Formulaic sequences in EAP and SLA

Formulaic sequences in English for Academic Purposes and Second Language Acquisition: towards the characterisation of lexico-grammatical norms
GERAS 2017

Shona Whyte & Cédric Sarré

This paper discusses a phenomenon often discussed under the umbrella term “formulaic sequences” (FS) and used to refer to chunks, clusters, collocations, idiomatic expressions, multi-word expressions, lexicogrammatical patterns, or processing units in different areas of psycholinguistics, systemic-functional linguistics, second language research and corpus linguistics, to name but these fields. With respect to the teaching and learning of English for Specific Purposes (ESP), formulaic sequences are of interest from two contrasting perspectives. The first, more traditional approach in ESP, has been to treat FS from a speaker-external perspective, defining FS as “the use of idioms, idiomatic expressions, and collocations used by NSs and L2 learners, that is, what is formulaic in a given language” (Myles & Cordier, 2016). In phraseological terms, FS may be viewed as “the preferred way of saying things in a particular discourse” (Gledhill, 2000). A second approach is favoured in second language acquisition research, and involves a speaker-internal or psycholinguistic definition of FS as “multiword units which present a processing advantage for a given speaker, either because they are stored whole in his/her mental lexicon (Wray 2002) or because they are highly automatised” (Cordier, 2013). Each approach is appropriate to the research questions of interest. Thus in second language research, objectives include the characterisation of FS in L2 speech production and their role in L2 development. Studies thus compare learners’ use of strings retrieved holistically with those generated online, using distinguishing criteria such as fluency, form-function mapping, and frequency in input and output (Myles & Cordier, 2016). In ESP research, on the other hand, one goal is to improve the efficiency of ESP teaching by focusing on particular FS. Give the importance of FS in fluent processing, and high frequency of such “semi-preconstructed phrases” (Sinclair, 1991), it is argued that “the more frequent items have the highest utility and should therefore be taught and tested earlier” (Nation, 2001, cited in Simpson-Vlach & Ellis, 2010). To this end, Simpson-Vlach and Ellis (2010) applied a number of frequency, collocational and pedagogical criteria to FS in spoken and written corpora of academic and general English to generate an academic formulas list of 200 FS deemed most worth teaching. It remains to be shown, however, how L2 acquisition of such externally defined FS proceeds, or how pedagogical intervention can encourage this process. This paper reviews definitions of FS from these two contrasting perspectives, highlighting problems at the intersection of the two approaches identified by Myles and Cordier (2016). It discusses the design of research instruments to replicate an empirical study by Lindstrom et al (2016) in order to address the question of how FS can best be taught and learned in English for Academic Purposes.


Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language teaching research, 10(3), 245-261.
Bolinger, D. (1979). Meaning and memory. Experience forms: Their cultural and individual place and function, 95-111.
Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. (Eds.). (2009). Formulaic language: Volume 1. Distribution and historical change. New York: Benjamins.
Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. (Eds.). (2009). Formulaic language: Volume 2. Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations. New York: Benjamins.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in second language acquisition, 24(02), 143-188.
Ellis, N. C., Simpson‐vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. Tesol Quarterly, 42(3), 375-396.
Fitzpatrick, T., & Wray, A. (2006). Breaking up is not so hard to do: Individual differences in L2 memorization. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 35-57.
Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. (1988). Creative automatization: Principles for promoting fluency within a communicative framework. TESOL quarterly, 22(3), 473-492.
Gilquin, G., Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2007). Learner corpora: The missing link in EAP pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(4), 319-335.
Gleason, J. B., & Weintraub, S. (1976). The acquisition of routines in child language. Language in Society, 5(02), 129-136.
Gledhill, C. J. (2000). Collocations in science writing (Vol. 22). Gunter Narr Verlag.
Gledhill, C., & Kübler, N. (2016). What can linguistic approaches bring to English for Specific Purposes?. ASp. la revue du GERAS, (69), 65-95.
Granger, S., & Meunier, F. (2008). Phraseology in language learning and teaching: Where to from here? Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching, 247-252.
Hoang, H., & Boers, F. (2016). Re-telling a story in a second language: How well do adult learners mine an input text for multiword expressions?. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(3), 513-535.
Lindstromberg, S., Eyckmans, J., & Connabeer, R. (2016). A modified dictogloss for helping learners remember L2 academic English formulaic sequences for use in later writing. English for Specific Purposes, 41, 12-21.
Meunier, F., & Granger, S. (Eds.). (2008). Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching. New York: Benjamins.
Myles, F., & Cordier, C. (2017). Formulaic sequence (FS) cannot be an umbrella term in SLA: Focusing on psycholinguistic FSs and their identification. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1-26.
Nation, P. 2001. Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paquot, M., & Granger, S. (2012). Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 130-149.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. Language and communication, 191, 225.
Peters, A. M. (1983). The units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peters, E., & Pauwels, P. (2015). Learning academic formulaic sequences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 28-39.
Rundell, M., & Fox, G. (Eds.). (2007). Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners.2nd edition. Oxford: Macmillan. (key features)
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487-512.
Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2000). First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive linguistics, 11(1/2), 61-82.
Weinert, R. (1995). The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review. Applied linguistics, 16(2), 180-205.
Fillmore, L. W. (1976). The second time around: Cognitive and social strategies in second language acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
Wray, A. (2012). What do we (think we) know about formulaic language? An evaluation of the current state of play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 231-254.
Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wray, A. and Fitzpatrick, T. (2008). ‘Why Can’t you Just Leave it Alone? Deviations from Memorized Language as a Gauge of Nativelike Competence’, in F. Meunier and S. Granger (eds), Phraseology in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching (123–48).

