustration over questions whose literal,
communicative meaning diverges significantly from their classroom purpose (Hall, 2004; Toth,
2004, 2011). Sound pedagogy must therefore engage learners in authentic information exchanges
from the beginning, so that the form, meaning, and use of classroom language coherently reflects
autonomous communication as the instructional goal (K. Johnson, 1982).

3.2 | Principle 2: We learn by doing

Much like learning to ride a bike, drive a car, or play the piano, research has shown that autonomous
language use relies heavily on our capacity to carry out complex tasks without monitoring every move;
psychologists call this procedural knowledge (Ullman, 2015). The only way we develop such
knowledge of “how to do things” without conscious monitoring is through long-term experience and
familiarization (DeKeyser, 2015). When complex activities like L2 communication are unfamiliar,
78
| TOTH AND MORANSKI

procedural knowledge develops gradually by building on relevant prior experience. Related, but less
complex, novel activities then serve as points of departure for more challenging, cumulative work.
Together with attentional control and social support, this process of breaking complex activities into
sequences of simplified substeps is an important feature of what educational research has called
scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). Over time, as certain linguistic tools become frequently
associated with particular acts of meaning-making, an ever-growing amount of familiar language can
be utilized automatically and without conscious effort (Ellis, 2008). To achieve this effect, however,
the linguistic structures that accomplish communication must be used for that purpose. Thus, we can
say that we learn by doing, and autonomous L2 communication cannot develop in contexts where the
purpose of language is merely recitation, messages do not matter, and structural features are
chronically divorced from real world activity.

3.3 | Principle 3: Metalinguistic knowledge (still) matters

Research since the 1980s has disproven the claim that attempts to develop knowledge about how the L2
works are categorically counterproductive (Norris & Ortega, 2000; Spada & Tomita, 2010; Toth &
Guijarro-Fuentes, 2013). Conscious awareness of what we are doing and how we intend to do it is an
essential part of learning complex, unfamiliar activities. Awareness plays a fundamental role in how we
set goals and attend to the social and environmental resources that could help us achieve them (Ellis,
2008; van Lier, 2004). Indeed, form, meaning, and use are intricately bound together in using language
for communication. Although it is true that great amounts of autonomous communication are
subserved by implicit, procedural knowledge, this knowledge is deployed in constant, dynamic contact
with our explicit, declarative knowledge of the nature of the world and the tools we are using (Koch,
2004; Ullman, 2015). Information about how linguistic resources are appropriately deployed for
particular purposes within particular social and cultural contexts can therefore serve as a supportive
schema on the path to learner autonomy. Still, current guidance for teachers on this matter is mixed,
given the undesirable history of instruction where grammatical structures were the organizing principle
rather than communication goals. Conflicting views of metalinguistic knowledge can be found on
ACTFL’s (2017b) website, which states that the “exploration, discovery, and use of grammatical
concepts leads to greater understanding of the function of language and therefore . . . to increased
communication” (2017b, para. 4), but also that “explicit teaching of grammar has little effect on
people's language acquisition” (2017b, para. 2). However, a large body of research in fact suggests that
metalinguistic knowledge has a reliable, although indirect, effect on learning outcomes. This effect is
sensitive to the complexity of target structures, the nature of the information provided, and the context
of its application within communicative activity (DeKeyser & Prieto-Botana, 2015; Leow, 2015; Toth,
Wagner, & Moranski, 2013). Lest babies be thrown out with the bathwater, explicit information about
how the language works and the structures and procedures we need to accomplish goals ought not to be
banished from the classroom. Instead, these tools should support meaningful activity, much like a map
might help a newcomer find their way around an unfamiliar town.

3.4 | Principle 4: Social contexts co-construct development

The recent “social turn” in L2 research and theory has underscored the importance of social relationships,
not only in mediating learners’ cognitive development (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014; Swain, Kinnear, &
Steinman, 2015), but also in determining how they perceive opportunities to act in the world (Block,
2007; Norton, 2013). On the one hand, research has shown that learners working with teachers or peers
can accomplish more than they would on their own, as supportive others guide them through key aspects
TOTH AND MORANSKI
| 79

