2

Perceptions and Practices in Language Teaching:

A Survey of Experts in Literary and Cultural
Studies
Justin P. White
Florida Atlantic University

Andrew J. DeMil
University of Tampa

Geraldine Blattner
Florida Atlantic University

Abstract
This study serves as a follow-up to VanPatten’s (2015a) demographic report including
the makeup of many university language departments. The present study investigates
what some literary and cultural studies experts self-report regarding their training in
SLA/language pedagogy, term familiarity, perceptions of Communicative Language
Teaching, and classroom practices. Participants included 38 university-level US Span-
ish and French professors with expertise in literary and cultural studies. Findings re-
vealed a lack of familiarity with some SLA and language teaching constructs, feedback
types, and the role of explicit grammar and mechanical drills. As such, we discuss the
ramifications of these findings.
Keywords: input processing, language teaching, teaching practices, feedback; survey

Background
VanPatten (2015a) reported that language departments in universities across
the United States comprise an overwhelming percentage of experts in literary and
cultural studies. In brief, at the time of the 2015 study, out of 344 tenured and tenure-
line faculty members in Spanish, only 22 faculty (6%) had an expertise in language
acquisition, and in French, there were a mere four faculty members out of 248 in
the areas of language acquisition, roughly equating to two percent. The remaining
322 (94%) tenured and tenure-line faculty in Spanish and 244 (98%) in French had
areas of expertise other than language acquisition, with the vast majority boasting
expertise in literary and cultural studies. VanPatten (2015a) states that, “... the vast
majority of scholars populating academic “language” departments are not experts
in language or language acquisition” (p. 4). He elaborates that these faculty are not
necessarily experts in language in the same way as language scientists who inves-
tigate language as an object of inquiry and details a series of consequences of the
26 Dimension 2021

lack of language experts (i.e., perpetuation of myths about language, perpetuation of

myths about language acquisition and language teaching, lack of training of future
professoriate, and perpetuation of the standard textbook scope and sequence). The
data for the 2015 report utilized the demographic information of these Spanish and
French faculty by way of their online CVs and official positions at the university and
with that in mind, the present study seeks to reveal to what extent some faculty in
literary and cultural studies in Spanish and French are informed in topics related to
language acquisition and language teaching. This study only targeted Spanish and
French faculty given that the demographic represented in VanPatten (2015a) was
exclusive beyond both Spanish and French.
Specifically, the present study is interested in the following: What do faculty in
literary and cultural studies report knowing about second language acquisition, lan-
guage teaching, and consequently, on what beliefs are they basing their pedagogy?
The present study sought to address this issue by surveying tenured and tenure-line
faculty member experts in literary and cultural studies regarding their prior formal
academic training in SLA and language teaching pedagogy, the current frequency
with which they engage in reading or producing related academic research, and their
familiarity with select terms and constructs in language acquisition and language
teaching pedagogy which may ultimately guide decisions in the language classroom.
The main areas of interest were language processing, the role of explicit grammar
and grammar instruction, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), and feedback.

Previous Research
Language learning has been an object of inquiry for millennia, but it was only
recently, during the latter part of the 20th century, that this interest evolved into a sci-
ence (VanPatten & Williams, 2015) and formed its own fields of research-informed
second language teaching pedagogy and second language acquisition. On the acqui-
sition side, researchers are interested in how x affects y. For example, the effects of
x on acquisition (however it might be qualified in a particular research paradigm).
Concomitantly, language teaching pedagogy is regularly informed by the findings
of language acquisition research, and approaches are consequently drawn from this
research. Given that the field of language acquisition attempts to explain how the
mind works regarding the processes, products, and environments of language ac-
quisition, it is generally accepted that language instructors can benefit from having
a command of concepts in language pedagogy and SLA, particularly in light of the
direct relationship between research and praxis (Ellis & Shintani, 2014; Long 2009).
A brief snapshot shows that from the early 1980s until now, in theory, lan-
guage teaching moved from a focus on explicit grammar as an object of study to
explicit grammar coupled with mechanical drills, input-based activities, meaning-
ful and communicative drills, and interactive activities and tasks with emphasis on
meaningful communicative exchanges. During this transition, a movement known
as Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) was born out of the push to expose
learners to meaning-bearing input combined with meaningful exchanges in the
classroom in an effort to engage the cognitive processed involved in communica-
tion. The term CLT was used to describe language teaching practices that emphasize
interaction among interlocutors during which communication comprises both the
 Perceptions and Practices in Language Teaching 27