What’s in your head? Van Patten on language teaching

In his video lectures What everyone should know about second language acquisition, Bill VanPatten attacks a number of myths about language learning and teaching. He claims  foreign language teachers don’t know about second language research findings, and so are unable to make teaching decisions based on this research.

Following the adage there’s nothing more practical than a good theory, VanPatten gives an overview of theories about the nature of language with a view to dispelling some myths. Part 1 introduces the following, then develops the first point:

  1. What’s in your head is not what you think is there.
  2. Practice is not what it’s cracked up to be.
  3. Communication is distinct from mental representation.
  4. You cannot automatically blame the first language.
  5. Language acquisition isn’t always about aptitude.
  6. Acquisition is just too complex to reduce to simple ideas – there are no shortcuts to language acquisition.

What we know about language is an implicit, abstract representation, but the rules we know are not “the rules in your head” and the mental representation is nothing like pedagogical grammatical rules (in grammar books).

  1. re- means do again
    rerecord, remake, redo – to do these things again
    Possible with some verbs (resurface) but not others (*repet)
  2. ain’t isn’t good English
    I ain’t got none versus *I’aint have any
    Even if it’s not standard language, it still has a grammar (in your head)
  3. Y/N question formation
    Does Bill study second language acquisition?
    Does study Bill study second acquisition acquisition?
    Studies Bill second language acquisition?

What speakers have in their minds is an abstract system. But these cannot be stated simply; there are no rules to be learned.

Screen Shot 2015-11-24 at 14.28.55

Screen Shot 2015-11-24 at 14.28.30

Pedagogical rules describe the surface parts of the sentence but not the underlying information (features and operations) which are really inside your head. Much of the grammatical information is actually stored in words.

How about conjugation and declensions? What people have are networks of words with connections to meanings, inflections and grammatical information.

In our heads, we have information that governs what is possible and not possible, and also networks that encode meaning and grammatical information. We don’t have rules in the sense that we teach or discuss as language teachers.

How does this information get into our heads? VanPatten tackles this issue in the subsequent video clips.


In support of a developmental sequence model of second language acquisition: Ellis, 2015

Researching Acquisition Sequences: Idealization and De‐idealization in SLA
Ellis, R. (2015)., Language Learning Early view

DSC04473This paper examines Long’s claim regarding developmental sequences in second language acquisition, or what R. Ellis terms “Long’s law:”

“learners of different ages, with and without instruction, in foreign and second language settings, follow similar developmental sequences for such items as English negation”

Ellis develops an epistemological framework drawing on idealisation theory in the philosophy of science (Leszek Nowak, Cliff Hooker, Michael Weisberg) which he then applies to four successive studies of L2 negation in the same dataset, from 1978 to 2011. While retaining an interest in variation both at the level of learner language and theory development, he concludes that research generally supports the developmental sequence model of second language acquisition.

What follows is my own summary of Ellis’ argument in this 2015 Language Learning article.  The references are his; I haven’t included dates in the text.