of difficult tasks (Donato, 1994; Storch, 2013; van Compernolle, 2015). Creating spaces of mutual
support and understanding thus empowers participants to act in ways that further their own development.
On the other hand, research has also shown that, as social beings, humans regularly compare themselves
to those they engage with. As a result, they often locate each other within perceived hierarchies of power
and legitimacy (Bourdieu, 1977; Foucault, 1980). These hierarchies then become reference points that
define the space for joint activity, so that those who are positioned as less valid have a more constrained
range of possibilities than those who are positioned as legitimate (Norton & Toohey, 2011). Learners
who are perceived or perceive themselves as inferior may opt out of opportunities for meaningful
communication, while those who are positioned as more legitimate and capable may come to dominate
participation (Moranski & Toth, 2016). We can therefore say that social context co-constructs L2 use
and development, so that even when opportunities for collaborative scaffolding are present, the power
to act with legitimacy may be limited to only a subset of those in the classroom.
The cognitive and social factors depicted in Figure 1 thus provide a context for anticipating how these
four principles of language learning apply to classroom practice. If all language use is purposeful, and we
learn to communicate by engaging in it, then cognitive processes within learners will only be tuned to
support such activity in social spaces where instructional tasks align with supportive participant roles,
expectations, and norms. Among the practices that create such a space are those that allow learners to do
things with language that matter to them, and which scaffold them to more complex outcomes through
wisely chosen sequences of activities and instructional resources. Among the important sources of
support is an understanding of relationships between linguistic structure and communicative activity,
together with supportive contributions from teachers and peers. Collectively, these social and material
resources direct learners’ attention to key features of successful performance and gradually allow them to
gain autonomy within complex activities (Walqui & van Lier, 2010). The space for language use must
also affirm the value of learner contributions so that facets of individuals’ identities that distinguish them
from peers are not used to position them as less-valid discourse participants. The task of the teacher, then,
is to determine how these fundamentals translate into decision making, both in the planning of
instructional interactions and in their moment-to-moment implementation.

4 | TRANSLATING PRINCIPLES INTO PRACTICE

Because theory and research in ISLA aim to identify relevant principles of language learning for
classroom application, such work can be considered translational in nature. To borrow a definition from
the medical disciplines, translational research is “aimed at enhancing the adoption of best practices,” and
contrasts with research conducted solely for “the acquisition of knowledge without the obligation to
apply it to practical ends” (Rubio et al., 2010, pp. 470-471). Ideally, theoretical work should derive
sound recommendations for practice. For example, Principle 2, “We learn by doing,” relates to a broad
recommendation by ACTFL (2017d) that “learning take place through the target language for 90% or
more of classroom time” (para. 1). To accomplish this, a more narrowly focused recommendation then
calls for teachers to “support comprehension and production through context/gestures/visual support”
(ACTFL, 2017a, para. 2). Meanwhile, from Principle 1, “All language use is purposeful,” follows
ACTFL’s (2017c) broad recommendation that authentic texts be incorporated into classroom materials
as “real-life examples of language used in everyday situations” (para. 2). Thus, theoretical principles can
serve as the basis for pedagogical recommendations at various levels of practice. Some have implications
for a general orientation to pedagogy, while others involve suggestions for specific aspects of lesson
design and implementation.
80
| TOTH AND MORANSKI

To better illustrate how pedagogical recommendations translate principles into practice, we refer
to Anthony’s (1963) hierarchical distinction between approach, method, and technique, which was
introduced just 4 years before the founding of Foreign Language Annals. Within his framework, an
approach embodies a broad orientation to pedagogy encompassing a “set of correlative assumptions
dealing with the nature of language and the nature of language teaching and . . . learning” (pp. 63–64).
Examples include the communicative approach embodied in ACTFL’s World-Readiness Standards
(National Standards in Foreign Language Learning Project, 2015), related calls for task-based
language teaching (Long, 2015), and the mid-twentieth-century behaviorist assumptions underlying
the situational approach in the United Kingdom and audiolingualism in the United States (Richards
& Rodgers, 2014). Meanwhile, within the broad recommendations of an approach, a method is a
procedural plan for instruction and materials that translates into a coherent sequence of lesson activities.
Proposals for inverted or “flipped” classrooms (Bergmann & Sams, 2014), total physical response
storytelling (TRPS) (Ray & Seely, 2012), or the text-based grammar instruction of a PACE1 lesson
(Adair-Hauck & Donato, 2016) all recommend coherent activity sequences within the broad assump-
tions of a communicative approach. Finally, within methods, techniques refer to specific activities and
the instructional moves that carry them out. For example, techniques for presenting target L2 structures
vary for each of the methodologies mentioned earlier: TPRS uses “circling questions,” flipped
classrooms rely on online assignments that learners complete independently, and PACE engages
learners in co-constructed “instructional conversations.” At times, techniques are recommended with
reference to an overarching approach but without being situated within a broader, well-developed
method. For example, information gap and collaborative decision-making activities are hallmarks of
the task-based approach (Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993), but there is no unified proposal for how they
should be sequenced in a lesson and therefore no explicit connection to any instructional method
(Samuda & Bygate, 2008). Indeed, one might find such tasks among the activities in a flipped classroom
or a PACE lesson. In sum, Anthony’s (1963) concepts of approach, method, and technique constitute
telescoping recommendations for how theoretical principles could translate into practice at increasing
levels of specificity. Ideally, the four principles presented in this paper serve not only as tools for
evaluating current approaches, methods, and techniques, but also as the impetus for proposing new ones.
As depicted in Figure 2, theoretical principles that have been translated into recommended
approaches, methods, and techniques often form the basis for professional development
opportunities. These opportunities may take place either within teacher education programs or
as workshops and presentations in professional organizations. One challenge to the effectiveness of
such opportunities is an underlying assumption that teachers can incorporate recommendations into
practice in a relatively seamless fashion, as the rightward arrows show in the practitioner-to-practice
progression. The “show-and-tell” format of many professional development experiences, in which
an instructor trains others by providing examples of a technique that has been successfully applied
in a particular context, reflects this assumption. Often, recommendations for methods and
techniques make only passing reference to the approach or principles that encompass them, as when
teaching materials claim to meet ACTFL Standards, provide learners with “comprehensible input,”
or engage learners in “authentic” language use. Such cursory references to approach are likewise
found in the preliminary pages of instructors’ editions of many popular textbooks and materials.
This lack of a broader and more thoughtful justification for methods and techniques shifts onto
practitioners the responsibility for basing their work on sound principles. Teachers must then
evaluate their implementation of instructional recommendations without also developing a broader
understanding of language learning. Still, the abundance of online training and materials narrowly
focused at the level of method and technique reflects both the immediate need for useful
recommendations as well as practitioners’ motivation for continued growth.
TOTH AND MORANSKI
| 81