means and the end goal. Researchers and pedagogues agreed that learners needed
both exposure to comprehensible input and opportunities to interact with others in
the target language in order to be successful in their language-learning pursuit (Gass
& Mackey, 2015; VanPatten & Williams, 2015); therefore, grammar as an abstract
object of study takes the backseat while communicative goals remain at the forefront.
Attesting to the role of communication through interaction in language acquisition,
Long and Robinson (1998) state that “people of all ages learn languages best, inside
or outside a classroom, not by treating the languages as an object of study, but by
experiencing them as a medium of communication” (p. 18). In other words, one
of the leading principles of CLT, based on this line of research in language acquisi-
tion, involves providing learners with opportunities to communicate using the tar-
get language. Studies based on Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (Leeser, 2004; Mackey,
2006; Mackey & Philp, 1998; Pica et al., 2006) thereby provide support for the role
of meaning-based interactive activities in language acquisition along with their vi-
ability of use in the language classroom.
One of the principal tenets of Communicative Language Teaching was in-
structors’ advocating for the provision of learners’ exposure to meaning-based in-
put. Since the early 1980s, scholars have made claims regarding the role of input
such as the following: Krashen (1982) claims that “comprehensible input causes
acquisition” (p. 16), Lee and VanPatten (1995) state that “successful language ac-
quisition cannot happen without comprehensible input.” (p. 29), Lee and VanPat-
ten (2003) claim that, “Every scholar today believes that comprehensible input is a
critical factor in language acquisition.” (p. 16), and finally, VanPatten and Williams
(2007) state that, “acquisition will not happen for learners of a second language
unless they are exposed to input” (p. 9). That being said, scholars, over the past
nearly 40 years, have emphasized the imperative nature of input and its role in L2
acquisition. With that in mind, and all major theoretical frameworks in SLA posit
a fundamental role for input (e.g., N. Ellis, 2007; Gass & Mackey, 2007; VanPatten,
2007; White, 2007), and for that reason, one of the primary areas of study within
instructed SLA research is to investigate ways in which instruction can enhance
how L2 learners process input.
Nonetheless, despite the call to shift focus from explicit grammar instruction
to providing learners opportunities to process grammatical forms for meaning with-
in a communicative context from as early as Krashen (1982), there has still been
a reported predominant focus on explicit grammar instruction in the classroom
(Fernández, 2008; VanPatten & Wong, 2003). In other words, in its infancy, language
instructors still heavily relied on explicit grammar instruction, which was typically
operationalized by imparting explicit grammar instruction by lecturing about how a
particular grammatical structure is formed and how this same particular grammar
form is used in a sentence. Within this same approach, what little communication
in the classroom there was, was seen merely as a vehicle for a grammar-driven prac-
tice as opposed to completing task-based communicative goal-oriented interactive
activities. VanPatten (1996) draws attention to this then ‘current state’ and points out
that many language instructors’ common practice still maintained a heavy grammar
focus in the classroom and, despite providing more opportunities for communica-
tion, the instructor was still the primary source of knowledge.
28 Dimension 2021

During the early and mid 1990s, a series of publications of relevant acquisition-
oriented studies related to the role of input and explicit grammar information in
language learning emerged, such as VanPatten and Cadierno (1993), VanPatten and
Sanz (1995), and VanPatten and Oikkenon (1996), all providing empirical support
for the use of input-based activities in the language classroom and providing little
to no support for the role of explicit grammar information in language acquisition
or mechanical drills. These studies investigated the effects of an instructional inter-
vention known as Processing Instruction (PI) which in its complete form consists
of explicit grammar information (EI), processing strategy information, and a type
of input-based Focus on Form (FoF) activity (i.e., designed for learners to attend to
meaning with the target form embedded) titled Structured Input (SI). For a complete
overview of PI, see: VanPatten (2004).
Given the revolutionary nature of this research agenda to the fields of SLA
and language teaching, it has evolved in the past 25 years into one of the most well-
known research agendas, and has continued into the following decades by inves-
tigating the effects of EI in isolation and/or in combination with Structured Input
(Fernández, 2008; White & DeMil, 2013) and with other forms of input (Morgan-
Short & Bowden, 2006; White, 2015). EI in these studies consists of metalinguistic
information about how a particular grammatical structure is formed. The findings
since the early and mid-1990s to the present date have consistently indicated that
exposure to input (and particularly certain types of input such as SI) is responsible
for acquisition, not EI, and that mechanical drills are not necessary for language
acquisition in any language, at any time (VanPatten et al., 2013).
Another topic of considerable interest in both language acquisition research
and language teaching is related to the effectiveness of types of feedback provided
to learners during language instruction. Feedback comes in different forms, and the
two most common provisions of feedback are recasts or recalls (prompts) (Gass &
Mackey, 2015). “Recasts” are a type of corrective feedback during which the instruc-
tor provides the correct form in response to a learner’s incorrect utterance. Recasts
attempt to draw learners’ attention to an incorrect utterance in either oral or written
form and push learners to notice the correct form while maintaining the flow of com-
munication (Long, 1996; Ohta, 2000; Oliver, 1995; Swain & Lapkin, 1995). Doughty
(2001), states that recasts function by maintaining a status of an “immediately con-
tingent focus on form” and work within a “cognitive window” (p. 252) during which
learners can attend to the feedback and appropriately access the language present
in their interlanguage. Recalls, on the other hand, push learners to self-correct by
calling learners’ attention to the incorrect utterance; this feedback asks the learner
to notice the error and self-correct. Recalls prompt the learner to pay attention to
the teacher’s indication that the utterance was incorrect and waits for the learner to
respond (recall) with the now correct utterance (Long, 1996; Lyster & Ranta, 1997).
Numerous studies have measured the effectiveness of feedback by either com-
paring the effects of feedback types to each other, or by comparing the provision of
feedback to the absence of exposure to feedback of any sort. These studies, while ex-
perimentally controlled, are based on conversation pairs including second language
learning adults. Long, Inagaki, and Ortega (1998) investigated the effects of provid-
ing learners with either recasts or information about correct grammar. The results
 Perceptions and Practices in Language Teaching 29