Early, cognitive models of SLA (Corder) based on developmental stages have been challenged by socio-cognitive theory (Watson-Gegeo, Lantolf), discourse/conversation analysis (Firth & Wagner), and dynamic systems theory (Larsen-Freeman, de Bot et al.).  Ellis argues that we should therefore “reevaluate the long-held claim that the acquisition of L2 grammatical features involves predictable and universal stages of development” (p. 2).

Research in interlanguage variation (Ellis, Tarone) shows that such stages are an idealisation. Order of acquisition studies (Dulay & Burt), work on sequences of acquisition (Dulay, Burt & Krashen), and developmental sequence research (Pieneman & colleagues) have variously measured the emergence and stabilisation of morphemes and syntactic forms in learner language.  Variation in the production of these forms has been related to factors such as context (Tarone, Ellis), form-function mapping (Schachter), and creative speech versus formulaic chunks (N. Ellis).  This research appears to call into question “the existence of clearly delineated stages of acquisition and also emphasize the differences in the L2 development of individual learners.” The alternative term  “trajectories of learning” is preferred to “sequences of acquisition.”

Epistemological framework

To judge these different types of research, R. Ellis asks

  1. What exactly is a theory?
  2. What is the process by which theories are developed?
  3. What constitutes robust empirical evidence?

He reviews the investigation of developmental sequences in L2 acquisition by researchers using “set-of-laws theory,” or “research-then-theory” (as opposed to “axiomatic-causal theory,” or “theory-then-research”).  Following Long, this work has focused on selecting a phenomenon such as negation, examining samples of learner language to identify systematic patterns, and then proposing generalisations about the acquisition of this interlanguage feature.  These generalisation are idealisations, being accurate, though simplified, theoretically tenable, intelligible, and empirically verifiable (Hooker).  An idealisation neglects secondary factors (Nowak) and intentionally distorts, for pragmatic reasons, or as a minimalist model  (Weisberg). For Hooker, idealisation can have a positive effect (“simplifying,” when based on correctible quantitative error) or a negative effect (“degenerate,” based on conceptual error).

Weisberg argues for multiple models to achieve greater generality, accuracy, precision and simplicity and Ellis concurs, since “theories (and the idealizations that constitute them) can only be judged in terms of the specific domain they address.”  He takes a relativist stance, following Schumann’s position that “all knowledge is subjective and reality is multiple.”  He further argues that theories can be de-idealised without abandonment.

L2 negation studies

Applied to the question of acquisitional sequences, Ellis reviews four approaches to Cancino et al.’s 1978 data from six naturalistic learners of English in their first year after arrival in the US, involving both spontaneous and elicited oral production from two young, two adolescent and two adult Spanish speakers collected over a 10-month period.

  • Cancino et al’s original analysis discarded memorised chunks (e.g. I don’t know) and calculated frequency of types of negation over time to produce a universal developmental sequence.  Not all subjects had reached the end of the sequence by the end of the study, and one was considered to have stopped developing (fossilised; Alberto).
  • Schachter then reanalysed data from another of the six learners (Jorge) to relate different forms of negation to discourse function (e.g., rejection, affirmation).
  • In the third study, Berdan conducted a more sophisticated frequency analysis to show systematic use and development of negation in the learner originally considered to have fossilised.
  • Finally, Van Dijk et al took a dynamic systems approach and through statistical analysis highlighted the importance of interlearner variation which was related to age. This analysis also showed random variability in use of negation forms for one learner.

These results call into question Long’s claim that L2 learners follow similar developmental sequences.  They show it to be a simplifying idealisation which nonetheless holds up well in the four studies examined.  Ellis argues that these studies de-idealise the theory in helpful ways, particularly for those who seek to apply SLA research findings to instruction.  (In this respect, the dynamic systems analysis does not offer an improved model.)  Since the studies focused on untutored learners with the same L1/L2 pairing, the effects of instruction, and of other languages, must be verified.  In the meantime, however, R. Ellis suggests that his arguments drawn from the philosophy of science should militate against discarding Long’s developmental sequence “law.”

