Cover not available
Part of
Expanding Individual Difference Research in the Interaction Approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors
Edited by Laura Gurzynski-Weiss
[AILA Applied Linguistics Series 16] 2017
► pp. 151–172

Chapter 7
Instructor individual characteristics and L2 interaction

 | Indiana University
This chapter opens the second section of the volume, which focuses on second and foreign language (L2) instructors. After defining the research domain of instructor individual characteristics, the chapter provides an overview of the role(s) of the instructor situated within the interaction approach (Gass & Mackey, 2015). It then examines how instructor individual characteristics may influence the L2 interaction-based learning opportunities instructors provide to learners, focusing on those most relevant for the framework- namely, comprehensible input, usable feedback and negotiation for meaning, opportunities to interact within meaning-based and appropriately complex tasks and task sequences, and opportunities to produce output, including modified output. Alongside this theoretical discussion, the chapter provides a critical and state-of-the-art review of studies that have examined instructor characteristics within this framework and demonstrates how instructor individual characteristics play an important role in L2 interaction-based learning opportunities. It concludes with considerations of how instructor individual characteristics undoubtedly interact with learner individual differences and contextual factors and outlines promising areas for future research on instructor individual characteristics within and beyond the interaction approach.
Keywords: instructor individual characteristics, language instructors, L2 interaction
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Instructor individual characteristics and L2 interaction
    • Provision of comprehensible input
    • Provision of usable feedback and opportunities to negotiate meaning
    • Opportunities to produce (modified) output
    • Provision of meaning-based and appropriately complex tasks
  • Moving forward in this research domain
  • The interplay of instructor individual characteristics, learner IDs, and context
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.16.07gur
References (118)
References
Ágnes, A. (2011). When individual differences come into play: The effect of learner creativity on simple and complex task performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 239–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Árva, V., & Medgyes, P. (2000). Native and non-native teachers in the classroom. System, 28(3), 355–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, D. (2011). A sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition: How mind, body, and world work together in learning additional languages. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 143–166). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bailey, K. M. (1996). The best laid plans: Teacher’s in-class decisions to depart from their lesson plans. In K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom (pp. 15–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., & Robinson, P. (Eds.). (2014). Task sequencing and instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Baralt, M., Harmath-de Lemos, S., & Werfelli, S. (2014). Teachers’ application of the Cognition Hypothesis when lesson planning: A case study. In M. Baralt, R. Gilabert, & P. Robinson (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 179–206). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Berliner, D. C. (1995). The development of pedagogical expertise. In P. K. Siu & P. Tam Tim-Kui (Eds.), Quality in education: Insights from different perspectives (pp. 1–14). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and teacher education: Research and practice. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2010). Language teacher researcher engagement. Language Teaching, 43(4), 391–429. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instrution by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 473–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burns, A., Freeman, D., & Edwards, E. (2015). Theorizing and studying the language‐teaching mind: Mapping research on language teacher cognition. Modern Language Journal, 99(3), 585–601. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crookes, G. V. (2015). Redrawing the boundaries on theory, research, and practice concerning language teachers’ philosophies and language teacher cognition: Toward a critical perspective. Modern Language Journal, 99(3), 485–499. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danan, M. (2016). Enhancing listening with captions and transcripts: Exploring learner differences. Applied Language Learning, 26(2), 1–24.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Duff, P., & Polio, C. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 74, 154–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duff, P. A., & Talmy, S. (2011). Language socialization approaches to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 95–116). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. Modern Language Journal, 94, 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (1999). Cognitive approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 22–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Language as a complex adaptive system (Vol. 3). Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
(2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 285–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44(3), 449–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
England, N. (2016). Developing an interpretation of collective beliefs in language teacher cognition research. TESOL Quarterly, 51(1), 229–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaies, S. J. (1979). Linguistic input in first and second language learning. In F. Eckman & A. Hastings (Eds.), Studies in first and second language acquisition (pp. 185–193). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 180–206). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1985). Variation in native speaker speech modification to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7(1), 37–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(3), 283–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golombek, P. R. (2015). Redrawing the boundaries of language teacher cognition: Language teacher educators’ emotion, cognition, and activity. Modern Language Journal, 99(3), 470–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2010). Factors influencing oral corrective feedback provision in the Spanish foreign language classroom: investigating instructor native/nonnative speaker status, second language acquisition education, and teaching experience (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
(2013). Instructor characteristics and classroom-based SLA of Spanish. In K. L. Geeslin (Ed.), The handbook of Spanish second language acquisition (pp. 530–546). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016a). Factors influencing Spanish instructors’ in class feedback decisions. Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 255–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016b). Spanish instructors’ operationalization and interpretation of task complexity and sequencing in non-experimental foreign language lessons. The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 467–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). L2 instructor individual characteristics. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 451–467). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (2015). Does type of modified output correspond to learner noticing of feedback? A closer look in face-to-face and computer-mediated task-based interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(6), 1393–1420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., Geeslin, K. L., Daidone, D., Linford, B., Long, A. Y., Michalski, I., & Solon, M. (2018). L2 classrooms as multifaceted sources of input: The synergy of variationist and usage-based approaches. In A. Tyler, L. Ortega, M. Uno, & H. I. Park (Eds.), Usage-inspired L2 instruction: Researched pedagogy (pp. 293–313). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Révész, A. (2012). Tasks, teacher feedback, and learner modified output in naturally occurring classroom interaction. Language Learning, 62(3), 851–879. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E. M. (1978). Second language acquisition: A book of readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
(1983). Psycholinguistics: A second language perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hiller, S. (2010). Language choice in the classroom: The instructor’s voice. Educational Studies, 52, 207–215.Google Scholar