of their study indicated that recasts demonstrated more effectiveness than simply
providing learners with target-like grammar models. Mackey and Philp (1998) also
investigated the effects of feedback and found that recasts were more effective than
no feedback at all with adult ESL learners. Loewen and Erlam (2006) investigated the
effectiveness of corrective feedback in an online chatroom during which elementary
learners of English as a second language received either recasts or grammar infor-
mation, and who were subsequently tested on timed and untimed grammaticality
judgment tasks. Their results indicated that both the recast and grammar groups
outperformed the control group who received no feedback at all, thereby providing
supportive evidence to the effectiveness of the implementation of corrective feed-
back in the classroom. In their meta-analysis of 15 total studies, Russell and Spada
(2006) found that overall, corrective feedback is considered a positive contributing
factor to second language acquisition. For a comprehensive review of recast studies,
see Nicholas, Lightbown, and Spada (2001).
Although the research reviewed in the areas of input exposure, input process-
ing, interaction (operationalized through group work in the language classroom),
and feedback are not exhaustive to the many areas of interest in language acquisition
research, they are simply a few of the many areas that have received durative atten-
tion in the research community that are relevant to language teachers. Given that
the majority of professors in language departments across the country who have
an area of expertise in literary or cultural studies are regularly tasked with teaching
language courses, the present study is interested in revealing what they know about
these terms as well as their training in language acquisition and related pedagogical
fields. Based on the data reported in VanPatten (2015a), it is clear that on paper they
are not experts, but perhaps they are informed practitioners with a sufficient level of
familiarity to be able to make research-oriented informed decisions in their praxis.
Therefore, this study seeks to provide a more internal view on the issue by reach-
ing out directly to tenure and tenure-line faculty and asking them to self-report on
whether they consider their language teaching approach to be communicative, their
formal training in SLA/Language teaching pedagogy, engagement with field-rele-
vant research, frequency with which they teach language courses, familiarity with a
select few related terms and constructs, and their in-class practices.

The Current Study

The present study was thus guided by the following specific research questions:
1. How often do participants report reading or conducting research in SLA or lan-
guage pedagogy?
2. What is participants’ reported training in SLA and language pedagogy?
3. What are participants’ reported familiarity levels with key terms and constructs
in language acquisition and language teaching?
4. What are participants’ reported perceptions of Communicative Language
Teaching?
5. What are participants’ reported perceptions of their practices in the language
classroom?
6. What are participants’ reported perceptions about influential factors in lan-
guage acquisition?
30 Dimension 2021

Methods and Procedures

Participants. The participants from this study included university-level ten-
ured and tenure-line Spanish and French language professors from various institu-
tions in the U.S. Participants were deemed suitable for this study if they reported
both having a Ph.D. in literature or a related field and holding a tenured or tenure-
line position as a Spanish or French language professor at the university level. The
initial participant pool consisted of 75 participants that began the survey and a final
n size after attrition of 38 participants resulting from survey non-completion. The
final participant pool consisted of 35 Spanish professors at the Associate Professor
level, two Spanish professors at the Assistant Professor level, and one French profes-
sor at the Associate Professor level. That said, all participants are grouped together
in the subsequent survey-questionnaire analyses.
Materials. The data collection materials in the present study consisted of a sur-
vey targeting 7 main areas of interest: background information, field activity (read-
ing and conducting SLA or language teaching research), terms and familiarity in
language teaching, common myths and statements about language acquisition, in-
structor classroom practices, and perceptions of students’ needs for language acqui-
sition. The survey consisted of a total of 38 questions; 7 questions related to partici-
pant background and profile, 3 field activity questions, 6 terms related to language
teaching and 6 confidence of knowledge questions with the same terms, 16 true/false
statements about common myths about language acquisition and respondents’ per-
ceptions of these claims. See Appendix A for the full list of survey questions.
Procedure. An email list of 216 professors in language departments was com-
piled by using university and department web pages, personal contacts, and lan-
guage program listservs. The recruitment email included an invitation to participate
in a study investigating language learning perceptions and practices along with a
link to the survey housed on Surveymonkey.com. Participants completed the survey
online (Appendix A) and upon clicking a final ‘submit’ button, their results were
uploaded and recorded in the online survey system. In an effort to gather the most
candid data, participation in the survey was kept anonymous and no contact infor-
mation was requested. For that reason, no follow-up letter or findings of the study
were sent to participants. Participant responses for those that completed the survey
in its entirety were recorded and subsequently submitted to simple response-per-
centage calculations.

Findings

Respondent Background Information and Field Activity

As a summary statistic, the survey items targeting formal training in both
language teaching and language acquisition data is combined to provide a snapshot
of the background information of all respondents. Based on the survey, 86% (33
out of 38) of the participants reported having taken a teaching methodology course
and 65% (25 out of 38) reported having completed a course in SLA. Regarding
participants’ involvement in language acquisition research, 89% of all respondents
(34 out of 38) reported reading empirical studies in SLA or language pedagogy
either as often as weekly and monthly or as often as two to three times a year. In
 Perceptions and Practices in Language Teaching 31