References (Ellis, 2015)

  • Berdan, R. (1996). Disentangling language acquisition from language variation. In R. Bayley & D. Preston (Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation (pp. 203244). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRef
  • Cancino, H., Rosansky, E., & Schumann, J. H. (1978). The acquisition of English negatives and interrogatives by native Spanish speakers. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition (pp. 207230). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  • Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161170. CrossRef,
  • de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 721. CrossRef,
  • Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23, 245258.
  • Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143188. CrossRef
  • Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
  • Ellis, R. (1985). Sources of variability in interlanguage. Applied Linguistics, 6, 118131. CrossRef,
  • Ellis, R. (1995). Appraising second language acquisition theory in relation to language pedagogy. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 7389). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/Foreign language learning as a local accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. Modern Language Journal, 91, 757772.
  • Hooker, C. (1994). Idealization, naturalism, and rationality: Some lessons from minimal rationality. Synthese, 99, 181231.
  • Lantolf, J. P. (2011). The sociocultural approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 2447). London: Routledge.
  • Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). A complexity theory approach to second language development/acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 4872). London: Routledge.
  • Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  • Long, M. H. (1990). The least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 649666.
  • Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 109135. CrossRef
  • Nowak, L. (1992). The idealization approach to science: A new survey. Available at
  • Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186214. CrossRef
  • Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRef
  • Reynolds, P. (1971). A primer in theory construction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs Merrill.
  • Schachter, J. (1986). In search of systematicity in interlanguage production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 119134. CrossRef
  • Schumann, J. H. (1993). Some problems with falsification: An illustration from SLA research. Applied Linguistics, 14, 295306.
  • Tarone, E. (1983). On the variability of interlanguage systems. Applied Linguistics, 4, 143163.
  • Tarone, E. (1988). Variation in interlanguage. London: Edward Arnold.
  • Van Dijk, M., Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2011). Variability and DST. In M. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & Lowie, W. (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development (pp. 8598). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Watson-Gegeo, K. (2004). Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward a language socialization paradigm for SLA. Modern Language Journal, 88, 331350.
  • Weisberg, M. (2007). Three kinds of idealization. Journal of Philosophy, 104, 639659.

Epistemological issues in L2 research and teaching

gateSome quotes (English, français) on what we do when we conduct L2 research, who is involved, for what reasons, and how we go about it. Then how this relates to the second (foreign) language classroom – whether second language teaching is a separate or related endeavour, and how technologies and teacher engagement with research affect the picture.

See quotes

EuroCALL paper on pedagogical interactivity at the IWB

Analysing target language interaction in IWB-mediated activities: from drills to tasks in state secondary EFL classes

Shona Whyte, Université Nice Sophia Antipolis, France
Euline Cutrim Schmid, Pädagogische Hochschule Schwäbisch Gmünd, Germany
Gary Beauchamp, Cardiff Metropolitan University, UK

Increased access to interactive technologies such as the interactive whiteboard (IWB) together with a methodological shift towards constructivist pedagogies are changing many classrooms and prompting research into effects on teaching and learning (Avvisati, 2013; Higgins, Beauchamp & Miller, 2007). Studies of IWB use in second language classrooms in European school and university settings suggest an often cautious approach to this new tool: the IWB is generally integrated into existing practice rather than acting as a catalyst for pedagogical transformation. Teachers tend to use a limited range of IWB tools and features for closely circumscribed teaching objectives, and generally follow personal pedagogical goals rather than adopting the communicative language teaching (CLT) and task-based language teaching (TBLT) approaches which currently underpin official programmes (Cutrim Schmid & Whyte, 2012; Whyte et al., 2013). A recent study of TBLT with the IWB using questionnaire, video, and interview data from 9 French EFL teachers found that transformation towards task-oriented teaching was associated with teachers with high IWB fluency and particular pedagogical engagement (Whyte & Alexander, in press).

The present study extends this line of research in an investigation of teacher and learner interaction using video recorded lessons with eleven state school teachers in France and Germany. In addition to primary classroom data, participants’ views were gathered via learner focus-group interviews and semi-structured video-stimulated teacher interviews, as part of a wider multilingual European research project on IWB-supported FL teaching. This analysis led to the development of a framework for classifying interaction, which includes CLT and TBLT criteria. The framework includes four levels of interaction, from the most basic level of drilling, through activities where teachers invite learner to display knowledge, more contextualised simulation activities, and finally to genuinely communicative tasks. The classification system includes the dimensions of focus on form/meaning, level of contextualisation and authenticity of tasks, and teacher/learner control.

