Braiding the Ropes: Adding Second or Additional Language Acquisition to Reading and Writing Metaphors
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I really enjoyed reading this article and think it is important to publish - it will make a valuable contribution to the 'landscape' of understanding L2 learning. I really like the way the references to the underpinning sources are provided as part of the rope model.
There were places where I felt the sources you drew on in your argumentation could have been engaged with in greater depth and with greater critical engagement, although I do appreciate that space is limited. For example, on page 2: 'Almost all language skills are more easily acquired through natural language 58 acquisition experiences, even for adult learners' - this is a contested view and there is a wide range of other evidence that could be drawn on here. I felt that the 'synthesis of SLA theory' in particular was rather brief and superficial and did not really do justice to the some of theories that are presented here (see some more specific comments below). Finally there were places where I felt the language would benefit from simplification to make it easier to digest. An example is on page 10, lines 371ff: 'Autonomous Induction Theory combines Universal Grammar theory with information processing theory to assert that input presented in an external environment is not sufficient alone if no mental representations exist within the learner’s cognitive processes'. Another example: 'the innate strand aligns to relating cultural products and practices to perspectives, making connections, and cultural comparisons' - in my view, this is unclearly worded and requires explaining more clearly.
Is there a risk that the 'innate' factors could be used to justify exclusive policies? E.g. 'She is just not good at languages, he is too old to learn, they were born into an unfavourable cultural context for language learning so we can't expect much of them'. This would be an unfortunate unintended consequence if it happened. Should some text be added to guard against / mitigate this risk of misuse of the model?
Regarding the model itself, I would make the following suggestions - however, I don't think it is my place as a reviewer to ask that these changes to be made - rather, I hope to offer food for thought for the authors to consider.
1. It seems to me a bit odd to have 'comprehensible input' and 'comprehensible output' to be separated out in different strands. In terms of the development of theory, these seem to belong together, with both then leading on to the Interaction Hypothesis and an emphasis on Negotiation of Meaning, of which corrective feedback also forms part.
2. Corrective feedback, and more broadly oral interaction (They both form part of oral interaction (comprising input and output), could be seen as a social factor and indeed can very much be conceptualized as forming part of the ZPD. However, both of the above are really just matters of labelling and how the complexity of intyerwoven strands are separated out.
3. I am not convinced that 'cultural context and competence' belongs in 'innate factors'. I read the rationale / justification for this provided in section 4.1.4 but it does seem to me odd to label this as an 'innate' factor, alongside the CPH and neurological capabilities.
4. In terms of the output hypothesis, I would have expected to find references to Merrill Swain here.
5. Should the work of Jim Cummins also come under 'internal factors'? Common Underlying Proficiency and linguistic interdependence would seem to fit here.
6. In terms of affective factors, I feel that recent work on 'flow' in language learning (e.g. by Jean-Marc Dewaele) could fit well here.
7. Under 'social factors', should there also be inclusion of notions of 'identity' (e.g. drawing on the work of Bonny Norton)? Her work also focusses on the notion of 'investment' which arguably belongs with 'affective factors'.
8. Under 'innate factors', I expected to find some mention of language aptitude.
9. Reference to the CPH - but the notion of a 'biologically determined window' has been heavily critiqued more recently. See for example Pfenninger, S.E. and Singleton, D., 2021. Is there a best age for second language learning? Evidence from across the lifespan. In Debates in second language education (pp. 52-65). Routledge.
10. Internal factors - would it be appropriate to include things like working memory, phonological awareness here?
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Author’s Notes to Reviewer:
Comments 1: There were places where I felt the sources you drew on in your argumentation could have been engaged with in greater depth and with greater critical engagement, although I do appreciate that space is limited. For example, on page 2: 'Almost all language skills are more easily acquired through natural language 58 acquisition experiences, even for adult learners' - this is a contested view and there is a wide range of other evidence that could be drawn on here.
Response 1: As I reviewed all of the feedback and the comments, I have clarified better the intended gap that this rope is meant to fill...it is not necessarily a tool to “fix” what the other ropes lack, but rather a tool that specifically addresses the theory to practice gap for ESL practitioners. Specifically, this visual is meant to be a tool to help teachers who are not themselves second or additional language learners, but are teaching this skill, to better be acquainted with the vast and complex research related to it. Because of this, I did not feel that the discussion of what the other metaphors lacked was needed to argue the need for this new visual, but rather the statistics related to the lack of educator representation of this demographic of student. I have removed the paragraph noted in this first comment altogether, and I have replaced it with a new section clarifying the need for this visual as it relates to the theory to practice gap instead. This change can be seen on page 2.
Comments 2: Finally there were places where I felt the language would benefit from simplification to make it easier to digest. An example is on page 10, lines 371ff: 'Autonomous Induction Theory combines Universal Grammar theory with information processing theory to assert that input presented in an external environment is not sufficient alone if no mental representations exist within the learner’s cognitive processes'. Another example: 'the innate strand aligns to relating cultural products and practices to perspectives, making connections, and cultural comparisons' - in my view, this is unclearly worded and requires explaining more clearly.