FIGURE 2 Professional development and the translation of principles to practice

5 | TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH AND SOCIOCOGNITIVE

PRACTICES

Although some “show-and-tell” recommendations may be successful in particular contexts, most

seasoned practitioners have accounts of methods and techniques that “just did not work” in their
classroom, school, or district. Often the problem is not with the instructor or pedagogical
recommendation, but rather the complex interplay of sociocognitive factors in that place and time.
Instructional activities that require highly unfamiliar language and challenge well-established beliefs
about the nature of legitimate participation often meet resistance and fail to produce desired outcomes,
despite a record of success elsewhere. Thus, many teachers report unexpected challenges when they
attempt pedagogical practices such as increasing target language use in their classrooms, employing
authentic texts, or flipping classrooms as a vehicle for grammar instruction. While trying to recognize
the diversity of backgrounds in classes with a mix of immigrant, heritage, and L2 learners, teachers can
also unwittingly inhibit participation by positioning some individuals as linguistic and cultural
“experts” against their wishes (García-Sánchez, 2016). Failed attempts at innovation then lead some
teachers to abandon research-supported recommendations and return to the familiar practices that
characterized their own language learning experiences (K. E. Johnson & Golombek, 2016). In this way,
discredited principles are brought back to life in practices that disavow language as a holistic
integration of form, meaning, and use, or that undercut language learning as a coherent, collaborative
sociocognitive process. Meanwhile, instructors who persevere to make innovation work must often
come up with creative, unanticipated adaptations to accommodate their local context.
The second author’s experience implementing a flipped classroom methodology together with
several instructors of elementary Spanish provides a case in point. Flipped language classrooms take
advantage of increased access to educational technologies by moving most grammar and vocabulary
presentations outside of class; class time then maximizes opportunities to use the L2 in meaningful
contexts (Moranski & Kim, 2016). Following the decision to implement flipped methodology for all
classes in a multi-section university Spanish course, students in a section composed of
nontraditional learners were frequently disconcerted when the instructor assigned homework
where they would introduce themselves to new grammatical concepts independently, prior to class.
Although students in the other course sections had been much more receptive to flipped classrooms
following metacognitive training (Moranski & Henery, 2017), this was not the case for the
82
| TOTH AND MORANSKI