terms of producing scholarship in the form of academic publications, 13% (5 out

of 38) reported publishing annually in either the fields of language acquisition or
language pedagogy.
In order to better understand their level of contact with language instruction,
participants reported the frequency with which they routinely teach languages
courses. All respondents (100%) reported either currently teaching, or having taught
within the past 2 years, at least one Spanish or French language course. Additionally,
81.5% (31 out of 38) reported having taught 31 or more language courses throughout
their career.
Summary of Background Information and Field Activity
Considering that the majority of participants reported having taken either
a language methodology course or a course in second language acquisition (86%
and 65% respectively), the participants in this study have undergone formal train-
ing in these principal areas of interest. Additionally, nearly all participants (89%)
reported reading publications about either language acquisition or language teach-
ing at least two times a year and many as often as weekly or monthly, which leads
us to deduce that they are regularly engaging in relevant research. The participants
in this study are experienced language teachers given the quantity and recency
with which they report teaching language courses (i.e., 100% of participants re-
ported either currently teaching or having taught a language course within the past
year and 89% reported having taught more than 30 language courses throughout
their career).
Respondent Familiarity in Key Terms and Concepts Related to Language Processing
In order to gauge respondents’ familiarity level with some select terms and
concepts in the fields of language acquisition and language teaching related to lan-
guage processing, participants were asked to respond to a variety of types of survey
items. The first item type asked participants to self-rate their familiarity related to a
series of terms as either expert level, near-expert level, mildly familiar, or not famil-
iar. As a follow-up item, participants were asked to respond by rating their confi-
dence level with being able to provide an accurate definition of the terms if asked to
subsequently supply one. In some cases, additional survey items related to content
questions were also included. In short, the purpose of these survey items related to
the terms was to find out, (a) with what level of familiarity they rated themselves; (b)
if their reported ability to be able to subsequently provide a definition aligned with
their stated level of familiarity; and (c) if their responses to content statements per-
taining to some of the terms were accurate (i.e., myths about language acquisition).
The participants were not asked to provide definitions of terms, given that this would
be both labor intensive and time consuming for participants and consequently might
dissuade them from completing the entire survey.
The first term in the study targeting language processing was “input.” When
asked to rate their familiarity with this term, 68% (26 out of 38) of participants re-
ported being at either expert or near-expert levels, and the remaining 32% (12 out
of 38) reported being either not familiar or mildly familiar with this term. Sixty-six
percent of participants (25 out of 38) responded as either highly confident or con-
32 Dimension 2021

fident that they could provide an accurate definition, whereas 34% (13 out of 38)
responded as being mildly confident or not confident of being able to provide an
accurate definition. A follow-up survey item — again, in lieu of asking for partici-
pants to provide a definition — asked participants to respond to the following claim
regarding the definition of the term itself: Input includes the explanation of grammar
rules. In response to this statement, 60% of participants (23 out of 38) reported that,
yes, input includes the explanation of grammar rules, 8% (3 out of 38) reported that
they did not know, and 32% (12 out of 38) reported that, no, input does not include
the explanation of grammar rules. In this case, the correct answer is “no.” See Table 1
for a visual representation of these findings.
The second term regarding language processing about which participants were
asked a series of questions was “intake.” In response to participants’ familiarity with
this term, 34% (13 out of 38) reported being at expert or near-expert level, and 66%
(25 out of 38) responded not being familiar with the term. As a follow-up survey
item, participants were asked to rate their confidence in being able to provide an
accurate definition of “intake.” The results showed that 32% (12 out of 38) of partici-
pants reported being extremely confident or confident at being able to provide an ac-
curate definition, and 68% (26 out of 38) reported not being confident in providing
an accurate definition. Table 1 presents these findings visually.

Table 1
Respondent data regarding input and intake

Expert/near-expert Not familiar Confident Not confident

Input 68% 32% 66% 34%
Intake 34% 66% 32% 68%

Summary of Reported Familiarity with Language Processing

In general, the findings for the terms related to language processing, “input”
and “intake,” reveal the following. In the case of input, 68% (26 out of 38) of partici-
pants
Tablerated
2 themselves at either expert or near-expert levels. Out of these 26 partici-
pants who self-reported
Respondent data regarding beingexplicitat expert and
grammar or near-expert levels, 11 of them reported
mechanical drills
erroneously that input includes the explanation of grammar rules. Complicating this
Statement Agree Disagree
issue, 32% (12 out of 38) reported either not being familiar
1. Explicit grammar is necessary for successful 53%
or mildly familiar
47%
with
the term “input.
language ”
acquisition.
In the casedrills
2. Mechanical of the
areterm “intake,
necessary ” 34%
to learn any(13 out of 38)
37%reported being at63%
either ex-
pert or near-expert
second language.levels, however, upon looking more closely at the responses, the
3. Mechanical
following issue drills
presentsare necessary
itself: 10tooflearn
thesome 37%who responded 63%
13 participants as being at
languages (i.e., Russian).
expert or near-expert
4. Mechanical drills are level also
useful reported
during a classnot being able32%to provide an accurate
68% defi-
nitionsession.
of intake, if asked to provide one. Additionally, 6 of the 25 participants who
reported as not drills
5. Mechanical beingare familiar with the
useful before, termoralso reported
during, 68% being confident 32%that they
could provide an accurate definition. How is it possible to not be familiar with a term
after class, it just depends.
but6.then self-ratedrills
Mechanical as confident in providing
are not necessary to an accurate37%
definition? Additionally,
63% how
successfully learn a language.
is it possible to be an expert (or near-expert) and self-report as not be able to provide
an accurate definition? These issues will be further explored in the discussion section
of the present study.
 Perceptions and Practices in Language Teaching 33

Respondent Familiarity in Key Terms and Concepts Related to Explicit Grammar and
Mechanical Drills
TableThe
1 second series of survey items addresses the role of explicit grammar in-
formation
Respondent and
data the use ofinput
regarding mechanical drills in order for successful language acquisi-
and intake
tion to take place. As discussed earlier, explicit grammar information is considered
Expert/near-expert Not familiar Confident Not confident
explaining grammar in the abstract sense (i.e., syntactic structures, morphological
Input 68% 32% 66% 34%
derivation)
Intake
and often
34%
includes the extensive
66%
explanation
32%
of grammar via68%paradig-
matic charts. Mechanical drills are defined as those drills for which learners do not
need to attend to meaning to complete (i.e., fill-in-the-blank drills with the appropri-
ate verb form when the corresponding verb is supplied). Table 2 displays a summary
of these findings.
Table 2
Respondent data regarding explicit grammar and mechanical drills

Statement Agree Disagree

1. Explicit grammar is necessary for successful 53% 47%
language acquisition.
2. Mechanical drills are necessary to learn any 37% 63%
second language.
3. Mechanical drills are necessary to learn some 37% 63%
languages (i.e., Russian).
4. Mechanical drills are useful during a class 32% 68%
session.
5. Mechanical drills are useful before, during, or 68% 32%
after class, it just depends.
6. Mechanical drills are not necessary to 37% 63%
successfully learn a language.