Response 2: A full reread was done with small simplifications throughout the article. The page 10, line 371 comment is now seen on page 10 line 369 as “In addition, Carroll’s [46] Autonomous Induction Theory synthesizes theoretical concepts to assert that input presented in an external environment is not sufficient alone if no mental representations already exist for the learner [47].” The second specified line was changed to “Conversely, the innate strand aligns to the skill of connecting cultural products and practices to internal perspectives. This enhances the learner’s ability to make connections and cultural comparisons.”
Comments 3: Is there a risk that the 'innate' factors could be used to justify exclusive policies? E.g. 'She is just not good at languages, he is too old to learn, they were born into an unfavourable cultural context for language learning so we can't expect much of them'. This would be an unfortunate unintended consequence if it happened. Should some text be added to guard against / mitigate this risk of misuse of the model? This also aligns with comment: Reference to the CPH - but the notion of a 'biologically determined window' has been heavily critiqued more recently. See for example Pfenninger, S.E. and Singleton, D., 2021. Is there a best age for second language learning? Evidence from across the lifespan. In Debates in second language education (pp. 52-65). Routledge.
Response 3: I agree with this potential unintended consequence. Therefore, explicit discussion and clarification was added to this end of this section to ensure that a conclusion of this nature is not mistakenly drawn. The statement added is: “It is important to clarify that although innate factors may be outside of an educational practitioner’s control, they should not become justification for exclusive policies. For example, discussion of a critical period may indicate a most favorable window of time for second or additional language acquisition, however, it does not mean that acquisition cannot occur outside of those constraints. The innate strand of Lane’s L2+ Acquisition Rope simply presents factors that educational practitioners are not in control of, but need to be aware of and understand to differentiate their instructional planning and practice.” As suggested, I included the more recent rebuttal of Pfenninger and Singleton in discussion, thank you!
In my opinion, this very argument strengthens the accuracy of needing this particular metaphor...because the strength of each individual strand is going to differ with each learner, although they all end up woven together to formulate that learner’s experienced acquisition.
Comments 4: Regarding the model itself, I would make the following suggestions - however, I don't think it is my place as a reviewer to ask that these changes to be made - rather, I hope to offer food for thought for the authors to consider.
Response 4: In the discussion of the strands, I was able to incorporate some of your suggestions as they relate specifically to practitioner need-to-know. For example, working memory, phonological awareness, and language aptitude. I understand your comment respectfully did not ask for changes, but I did want to address some of your thoughts here. I did include some of what is written below in the limitations, implications, and conclusions section to help justify some of the Rope’s intentional labeling and grouping. It is my hope that the following thoughts help the clarity of the intention of this tool:
An important notation to this visual and the inclusion of theory as well as the labeling of the strands is that Lane’s L2+ Acquisition Rope was curated by a practitioner for practitioners specifically. As such, each strand was delineated through the lens of what would be considered practical understanding for an ESL educator with limited exposure or training on second or additional language acquisition theory. It is acknowledged by the authors that there are many more contributions, ongoing discussions, and opposing viewpoints in the structure and justification of each of these components that can be included within these strands. However, in an intentional effort to simplify the larger discussions and include the areas most relevant to informing classroom instruction and growing practitioner capacity the strands have been organized and grouped as outlined. Therefore, this visual does not aim to include all theory or all that is known regarding SLA, but rather to chunk this information to help educators digest the broad overview. This means organization and labeling of the rope may not be what is expected. Additionally, it is understood that although there is a vast array of complex components related to second or additional language acquisition, it is also understood that each individual learner’s proverbial rope will be constructed differently. For example, one learner's confidence and cognitive engagement may enable them to surpass unfavorable contexts, while another learner’s social strengths may balance struggles with motivation. It is a widely accepted reality in educational practice that each individual learner constructs their learning experience through a unique journey. The strands of this curated visual simply hope to inform and expand the competence and confidence of ESL practitioners planning for a wide scope of learners with limited experience themselves. Practitioners don’t necessarily need to know that comprehensible input and output are discussed together within a single theoretical construct, but rather that what goes in can be influenced, planned for, etc. in the classroom, but this is not always the case with what comes out.
Additionally, a learner does not choose which cultural context they are born into and raised in, especially as it relates to the development of identity. It is important for practitioners to acknowledge the culture their students were born into as something that is embedded within the student to be respected and not edited. This is explicitly addressed on page 10 line 353.
I would argue that the development of theory referenced in the comments supports the rope in that these elements do end up all working together...but are initially separated for educator understanding of each.
Thank you for excellent feedback and phenomenal insights!
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This article presents a promising new metaphor for understanding second language acquisition, but requires revisions. Addressing the comments below will strengthen the manuscript.
Keywords: consider including “educational metaphors” and “instructional practices.”
Introduction
I found the introduction compelling and set the context nicely. However, perhaps the author could consider being more explicit and state the research gap that Lane’s L2+Acquisition Rope aims to address specifically for readers unfamiliar with the area.
The introduction is also quite long. Perhaps the authors could reorganize the introduction flow from the general context to the specific problem. They should also consider cutting the introduction to half its size and moving the rest to the literature review.
