Measuring and Researching Interlocutor Individual Differences: A Scoping Review

• In Event: Explorations of Interlocutors and Their Individual Differences: The Intersection of Acquisition Theory, Empirical Inquiry, and Methodological Rigor

Summary

Interlocutor ID research spans a broad landscape of theoretical and methodological terrain. Following methodological syntheses in other domains (e.g., Plonsky & Gass, 2011), a scoping review describes and evaluates empirical efforts in this domain and provides guidance for future empirical efforts in terms of designs, analyses, instrumentation, and reporting practices.

Abstract

The vast literature on the role of individual differences (IDs) in second language (L2) research draws largely on constructs and models, such as motivation and self- regulation, which were first introduced in educational psychology. More recently, L2 researchers have gone beyond individual language learners to examine the IDs of interlocutors including teachers, peers, other language users, and researchers (see Gurzynski-Weiss, forthcoming, 2017). Such efforts are motivated, both theoretically and empirically, by research across subdomains of applied linguistics (interactionist SLA, speaking assessment, bilingual processing) showing that learner development and performance may differ as a function of the characteristics of those individuals with whom learners use the L2 (e.g., Varonis & Gass, 1985; Winke, Gass, & Myford, 2013). As with any empirical domain, in order to maximize the potential of this body of research to inform theory and practice, it is critical that studies are designed rigorously, that data are analyzed appropriately, and that findings are reported thoroughly and transparently. Of particular concern in the realm of interlocutor IDs is the importance of applying measures that possess both high construct validity and that are psychometrically sound. With these issues in mind, this paper, a scoping review, systematically examines both the substance and methods in research on interlocutor IDs. Questions to be addressed include: To what extent have different interlocutor IDs been studied to date? In such studies, what types of designs, instruments, and analyses are employed? To what extent are data reported thoroughly and faithfully? Following a number of methodological syntheses (e.g., Plonsky & Gass, 2011), frequencies and percentages of different research and reporting practices are calculated. The data are interpreted as a means to understand what research in this area has done so far and as a tool to guide future studies both in terms of substance and methodology.

Author

• Luke Plonsky, Georgetown University