Summary of Reported Perceptions of Explicit Grammar and Mechanical Drills

In general, the findings for participants’ responses regarding the role of explicit
grammar information and mechanical drills indicate that over half of the partici-
pants (53%) consider explicit grammar a necessary component of language instruc-
tion in order for successful language acquisition to take place. Based on participant
responses to the survey items regarding the role of mechanical drills, at least 37% of
respondents and upwards of 68% indicate that mechanical drills are either necessary
or useful at some point during instruction for successful language learning.
Respondent Perceptions of Communicative Language Teaching
The following set of survey items addresses instructors’ self-reporting on their
approach to language teaching as well as their perception and implementation of
types of activities during Communicative Language Teaching. The purpose of these
survey items is to determine if participants consider their approach to be commu-
nicative, gauge how they perceive Communicative Language Teaching, and find out
some information about their class-time praxis. A summary of these findings is dis-
played in Table 3.
34 Dimension 2021

Table 3
Respondent perceptions of communicative language teaching, mechanical drills, and non-target
language use

Statement Agree Disagree

1. CLT is, by nature, ‘wishy-washy’ and does not help learners 20% 80%
learn grammar.
2. I consider my approach to language teaching as 100% 0%
communicative.
3. Rehearsing dialogues (i.e., plays, scripts) is a communicative 58% 42%
activity.
4. Usually, when presenting vocabulary, I read it to students and 32% 68%
they repeat it.
5. Typically, students complete grammar worksheets in class. 50% 50%
6. During class, we do a lot of group work. 82% 18%
7. During group work, students use a lot of English. 53% 47%
8. During group work, students stay on task. 47% 53%
9. During class, we do a lot of translation exercises. 29% 71%

Summary of Perceptions of Communicative Language Teaching

In general, the findings for instructor perceptions of Communicative Language
Teaching are two-fold. Even though 100% of participants report their approach to lan-
guage teaching as communicative, responses to survey items containing statements
regarding non-communicative praxis provide conflicting data. More than half of the
participants (58%) consider rehearsing plays and dialogues as communicative, near-
ly one third of participants (32% and 29% respectively) report a call-and-response
method of vocabulary presentation and completing translation exercises in class, and
half of participants (50%) report completing grammar worksheets during class.
Respondent Familiarity in Key Terms and Concepts Related to Feedback
The final series of terms addressed in this survey are related to feedback in the
language classroom. The first term for which participants were asked to respond
is the term “recall.” Again, recalls are considered a type of elicitation feedback that
prompt learners to produce the correct form after an incorrect utterance is made
by calling their attention to the error. In terms of familiarity, 58% (22 out of 38) re-
ported being at either expert or near-expert levels and 42% (16 out of 38) reported
not being familiar with the term. In terms of participants’ confidence level at provid-
ing an accurate definition, 29% (11 out of 38) reported being extremely confident
or confident, and 71% (27 out of 38) reported not being confident at providing an
accurate definition, if asked.
The second term related to feedback about which participants were asked to re-
spond was “recasts.” To reiterate, recasts are considered a type of instructor feedback
during which the instructor repeats the corrected form of an incorrect utterance
while maintaining the conversation stream and the focus on meaning. The following
data revealed itself: 55% (21 out of 38) of participants reported being at expert or
near-expert levels, and 45% (17 out of 38) reported not being familiar with the term.
When asked to rate their confidence level of providing an accurate definition, 50%
(19 out of 38) reported not being confident with providing an accurate definition. In
this case, no discrepancy with the self-reports of familiarity level and confidence in
being able to provide a definition was found.
 Perceptions and Practices in Language Teaching 35

Summary of Reported Familiarity with Feedback

The findings for respondents’ familiarity with two terms related to feedback,
recalls and recasts, reveals the following: in both cases, over one half of the partici-
pants self-reported being at expert or near-expert levels; however, nearly one half of
respondents reported not being familiar with the two terms (42% and 45% respec-
tively). Additionally, for recalls, nearly three quarters of participants (71%) reported
not feeling confident they could supply an accurate definition and in the case of
“recalls,” half (50%) of the participants reported the same. The data also indicates
that five of the participants that self-reported to be at expert or near expert-levels for
recalls reported not being able to provide an accurate definition.