Depth of Analysis
The literature review provides a broad overview but is quite descriptive in analyzing existing metaphors and their limitations. The authors should be more critical in their analysis as this would strengthen the argument for a new metaphor.
Theoretical Framework
While several ‘theories’ are mentioned, the connection between these theories and the proposed metaphor is not clearly established. Explicitly link each theory to the component of Lane’s L2+Acquisition Rope. It would also be useful if the authors could visualize it.
Discussion, Conclusion and Implications
While the article touches on implications, it needs a more robust discussion on how educators can practically apply this knowledge. The authors should provide concrete strategies and examples that are easy to interpret. As such, the authors could use sub-headings in this section.
In conclusion, the potential impact on educational practices and outcomes for ELLs should be made explicit.
Limitations and Future Research
The authors should explicitly acknowledge any new metaphor's limitations (new subheadings) and suggest areas for follow-up research.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Some sentences are convoluted and hard to follow. Simplify language where possible and ensure each sentence clearly conveys its intended message.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Author’s Notes to Reviewer:
Comments 1: Keywords: consider including “educational metaphors” and “instructional practices.”
Response 1: Keywords added
Comments 2: Introduction
I found the introduction compelling and set the context nicely. However, perhaps the author could consider being more explicit and state the research gap that Lane’s L2+Acquisition Rope aims to address specifically for readers unfamiliar with the area.
The introduction is also quite long. Perhaps the authors could reorganize the introduction flow from the general context to the specific problem. They should also consider cutting the introduction to half its size and moving the rest to the literature review.
Response 2: As I reviewed all of the feedback and the comments, I have clarified better the intended gap that this rope is meant to fill...it is not necessarily a tool to “fix” what the other ropes lack, but rather a tool that specifically addresses the theory to practice gap for ESL practitioners. Specifically, this visual is meant to be a tool to help teachers who are not themselves second or additional language learners, but are teaching this skill, to better be acquainted with the vast and complex research related to it. Because of this, I did not feel that the discussion of what the other metaphors lacked was needed to argue the need for this new visual, but rather the statistics related to the lack of educator representation of this demographic of student. I have removed the paragraph noted in this first comment altogether, and I have replaced it with a new section clarifying the need for this visual as it relates to the theory to practice gap instead. This change can be seen on page 2. In addition, I did cut the length and attempted to remove or redirect material that did not support the introductory focus.
Comments 3: Depth of Analysis
The literature review provides a broad overview but is quite descriptive in analyzing existing metaphors and their limitations. The authors should be more critical in their analysis as this would strengthen the argument for a new metaphor.
Response 3: Same response as Comments 2, as the critical analysis and argument for the metaphor has essentially shifted. As I reviewed all of the feedback and the comments, I have clarified better the intended gap that this rope is meant to fill...it is not necessarily a tool to “fix” what the other ropes lack, but rather a tool that specifically addresses the theory to practice gap for ESL practitioners. Specifically, this visual is meant to be a tool to help teachers who are not themselves second or additional language learners, but are teaching this skill, to better be acquainted with the vast and complex research related to it. Because of this, I did not feel that the discussion of what the other metaphors lacked was needed to argue the need for this new visual, but rather the statistics related to the lack of educator representation of this demographic of student. I have removed the paragraph noted in this first comment altogether, and I have replaced it with a new section clarifying the need for this visual as it relates to the theory to practice gap instead. This change can be seen on page 2.
Comments 4: Theoretical Framework
While several ‘theories’ are mentioned, the connection between these theories and the proposed metaphor is not clearly established. Explicitly link each theory to the component of Lane’s L2+Acquisition Rope. It would also be useful if the authors could visualize it.
Response 4: Thank you for this feedback. The theories and their connection and alignment to the visual are labeled both within the visual and within the discussion of each strand. However, I did add elements of summarization of connectedness in the new Application for Current Practitioners section on page 11.
Comments 5: Discussion, Conclusion and Implications
While the article touches on implications, it needs a more robust discussion on how educators can practically apply this knowledge. The authors should provide concrete strategies and examples that are easy to interpret. As such, the authors could use sub-headings in this section.
In conclusion, the potential impact on educational practices and outcomes for ELLs should be made explicit.
Response 5: I wholeheartedly agree with this recommendation. I have added a section just prior to implications and conclusions with the heading “Application for Current Practitioners” to explain how this visual could be connected to both existing and new best practices for ELLs. This new section can be seen on page 11. This section includes the recommendation for subheadings with 5.1 Educator Training and Coaching, and 5.2 Translation to Instructional Strategies
Comments 6: Limitations and Future Research
The authors should explicitly acknowledge any new metaphor's limitations (new subheadings) and suggest areas for follow-up research.
Response 6: The word “Limitations” was added to the Implications and Conclusion section and explicit discussion of limitations has been added within that section.
Comments 7: Comments on the Quality of English Language
Some sentences are convoluted and hard to follow. Simplify language where possible and ensure each sentence clearly conveys its intended message.
Response 7: A full reread was done with simplifications throughout the article as well as revisions for conventions and clarity.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I would like to thank the authors for revising the manuscript based on my suggestions. I believe the manuscript is robust at this stage, and will recommend it for publication.