nontraditional group, and their initial negative reaction was of concern to the instructor, coordinator,
and program administration.
To address this difficulty, the nontraditional learners’ instructor arranged several sessions with the
course coordinator to discuss the principles upon which flipped classroom methodology was based.
Under the coordinator’s direction, the instructor adopted a transparent approach with the students and
explained that flipped methodology had been chosen because of its compatibility with the principles of
meaningful L2 use, learning by doing, and a thoughtful incorporation of metalinguistic knowledge.
The students and instructor came to the compromise that, if he would incorporate some explicit
instruction in class, they would all meet with the instructor during a portion of his office hours to
converse in the L2, thus using it meaningfully. As an added benefit, these learners later reported that the
conversation sessions outside of class greatly relieved the anxiety that they felt while speaking in the L2
in class. Although this type of solution is certainly not viable in all contexts, it illustrates how a solid
understanding of principles allowed them to remain intact when a strict adherence to methodological
guidelines failed in practice.
Whereas a deeper understanding of principles allows teachers to make needed adaptations to their
context, a shallow understanding yields rigid adherence to methodology that is counterproductive, even
if its recommendations reflect sound principles. The first author’s experience observing in-service and
pre-service K–12 teachers’ use of TPRS illustrates this point. According to Ray and Seely (2012), the
interweaving of theatrical storytelling with circling questions and comprehension checks is based on the
principle that language should be “comprehensible and interesting” to learners, and that repetition ensures
remembering (p. 13). For example, the authors suggest that a story that opens with the statement, “The girl
has a cat,” might be followed by circling yes/no and either/or questions such as, “Does the girl have a cat?”
“Does the girl have a dog?” and “What does the girl have, a cat or a dog?” (p. 96). However, teachers who
embed too many such questions in each story line, often in accordance with officially sanctioned TPRS
materials, can easily make a narrative incomprehensible to learners, as use of language for narration
becomes obscured by questions whose purpose is to dissect each sentence component. When applied
rigidly and without sensitivity to learner engagement, TPRS techniques designed to ensure comprehension
can violate principles of meaningful language and learning by doing. In such cases, the learner experience
becomes not unlike that of mechanical drills, where the gap between the meaning and purpose of language
is so profound that it fails to reflect communication as its goal. Still, practitioners with a firm grounding in
current principles, and who are sensitive to the social impact of their instructional moves, can detect the
onset of such difficulties and ensure that questioning patterns authentically check for comprehension and
draw attention transparently to the communicative function of L2 forms.
Thus, it is only through a deep understanding of pedagogical principles that practitioners can make
the necessary adaptations to pedagogical recommendations for their local context. In Figure 3, we
propose an expanded model of ISLA as a translational field, including the concentric circles of
mutually influencing classroom factors presented in Figure 1. As a depiction of the cognitive and social
local spaces where learning occurs, it highlights the nuanced reality that practitioners face while
incorporating contemporary pedagogical recommendations into their practices: They must navigate
learner needs, task and environmental parameters, and institutional norms. As researchers and theorists
develop principles from which such recommendations are derived, practitioners must account for the
sociocognitive reality of their classroom when translating them into practice.

5.1 | Principles over methods

Despite the complex network of sociocognitive factors that practitioners must navigate, the challenge
of grounding practice in current principles while meeting immediate learner needs is far from
TOTH AND MORANSKI
| 83

FIGURE 3 The sociocognitive filter and the translation of principles to practice

insurmountable. Practitioners succeed at this feat daily, and the fact that so many learners come to
appreciate and adopt the linguistic and cultural practices of communities beyond those that are familiar
to them is a testament to teachers’ accomplishments. We do, however, suggest that professional
development formats that focus primarily on methods and techniques may fail to equip practitioners
with the flexibility required to incorporate pedagogical recommendations within the dynamic
sociocognitive tapestry that defines the learning environment. We therefore make several
recommendations for prioritizing principles over methods.
First, we urge teacher educators, textbook publishers, and developers of professional development
materials to expand their focus on the principles underlying best practices in L2 education. Although
professional development experiences that are focused on current principles certainly do exist (Center
for Advanced Language Proficiency and Research, 2017a; Shrum & Glisan, 2016), many others lack
clear, sustained opportunities for reinforcement in practice. Glisan and Donato’s (2017) work on high-
leverage teaching practices (HLTPs) shows progress toward a greater focus on principles: The authors
purposefully avoid mapping the HLTPs onto specific methods or approaches, and each HLTP is
introduced with a synthesis of its theoretical grounding(s) and supporting research. We encourage the
creators of professional development materials to cultivate within practitioners a deep, nuanced
understating of the principles of language learning by exploring how they may be flexibly and
creatively applied in a variety of local contexts.
Second, it is incumbent upon institutional administrators to place individuals with a robust knowledge
of contemporary ISLA principles in key positions in language programs. At the postsecondary level, this
includes department chairs, language program directors, course coordinators, and teacher education
specialists. In K–12 contexts, this means district curriculum administrators, principals, and department
heads (see, for example, Quinn-Allen, 2018). In such leadership positions, knowledge is not always
synonymous with experience: An instructor who has been using mechanical drills for 30 years will
likely train others to do the same. Relying on individuals whose expertise does not extend beyond
the level of techniques and methods is likewise insufficient; a sound command of language learning
principles is essential to navigating the sociocognitive challenges of the language classroom. Thus, a
lack of individuals with a firm grasp on language learning principles not only perpetuates “old notions
(myths) about language” (VanPatten, 2015b, p. 9), but also greatly decreases the likelihood of adapting
contemporary instructional practices successfully to particular local contexts.
Third, we encourage heightened communication and reciprocity between researchers studying
metalinguistic talk in classroom settings and the greater language educator community. A nuanced
understanding of why metalinguistic knowledge is integral to language learning (Principle 3) will
84
| TOTH AND MORANSKI