Discussion
In general, the findings from the survey responses beg the question what the
respondents perceive to be necessary and/or responsible for successful language ac-
quisition. As a reminder, the overall design of the study included survey questions
targeting the following topics: 1) demographic data including prior training in SLA
and language teaching pedagogy, activity in, and exposure to, field-specific research;
2) terms and constructs related to language processing and feedback for which par-
ticipants were asked to rate their familiarity, their confidence level in providing an
accurate definition (if subsequently asked to do so), and in some cases, to respond
to claims about these same targeted terms (i.e., input includes grammatical explana-
tion.); 3) the role of explicit grammar explanation and mechanical drills for which
participants were asked to respond whether they agree or disagree with a series of
claims (i.e., Explicit grammar is necessary for successful language acquisition); and
4) topics related to Communicative Language Teaching and interaction for which
participants responded to survey items addressing construct-specific claims (i.e.,
rehearsing dialogues, plays, or scripts is a communicative activity). Based on par-
ticipants’ responses, there are a series of findings of interest regarding the terms and
constructs targeted in this study as well as respondents’ exposure to relevant research
and training in the fields of SLA and language teaching pedagogy.
Regarding participant background and field activity levels, 85% of all partici-
pants reported having taken a course in pedagogy, 65% a course in SLA, and 90% re-
ported reading language acquisition or language teaching research as often as weekly,
monthly, or at least twice a year. This demonstrates that both their preparation in the
fields as well as their dedication to maintaining themselves informed of research is
quite promising for professionals whose main area of research focus rests in literary
and cultural studies. These findings suggest that value is placed on both professional
preparation during their studies in addition to keeping up to date with relevant re-
search in language acquisition and teaching. Nonetheless, the participants’ experi-
ences with preparation and research and their self-reported level of activity do not
align with the results of the content-specific areas targeted in this study.
In the case of issues related to language processing, a high percentage of par-
ticipants (68%) self-rated at expert or near-expert levels with the term “input,” and
if this finding is taken at face value in isolation, it seems quite promising. However,
one intriguing issue presents itself here regarding the responses to the follow-up
36 Dimension 2021

survey items about the nature of input; nearly half of the participants (42%) who self-
reported as experts or near-experts also agreed that “input includes the explanation
of grammar rules.”
An anonymous reviewer of a previous version of this manuscript commented
that if the grammar explanation is in lingua, then it can be input. This is a common
misconception and perpetuation of myths about language acquisition, one that mer-
its addressing here again: explaining grammar and providing input have two entirely
different purposes. The former intends to explain how the grammar works in the
abstract sense and any language used during this explanation is not what learners
are focusing on to extract meaning; they are simply trying to figure out how the
grammar forms presented might function mechanically. Input, on the other hand, is
message-containing linguistic data that is to be processed for meaning, which often
includes specific target forms presented in a meaningful context so that they can be
attended to. Complicating this issue even more, 12 out of 38 participants reported
not being familiar or only mildly familiar with the term “input,” despite this term
being common in the literature throughout the past nearly 40 years. Although the
data from the current study cannot make any direct claims about what they are us-
ing as input for their language classes, it does create more questions about actual
class practices.
Similar findings present themselves through responses related to the role of ex-
plicit grammar information. To remind the reader, over half of all participants (53%)
responded that explicit grammar is necessary for language acquisition to take place.
The role of explicit grammar is debated in the field and there exists considerable
research suggesting that it is either not necessary for successful language acquisition
(VanPatten & Oikkenon, 1996; White & DeMil, 2013) or that it might be useful, but
not necessarily necessary, for some target forms and not others (Fernández, 2008).
The key word in the survey question was “necessary”; however, perhaps the question
was not read in the strictest of senses by participants, which resulted in a range of
responses. The responses to this question are either due to the saliency of the ques-
tion itself, or there is in fact cause for concern regarding the perpetuation of myths
about language acquisition.
Regarding the usefulness of mechanical drills, 63% of participants reported
that mechanical drills are necessary to successfully learn a language, and 68% re-
ported that they believe that mechanical drills are useful (before, during, or after
class, it just depends). That said, research has demonstrated that language acquisi-
tion is facilitated by making form-meaning connections (Carroll, 2001; VanPatten,
2015b; VanPatten & Rothman, 2014; White, 1987), which mechanical drills do not
facilitate. In the case of the present study, upwards of 68% of participants reported
that mechanical drills were either necessary or useful, which leaves us to question
why they might believe this to be true. One possible interpretation is that these par-
ticipants deem mechanical drills necessary because they test learners using them
and therefore consider them useful given that they prepare students for their tests or
other assessment measures. Another possible interpretation is that participants do
not actually know what a mechanical drill is, in which case they might interpret the
survey questions to refer to any type of activity that has multiple choices or limited
responses, even including meaning-based fill-in-the-blank activities or input-based
 Perceptions and Practices in Language Teaching 37

multiple-choice activities. Or finally, this could be an indicator that there is a general

misconception as to the nature of language acquisition and further perpetuation of
myths about language acquisition given participants’ responses regarding their use-
fulness. Future studies need to provide participants with examples of activity and
drill types asking them to comment if they would use them and why. Additional
follow-up interviews also need to be conducted in order to explore this dynamic re-
lationship between instructors and their activity selections. In the case of the present
study, the survey was purposefully designed to be anonymous in order to incentivize
participants and for that reason, no follow-inquiries were possible.
In terms of participant familiarity with two fundamental feedback-related
terms, recalls and recasts, participant familiarity was comparably low to that of the
terms related to language processing and participants’ perceptions of the role of ex-
plicit grammar. Only roughly half were familiar with these terms, which leads us to
question exactly what type of feedback might be used in the classroom, if any. On the
other hand, perhaps the concepts are familiar to the participants but the terms used
to identify these concepts are not. Could it be that the participants are implementing
these types of feedback but just do not realize it? Nonetheless, the findings suggest
that these terms, although used in research in SLA, are not widely familiar to the par-
ticipants in this study, even though many participants reported having taken courses
in SLA or language teaching and reported regularly reading research in these fields.
And finally, regarding the nature of Communicative Language Teaching, the
findings of the present study suggest a similar misconception about what commu-
nication actually consists of, or at minimum, what types of activities involve com-
munication. In the present study, all participants consider their language teaching
approach to be communicative even though more than half of participants consider
rehearsing plays and dialogues to be communicative. However, communication it-
self involves the interpretation, expression, and negotiation of meaning, which these
activities do not. In other words, rehearsing dialogues or plays does not align with
what communication actually is, given that it lacks these necessary elements. That
said, the data from at least half of the participants shows a lack of understanding of
what must be present for communication to take place despite having reported their
approach to language teaching to be communicative in nature.