Iwashita, T. (2011). Examining the influence of intentional reasoning demands on learner perceptions of task difficulty and L2 monologic speech. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 307–330). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the Noticing Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 239–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Junqueira, L., & Kim, Y. (2013). Exploring the relationship between training, beliefs, and teachers’ corrective feedback practices: A case study of a novice and an experienced ESL teacher. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(2), 181–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2013). The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? System, 41(3), 829–840. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J., & Trebits, A., (2011). Working memory capacity and narrative task performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 267–286). Amsterdams: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Kubanyiova, M., & Feryok, A. (2015). Language teacher cognition in applied linguistics research: Revisiting the territory, redrawing the boundaries, reclaiming the relevance. Modern Language Journal, 99(3), 435–449. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lai, C., Fei, F., & Roots, R. (2008). The contingency of recasts and noticing. CALICO Journal, 26(1), 70–90.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, A. H., & Lyster, R. (2016). The effects of corrective feedback on instructed L2 speech perception. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(1), 35–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leeman, J. (2007). Feedback in L2 learning: Responding to errors during practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from linguistics and psychology (pp. 111–137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. (2009). Simplified written input and its effect on L2 comprehension: What the research reveals. In A. Cirocki (Ed.), Extensive reading in English langauge teaching (pp. 129–141). Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 634–654. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Working memory, language analytical ability, and L2 recasts. In Z. Wen, M. Borges Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 139–159). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2014). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1980). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
(1983a). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(02), 177–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1983b). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on second language acquisition (Vol. 2, pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academy Press.Google Scholar
(Ed.) (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. New York, NY: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010a). Interactional feedback as instructional input: A synthesis of classroom SLA research. Language, Interaction and Acquisition/Langage, Interaction et Acquisition, 1(2), 276–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010b). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 557–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
, (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., & Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the relationship between modified output and working memory capacity. Language Learning, 60(3), 501–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Hama, M., Logan-Terry, A., & Nakatsukasa, K. (2007). Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 129–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children’s L2 development. System, 30(4), 459–477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Takako, E., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback, and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Polio, C., & McDonough, K. (2004). The relationship between experience, education, and teachers’ use of incidental focus-on-form techniques. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 301–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Silver, R. E. (2005). Interactional tasks and English L2 learning by immigrant children in Singapore. System, 33(2), 239–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Ziegler, N., & Bryfonski, L. (2016). From SLA research on interaction to TBLT materials. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), SLA research and materials development for language learning (pp. 105–120). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maleki, Z., & Pazhakh, A. (2012). The effects of pre modified input, interactionally modified input, and modified output on EFL learners’ comprehension of new vocabularies. International Journal of Higher Education, 1(1), 128–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56(4), 693–720. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mercer, S., Oberdorfer, P., & Saleem, M. (2016). Helping language teachers to thrive: Using positive psychology to promote teachers’ professional well-being. In D. Gabrys-Barker & D. Galajda (Eds.), Positive psychology perspectives on foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 213–229). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Nuevo, A., Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2011). Task complexity, modified output, and L2 development in learner-learner interaction. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 175–201). Amsterdam: John Benajmins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunan, D. (1992). The teacher as decision-maker. In J. Flowerduew, M. Brock, & S. Hsia (Eds.), Perspectives on second language teacher education (pp. 135–65). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2015). Second language learning explained? SLA across 10 contemporary theories. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 245–272). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Non-native speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1987). Second-language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 3–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polio, C., Gass, S. M., & Chapin, L. (2006). Using stimulated recall to investigate native speaker perceptions in native-nonnative speaker interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 237–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(3), 437–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2016). Teachers’ perspectives on second language task difficulty: Insights from think-alouds and eye tracking. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Sachs, R., & Mackey, A. (2011). Task complexity, uptake of recasts, and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 203–238). Amsterdam: John Benajmins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reynolds-Case, A. (2012). Exploring how non-native teachers can use commonalties with students to teach the target language. Hispania, 95(3), 523–537.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N. (2007). From CALL to face-to-face interaction: The effect of computer-delivered recasts and working memory on L2 development. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 229–248). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Abbuhl, R. (2013). Optimizing the noticing of recasts via computer‐delivered feedback: Evidence that oral input enhancement and working memory help second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 97(1), 196–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning1. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(02), 165–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shin, J. E., & Kellogg, D. (2007). The novice, the native, and the nature of language teacher expertise. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 159–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2015). Does language analytical ability mediate the effect of written feedback on grammatical accuracy in second language writing? System, 49, 110–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevens, J. J. (2000). On the labiodental pronunciation of Spanish /b/ among teachers of Spanish as a second language. Hispania, 83(1), 139–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Tripp, D. (2011). Critical incidents in teaching (classic edition): Developing professional judgement. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of second language teachers. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Sprachen. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uggen, M. S. (2012). Reinvestigating the noticing function of output. Language Learning, 62(2), 506–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ushioda, E. (2016). Language learning motivation through a small lens: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 49(4), 564–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 225–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. M. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vásquez, C., & Harvey, J. (2010). Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through research replication. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 421–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1990). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(2), 121–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winke, P. M. (2013). The effects of input enhancement on grammar learning and comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(2), 323–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolff, C. E., van den Bogert, N., Jarodzka, H., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2014). Keeping an eye on learning differences between expert and novice teachers’ representations of classroom management events. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Yano, Y., Long, M. H., & Ross, S. M. (1994). The effects of simplified and elaborate texts on foreign language reading comprehension. Language Learning, 44(2), 189–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Granena, G. (2016). The role of cognitive aptitudes for explicit language learning in the relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(1), 147–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Gurzynski-Weiss, Laura
2020. Chapter 1. Introducing cross-theoretical explorations of interlocutors and their individual differences. In Cross-theoretical Explorations of Interlocutors and their Individual Differences [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 53], ► pp. 4 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.