enable practitioners to make decisions about how to incorporate metalinguistic talk in their own local
contexts. Though ACTFL’s guidelines for target language classroom use allow for minimal amounts of
L1 communication (ACTFL, 2017d), it may not always be immediately clear to practitioners how the
L1 might be employed effectively to mediate L2 use, rather than merely as a means of translation. An
example of translational research that underscores the role of metalinguistic knowledge in classroom
contexts is found in PACE methodology, which involves “collaborative talk between the teacher and
the students to reflect on, hypothesize about, and create understandings about the form, meaning, and
function” of new target structures (Adair-Hauck & Donato, 2016, p. 217). Another methodology that
explicitly addresses how metalinguistic knowledge may be used in the classroom is concept-based
instruction (CBI), where learners use visual-verbal artifacts to develop conceptual knowledge of the
L2, which in turn mediates L2 use (Lantolf & Zhang, 2017; van Compernolle & Henery, 2015). For
example, García’s (2017) recent translational work on CBI in Spanish heritage learner classrooms
provides both theoretical grounding and step-by-step guidance for practitioners seeking to implement
CBI.
Fourth and finally, we continue our discussion of metalinguistic knowledge with the
recommendation that postsecondary language educator programs place greater focus on the nature
of language itself. Too often it is the case that future language practitioners have access to only one
“Advanced Grammar” or “Introduction to Linguistics” course in which they receive cursory overviews
of the structure of the language that they will teach throughout their career. This lack of focus on
metalinguistic knowledge perpetuates artificial and inaccurate grammar explanations, such as the
“rules-of-thumb” for verbal aspect or subjunctive mood that are found in so many Spanish language
textbooks (Negueruela & Lantolf, 2006; Yáñez-Prieto, 2010). Recently, the Center for Advanced
Language Proficiency and Research (CALPER) at the Pennsylvania State University launched a
project on its website to provide language educators implementing CBI with “professional
development materials to enhance teacher knowledge of some critical concepts in the respective
languages” (Center for Advanced Language Proficiency and Research, 2017b). Though still in
progress, the materials currently being added to this site serve as an example of how to incorporate
this type of instruction in teachers’ professional development.

5.2 | Principles and the (lack of) trickle down effect

Curiously, when we shift our focus from practitioners’ professional development to researchers’
methodologies, we see the opposite problem, where there is too often an emphasis on principles
without a well-developed consideration of pedagogical applications. Whether working from a
cognitive or social perspective, researchers and theorists seldom consider the full range of factors
shown in Figure 1 when proposing principles-based recommendations. This may be due in part to the
current state of instructed SLA research. The great majority of empirical studies in the field are
conducted within the context of a singular setting, generally a specific university or laboratory.
Although researchers routinely strive to apply new methodologies to diverse subgroups of learners
(different L1s, ages, individual characteristics, etc.), or utilize varying instructional modalities (face-
to-face, blended learning, computer-mediated communication), multisite investigations and attempts
to explore classrooms beyond the postsecondary context, apart from study abroad, are rare. This is
problematic for two reasons. First, researchers are not forced to confront and address the range of social
and contextual factors that may impede practitioners from successfully incorporating theory into
practice. Second, this creates a problem of ecological validity for ISLA, meaning that findings are not
generalizable to additional settings. When researchers do not test methodologies in a variety of social
contexts, it is up to practitioners to improvise their own solutions in unstudied environments. As a
TOTH AND MORANSKI
| 85

result, new methodologies often fail in real classroom settings, or they are incorporated in ways that are
inconsistent with the principles on which they are based.
As we embark upon the next 50 years in ISLA research, we therefore urge investigators to bring
social and contextual factors to the forefront of their research agendas. Instead of limiting instructional
treatments to one educational context, ISLA needs translational research that carefully considers how
principles will be applied within the sociocognitive realities of a variety of classrooms. This may
include increased collaboration with practitioners in multisite studies, or a greater number of
replications in which sociocognitive factors are formally accounted for in the research design, rather
than being discounted as mitigating factors. Likewise, greater qualitative research on the realities that
teachers face in different contexts would help move our understanding of the challenges in
implementing recommended practices from informal anecdotes to systematically documented
experience. Indeed, it is only recently that studies that explore teacher cognition as essential both to
effective L2 pedagogy and to the success of professional development programs have become
common in major L2 research journals (Donato & Davin, 2017; K. E. Johnson & Golombek, 2016;
Kubanyiova & Feryok, 2015). If we hope to continue improving L2 instruction while adapting to the
forthcoming social and political changes over the next 50 years, it is essential that researchers examine
instructional models in diverse social contexts and better understand the world as practitioners
experience it.