Limitations, Directions for Future Research, and Conclusions

This study, of course, is not without its limitations. Although the original par-
ticipant pool consisted of over 200 Spanish and French professors of varying ranks
(Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Full Professor) who directly received
the survey and who were asked to share the survey with their colleagues, the final
participant pool for which data were collected included only 38 responding partici-
pants. Although the percentage of responses is low, it is not surprisingly low given
that the recruitment method was online via email and the survey itself was lengthy.
Notwithstanding, this final participant pool still provides a snapshot of responses
to some questions regarding training, experience, and familiarity with a few select
formal constructs in L2 teaching and acquisition. Future research needs to include
38 Dimension 2021

more participants to capture the responses of a higher percentage of language de-

partment faculty with areas of expertise in literary and cultural studies.
Another limitation to this study is that the survey itself is static and does not
account for the dynamic nature of language professors and language teaching. The
purpose of the survey was to maintain anonymity and provide some insight into a
fundamental knowledge base for language teachers and those involved in language
teaching and research. Future research will benefit by incorporating a more dynamic
approach by implementing other methodological components such as interviews,
observations, class recordings, or open-ended questions in survey form. In the case
of the present study, although it is quite possible that respondents are familiar with
some of the constructs addressed in this study, they were simply not familiar with the
terms themselves; yet this explanation does not apply blanketly. To respond to this
issue, a follow-up study can provide examples of constructs or types of feedback and
ask participants whether or not they would incorporate these into their curriculum
through subsequent interviews.
One final limitation to the present study is that it focused solely on a limited
number of terms related to the technical aspects of acquisition. This study targeted
a subset of commonly-recurring themes in SLA and language teaching including
processing, feedback, explicit information, and interaction; future research needs to
target a broader scope of terms related to language acquisition and language teach-
ing. Additionally, this study did not target some other important areas related to
L2 learning and teaching such as the teaching and learning of culture, intercultural
communicative competence, or socio-pragmatic language skills. Naturally, language
is not learned in a vacuum and these other equally-important L2-relevant domains
focusing on a variety of aspects of culture need to be examined in detail in future
research.
Based on the respondent data to the survey completed for this study, perhaps
VanPatten (2015a) was indeed accurate in stating that “...language departments are
not the best place to learn languages” (p. 12). The potential ramifications of lack of
familiarity or misconceptions of the terms addressed in this study, then, continue to
be the same concerns raised in VanPatten (2015a): perpetuation of myths about lan-
guage, perpetuation of myths about language acquisition and language teaching, and
perpetuation of lack of training of the professoriate. The implications of the findings
from this study are quite clear for Instructed Second Language Acquisition – learn-
ers might still be completing mechanical drills, rehearsing memorized scripts, and
practicing pronunciation through call and response, much like they were half a cen-
tury ago in some language classrooms.
On a positive note, however, one additional finding in this study is that 76%
of participants (29 out of 38) also reported being interested in attending language
teaching workshops. To that end, the overall attendance at these workshops might
increase, as well as more opportunities for workshops created, given the findings re-
ported in this study. This may be necessary in order to dispel some of the myths and
misconceptions of language acquisition and work towards a common understanding
of what language acquisition is, and what language acquisition is not.
 Perceptions and Practices in Language Teaching 39

Acknowledgements
Many people read previous versions of this article and there are too many to
list here. That said, we would like to especially thank Ivy Gilbert for the insight she
provided during the final manuscript preparation and editing process as well as Bill
VanPatten for his guidance, collegiality, and ongoing support, without which this
project, and others, would not have been possible. We would also like to thank the
anonymous reviewers for their useful comments and observations. All errors and
omissions remain our own.

References
Carroll, S. E. (2007). Autonomous Induction Theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams
(Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 155–174).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.),
Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Ellis, N. (2007). The Associative-Cognitive CREED. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams
(Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 77–95). Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language
acquisition research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Fernández, C. (2008). Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing
instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 277–305.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language ac-
quisition. In B. Vanpatten, & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisi-
tion (pp. 175-200). London: LEA.
Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction and output in second language ac-
quisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language ac-
quisition (2nd ed.) (pp. 180–206). New York, NY: Routledge.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford,
UK: Pergamon.
Lee, J. & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen.
Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Lee, J., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen, 2nd
ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Leeser, M. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dia-
logue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1) 55-81.
Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experi-
mental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 1–14.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisi-
tion. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M. (2009). Methodological principles for language teaching. In Long, M. H.
& Doughty, C. J. (eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 373-94). Oxford:
Blackwell.
40 Dimension 2021