6 | CONCLUSION: WHY HAVEN’T WE SOLVED INSTRUCTED

SLA?

At the beginning of this paper, we considered whether a concise set of best practices could address the
complex sociocognitive realities that instructors face in real classrooms. These practices would not
resolve contemporary issues in ISLA by their mere existence, but rather their impact would be manifest
through feasible implementation across a variety of instructional contexts. This would improve upon
the heterogeneous and often erratic ways in which theory-based methods do, and do not, materialize in
K–12 and postsecondary language classrooms. Although the field has yet to designate a definitive set
of cross-contextual, universally accepted best practices for instruction, many of the most promising
concepts from various theoretical frameworks have coalesced over the past 50 years to comprise the
four contemporary principles presented earlier: (1) All language use is purposeful, but not all use is
meaningful, (2) we learn by doing, (3) metalinguistic knowledge (still) matters, and (4) social contexts
co-construct development. These principles should certainly be counted on to guide practice, but they
are too often absent as many classrooms forge on with drill-based, mechanical methods of a bygone era.
Instructors’ attempts to apply promising methodologies such as flipped classroom or immersive L2 use
are regularly confronted with instructional, societal, or institutional norms that either completely
prohibit or dilute the efficacy of implementation.
These issues should not be perceived as deficiencies in practitioners themselves but rather as the
effects of an anemic model of translational research within ISLA. The notion that practitioners may
simply apply methodologies or instructional techniques as one applies paint to a wall is misguided. The
“social turn” in SLA has shown that language learning encompasses a myriad of sociocognitive factors
that teachers must navigate to implement any pedagogical practice, as shown in Figure 3. However,
much professional development still occurs at the level of a distinct methodology or instructional
technique, depriving practitioners of familiarity with the principles upon which these methods or
techniques are based. Without a solid foundation in principles, practitioners often lack the flexibility
that is needed to adjust or overhaul their practice while accounting for the sociocognitive factors in their
86
| TOTH AND MORANSKI

classroom. Meanwhile, without a familiarity with a variety of practitioners’ experiences, theorists and
researchers cannot make context-sensitive, practical, useable, and meaningful recommendations. In
short, both the research and practitioner communities must better understand each other if we are to
come closer to “solving” ISLA in the next 50 years of Foreign Language Annals.
There are concrete steps that both researchers and practitioners can take to arrive at a more
complete and effective model of translational research in ISLA. One of the main goals of this paper
was to create a theory-to-practice model that faithfully represented this process. Any solution to
instructed SLA must be a collaborative endeavor between theorists and practitioners. As times
change, this solution will not be static and must be subject to revision. Indeed, the principles
themselves may be revised as research sheds new light on the nature of language and language
learning, and as social and technological changes revise the contexts in which languages are learned.
Regardless, practitioners need grounding in principles to understand the complex reality they face.
Theorists and researchers need grounding in the experiences of practitioners to make their work
relevant. While such a model does not solve ISLA, it is an important first step in improving
instruction in the L2 classroom.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Beth Hanlon, President of the Ohio Foreign Language Association, for
sharing her insights and experiences from K–12 classroom contexts. We also greatly appreciate the
support and advice we received from Foreign Language Annals Editor Anne Nerenz, who guided this
paper toward completion.

ENDNOTE
1
In a PACE lesson sequence, an L2 text is first “presented” to learners to engage with its meaning. Teachers then draw
learners’ “attention” to target grammar forms in the text, and participants collectively “co-construct” a rule for the
structures based on their use in the text. Finally, learners engage in a series of “extension” activities that apply the target
forms in communicative tasks.