Long, M., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in
SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal,
82, 357–71.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In
C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language
acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation
of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
19(1), 37–66.
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Ap-
plied Linguistics, 27, 405-430.
Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language de-
velopment: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal,
82(3), 338–56.
Morgan-Short, K. & Bowden, H. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful
output-based instruction: Effects on second language development. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 28(1), 31–65.
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language
learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719–758.
Ohta, A. (2000). Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective
feedback in the Japanese classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. Verplaeste (Eds.), The con-
struction of second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction
(pp. 47–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS–NNS conversations. Studies in Sec-
ond Language Acquisition, 17(4), 459–481.
Pica, T., Kang, H., & Sauro, S. (2006). Information gap tasks: Their multiple roles and
contributions to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 28(2), 301–338.
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acqui-
sition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris and L. Ortega
(Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–161).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they
generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3),
371–391.
Van Patten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary. NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
VanPatten, B. (2007). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In B.
VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp.
115–135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B. (2015a). Where are the experts? Hispania, 98(1), 2-13.
VanPatten, B. (2015b). Input processing in adult SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams
(Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 113–134). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
 Perceptions and Practices in Language Teaching 41

VanPatten, B., Borst, S., Collopy, E., Qualin, A., & Price, J. (2013). Explicit instruction,
grammatical sensitivity, and the first-noun principle: A cross-linguistic study in
processing instruction. Modern Language Journal, 97(2), 506–527.
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisi-
tion: A role for instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77(1), 45–57.
VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in pro-
cessing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(4), 495–510.
VanPatten, B., & Rothman, J. (2014). Against “rules.” In C. Laval & M. J. Arche (Eds.),
The grammar dimension in instructed SLA: Theory, research, and practice (pp.
15–36). London: Continuum Press.
VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and
communicative tasks. In F. R. Eckman, D. Highland, P. W. Lee, J. Mileham &
R. R. Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (169–86).
Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2007). heories in second language acquisition: An intro-
duction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (2015). Theories in second language acquisition.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B., & Wong, W. (2003). Processing instruction and the French causative:
Another replication. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: theory, re-
search, and commentary (pp. 97–114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the devel-
opment of second language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95-110.
White, L. (2007). Linguistic theory, universal grammar, and second language acqui-
sition. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisi-
tion (pp. 37–55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
White, J.P. (2015). The effect of input-based instruction type on the acquisition of
Spanish accusative clitics. Hispania, 98(2), 264–284.
White, J. P., & DeMil, A. J. (2013). Transfer of training in PI: The role of FREI. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 35(3) 1–26.
42 Dimension 2021

Appendix A

Survey Instrument
Part 1: Background
Instructions: In this section, we would like some information about your back-
ground. Please answer all questions accurately.

1. What is the highest degree of education you have completed?

B.A./B.S. M.A./M.S. PhD. Other (explain) ______________

2. Which of the following best describes your employment (check all that apply)
____ Assistant Professor
____ Associate Professor
____ Full Professor
____ Department Chair
____ Graduate Teaching Assistant
____ Full Time Instructor
____ Part Time Instructor
____ Full Time Adjunct
____ Part Time Adjunct
____ Other (explain) ___________________________

3. Does your major field of expertise rest in (check all that apply):
____ literary or Cultural Studies
____ linguistics
____ Other (explain) ___________________________

4. Approximately, how many beginning / intermediate language course sections

have you taught (ever)?
0 ---------------10---------------20---------------30---------------40---------------50+
5. When was the last time you taught a language course?
___ I currently teach one (or more)
___ last semester
___ last year
___ within the past 3 years
___ within the past 6 years
___ other _____________________
 Perceptions and Practices in Language Teaching 43

6. Have you taken a teaching methodology course?

Yes No
7. Have you taken a Second Language Acquisition course?
Yes No

Part II: Field Activity

Instructions: In this section, we would like some information about your habits.
Please answer all questions accurately.

1. How often do you read literature in the field of language acquisition or lan-
guage teaching (i.e., Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Foreign Language
Annals)?
____ Daily
____ Weekly
____ Bi-weekly
____ Monthly
____ A few times a year
____ Twice a year
____ Once a year
____ Never

2. Are you interested in attending language teaching workshops?

Yes No

3. How often do you publish scholarly work in SLA or language teaching?

Once a year Twice a year Never Other________

Part II: Term Familiarity

Instructions: In this section, we would like some information about your familiarity
levels with some terms. Please answer all questions accurately. Rate your familiarity
with the following concepts on the following scale of expert level, near-expert level,
mildly familiar or not familiar.
1. Input
2. Intake
3. Output
4. Communicative Language Teaching
5. Recalls
6. Recasts
44 Dimension 2021

In the following section rate your confidence level with being able to provide an ac-
curate definition of the following terms if asked to subsequently supply one by using
the following scale: extremely confident, confident, not confident.
1. Input
2. Intake
3. Output
4. Communicative Language Teaching
5. Recalls
6. Recasts

Part III: Perceptions

Instructions: In this section, we would like some information about your percep-
tions. Please answer all questions by selecting Agree or Disagree.

1. Grammar drills are necessary to learn any second language.

2. Grammar drills are necessary to learn some languages (i.e., Russian).

3. Input includes the explanation of grammar rules.

4. Mechanical drills are most useful during a class session.

5. Mechanical drills are useful before, during, and after class, it just depends.

6. Mechanical drills are not necessary to successfully learn a language.

7. Explicit grammar is necessary for successful language acquisition.

8. CLT, by nature, is wishy-washy.

9. Rehearsing dialogues (i.e., plays, scripts) is a communicative activity.

10. Usually, when presenting vocabulary, I read it to students and they repeat it.

11. Typically, students complete grammar worksheets in class.

12. During class, we do a lot of translation exercises.

13. During class, we do a lot of group work.

14. During group work, students stay on task.

15. During group work, students use a lot of English

16. I consider my approach to language teaching as Communicative?