REFERENCES
Adair-Hauck, B., & Donato, R. (2016). PACE: A story-based approach for dialogic inquiry about form and meaning. In
J. L. Shrum & E. W. Glisan (Eds.), Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language instruction (5th ed., pp. 206–230).
Boston: Cengage Learning
ACTFL. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL, Inc.
ACTFL. (2017a). Guiding principles for language learning: Strategies for supporting the use of target language.
Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/guiding-principles/use-target-language-language-learning/strategiesw
ACTFL. (2017b). Guiding principles for language learning: Teach grammar as concepts in meaningful contexts in
language learning. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/guiding-principles/teach-grammar-concepts-meaningful-
contexts-language-learning
ACTFL. (2017c). Guiding principles for language learning: Use of authentic texts in language learning. Retrieved from
https://www.actfl.org/guiding-principles/use-authentic-texts-language-learning
ACTFL. (2017d). Guiding principles for language learning: Use of target language in language learning. Retrieved
from https://www.actfl.org/guiding-principles/use-target-language-language-learning
ACTFL. (n.d.). Foreign Language Annals: Background and content. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/publications/
all/foreign-language-annals
Anthony, E. M. (1963). Approach, method, and technique. English Language Teaching, 17(2), 63–67.
TOTH AND MORANSKI
| 87

Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2014). Flipped learning: Gateway to student engagement. Washington, DC: International
Society for Technology in Education.
Bex, M. (2016). The comprehensible classroom: Best practice strategies and resources for world language teachers.
Retrieved from https://martinabex.com/about/
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London: Bloomsbury.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16(6), 645–668.
Center for Advanced Language Proficiency and Research. (2017a). Professional development docs. Retrieved from
http://calper.la.psu.edu/professional-development-documents
Center for Advanced Language Proficiency and Research. (2017b). Concept-based language instruction. Retrieved from
http://calper.la.psu.edu/content/concept-based-language-instruction-cbli
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Davin, K. J., & Troyan, F. J. (2015). The implementation of high-leverage teaching practices: From the university
classroom to the field site. Foreign Language Annals, 48(1), 124–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12124
DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language
grammar. In C. J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 42–63).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
DeKeyser, R. M. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language
acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 94–112). New York: Routledge
DeKeyser, R. M., & Prieto-Botana, G. (2015). The effectiveness of Processing Instruction in L2 grammar acquisition: A
narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu071
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian
approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Donato, R., & Davin, K. J (2017). The genesis of classroom discursive practices as history-in-person processes.
Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817702672
Ellis, N. C. (2008). Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition: The associative learning of constructions,
learned attention and the limited L2 endstate. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics
and second language acquisition (pp. 372–405). New York: Routledge
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 (C. Gordon, Trans.). New
York: Pantheon Books.
García, P. N. (2017). Implementing concept-based instruction in the heritage language classroom: A pedagogical
proposal. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages, 4(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.21283/
2376905X.6.86
García-Sánchez, I. M. (2016). Multiculturalism and its discontents: Essentializing ethnic Moroccan and Roma identities
in classroom discourse in Spain. In H. S. Alim, J. R. Rickford & A. F. Ball (Eds.), Raciolinguistics: How language
shapes our ideas about race. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
Glisan, E., & Donato, R. (2017). Enacting the work of language instruction: High-leverage teaching practices.
Alexandria, VA: ACTFL.
Guntermann, G. (1979). Purposeful communication practice: Developing functional proficiency in a foreign language
Foreign Language Annals, 12(3), 219–225.
Hall, J. K. (2004). “Practicing speaking“ in Spanish: Lessons from a high school foreign language classroom. In D. Boxer
& A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (pp. 68–87). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters
Hall, J. K. (2009). Language learning as discursive practice. In V. J. Cook & L. Wei (Eds.), Contemporary applied
linguistics, Volume 1: Language teaching and learning (pp. 255–273). London: Continuum
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). New
York: Routledge.
Hlas, A. C., & Hlas, C. S. (2012). A review of high-leverage teaching practices: Making connections between
mathematics and foreign languages. Foreign Language Annals, 45(S1), s76–s97. https://doi.org/10.111/j.1944-
9720.2012.01180.x
Irving, J. S. (1976). Cassettes, films, and the partner system: Adding a new dimension to the conversation class. Foreign
Language Annals, 9(4), 284–288.
88
| TOTH AND MORANSKI

Johnson, K. (1982). Communicative syllabus design and methodology. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2016). Mindful L2 teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on cultivating
teachers’ professional development. New York: Routledge.
Koch, C. (2004). The quest for consciousness: A neurobiological approach. Englewood, CO: Roberts & Company.
Kubanyiova, M., & Feryok, A. (2015). Language teacher cognition in applied linguistics research: Revisiting the
territory, redrawing the boundaries, reclaiming the relevance. The Modern Language Journal, 99(3), 435–449.
https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12239
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian
praxis and the research/praxis divide. New York: Routledge.
Lantolf, J. P., & Zhang, X. (2017). Concept-based language instruction. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 146–165). New York: Routledge
Larsen-Freeman, D. E. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston: Thomson Heinle.
Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York: Routledge.
Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom second language acquisition. In
Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27–44). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Marsden, E., & Kasprowicz, R. (2017). Foreign language educators’ exposure to research: Reported experiences,
exposure via citations, and a proposal for action. The Modern Language Journal, 101(4), 1–30. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12426
Moranski, K., & Henery, A. (2017). Helping learners to orient to the inverted or flipped language classroom: Mediation
via informational video. Foreign Language Annals, 50(2), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12262
Moranski, K., & Kim, F. (2016). “Flipping” lessons in a multi-section Spanish course: Implications for assigning explicit
grammar instruction outside of the classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 830–852. https://doi.org/
10.1111/modl.12366
Moranski, K., & Toth, P. D. (2016). Small-group meta-analytic talk and Spanish L2 development. In M. Sato & S.
Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp.
291–316). Amsterdam: John Benjamins
National Standards in Foreign Language Learning Project. (2015). World-readiness standards for learning languages [ePub
iPad version]. Retrieved from http://www.actfl.org/publications/all/world-readiness-standards-learning-languages
Negueruela, E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Concept-based instruction and the acquisition of L2 Spanish. In M. R. Salaberry
& B. A. Lafford (Eds.), The art of teaching Spanish: Second language acquisition from research to praxis (pp.
79–102). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis.
Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.). Bristol, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2011). Identity, language learning, and social change. Language Teaching, 44(4), 412–446.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444811000309
Organic World Language. (2017). The methodology. Retrieved from http://owlanguage.com/about/
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language acquisition. In
G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters
Pienemann, M., & Lenzing, A. (2015). Processability theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second
language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 159–179). New York: Routledge
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskyan approach to understanding and promoting L2 development.
New York: Springer.
Ray, B., & Seely, C. (2012). Fluency through TPR storytelling: Achieving real language acquisition in school (6th ed.).
Berkeley, CA: Command Performance Language Institute.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Richmond, E. B. (1978). Amateur raadio as an aid to foreign language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 11(3),
259–263.
TOTH AND MORANSKI
| 89

Rubio, D. M., Schoenbaum, E. E., Lee, L. S., Schteingart, D. E., Marantz, P. R., Anderson, K. E., . . . Esposito, K. (2010).
Defining translational research: Implications for training. Academic Medicine, 85(3), 470–475.
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Seedhouse, P., & Walsh, S. (2010). Learning a second language through classroom interaction. In P. Seedhouse, S.
Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualizing “learning” in applied linguistics (pp. 127–146). Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Shrum, J., & Glisan, E. (2016). Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language instruction (5th ed.). Boston: Heinle
Cengage Learning.
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis.
Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308.
Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2015). Sociocultural theory in second language education: An introduction
through narratives (2nd ed.). Bristol, UK: Mulilingual Matters.
Terrell, T. D. (1977). A natural approach to second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 61(7), 325–337.
Toth, P. D. (2004). When grammar instruction undermines cohesion in L2 Spanish classroom discourse. The Modern
Language Journal, 88(1), 14–30.
Toth, P. D. (2011). Social and cognitive factors in making teacher-led classroom discourse relevant for second language
development. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 1–25.
Toth, P. D., & Davin, K. J. (2016). The sociocognitive imperative of L2 pedagogy. The Modern Language Journal,
100(Supplement 1), 148–168.
Toth, P. D., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2013). The impact of instruction on second-language implicit knowledge: Evidence
against encapsulation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34(6), 1163–1193. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716412000197
Toth, P. D., Wagner, E., & Moranski, K. (2013). “Co-constructing” explicit L2 knowledge with high school Spanish
learners through guided induction. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams049
Ullman, M. T. (2015). The Declarative/Procedural Model. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second
language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 135–158). New York: Routledge
van Compernolle, R. A. (2015). Interaction and second language development: A Vygotskyan perspective. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
van Compernolle, R. A., & Henery, A. (2015). Learning to do concept-based pragmatics instruction: Teacher
development and L2 pedagogical content knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 19(3), 351–372.
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
VanPatten, B. (2015a). Foundations of processing instruction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 53(2), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2015-0005
VanPatten, B. (2015b). Where are the experts? Hispania, 98(1), 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpn.2015.0011
Walqui, A., & van Lier, L. (2010). Scaffolding the academic sucess of adolescent English language learners: A pedagogy
of promise. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Wong, W., & VanPatten, B. (2003). The evidence is IN: Drills are OUT. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 403–423.
Wood, D. D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. The Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.
Yáñez-Prieto, M. C. (2010). Authentic instruction in literary worlds: Learning the stylistics of concept-based grammar.
Language and Literature, 19(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947009356723

How to cite this article: Toth PD, Moranski K. Why haven’t we solved instructed SLA? A
sociocognitive account. Foreign Language Annals. 2018;51:73–89.
https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12322