The study allows for the correlation of differing levels of interaction with IWB use, participant characteristics, and teachers’ IWB experience, describing and explaining the level of interactivity and task-orientation of IWB-supported language teaching and learning in classes at different proficiency levels and across teachers with varying IWB and language teaching experience.

  • Avvisati, F., Hennessey, S., Kozma, R., & Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2013). Review of the Italian Strategy for Digital Schools. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 90, OECD Publishing.
  • Aldrich, F., Rogers, Y., & Scaife, M. (1998). Getting to grips with ‘interactivity’: Helping teachers assess the educational value of CD-ROMs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29(4), 321–332.
  • Blyth, C. (2010). Foreign language teaching methods: Speaking.
  • Bygate, M., Skehan, P and Swain, M. (Eds.) (2001), Researching pedagogical tasks: second language learning, teaching, and assessment. London: Pearson.
  • Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2007). The evolution of an effective pedagogy for teachers using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics and modern languages: an empirical analysis from the secondary sector. Learning, Media and Technology, 32, 5–20.
  • Gray, C, Pilkington, R, Hagger-Vaughan, L and Tomkins, SA. (2007). Integrating ICT into classroom practice in modern foreign language teaching in England: making room for teachers’ voices. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30 (4), 407-429
  • Gray, C. (2010). Meeting Teachers’ Real Needs: New Tools in the Secondary Modern Foreign Languages Classroom. In Thomas, M. & Cutrim Schmid, E. (Eds.), Interactive Whiteboards for Education: Theory, Research and Practice. Hershey, New York: Information Science Reference, 69-85.
  • Hennessy, S. & L. London (2013). Learning from International Experiences with Interactive Whiteboards: The Role of Professional Development in Integrating the Technology. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 89, OECD Publishing.
  • Jewitt, C., Moss, G., & Cardini, A. (2007), Pace, Interactivity and Multimodality in Teachers’ Design of Texts for Interactive Whiteboards in the Secondary School Classroom. Learning, Media and Technology 32 (3), 303-317.
  • Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. New York: Academic Press.
    Plowman L. (1996). Designing interactive media for schools: a review based on contextual observation. Information Design Journal 8 (3),258-266.
  • Savignon, S. J. (2007). Beyond communicative language teaching: What’s ahead?. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 207-220.
  • Somekh, B., Haldane, M., Jones, K., Lewin, C., Steadman, S., Scrimshaw, P., Woodrow, D. (2007). Evaluation of the Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion Project – summary report. (P. a. L. Centre for ICT, Trans.): Manchester Metropolitan University.

Ongoing research on IWB-mediated (language) instruction

Teaching languages with technology
How teachers use the IWB for language teaching, including the design and implementation of materials and activities.

Cutrim Schmid, E. (2009). The Pedagogical Potential of Interactive Whiteboards 2.0. In Thomas, M. (Ed) The Handbook of Research on Web 2.0 and Second Language Learning. IGI Global, USA.

Cutrim Schmid, E. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards and the Normalisation of CALL. In de Cassia, Rita; Morriott, Veiga; Torres, Patricia Luipon (Ed.): Handbook of Research on E-Learning Methodologies for Language Acquisition. IGI Global, USA.

Cutrim Schmid, E. (2006). Investigating the Use of Interactive Whiteboard Technology in the Language Classroom through the Lens of a Critical Theory of Technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19 (1), 47-62.

Cutrim Schmid, E. & van Hazebrouck, Sanderin (2012). Material Development and Task Design for the Interactive Whiteboard in the Foreign Language Classroom. In Biebighäuser, K., Zibelius, M. & Schmidt, T. (Eds.) Aufgaben 2.0 – Konzepte, Materialien und Methoden für das Fremdsprachenlehren und -lernen mit digitalen Medien. Tübingen: Narr.

Sailer, H., Cutrim Schmid, E.. & Koenraad, T. (2014). The IWB in the CLIL classroom: using visuals to foster active learning with young beginners. In Cutrim Schmid, E., & Whyte, S. (Eds.) Teaching languages with technology: communicative approaches to interactive whiteboard use. A resource book for teacher development. London: Bloomsbury.

Whyte, S., & Alexander, J. (2014). Implementing tasks with interactive technologies in classroom CALL: towards a developmental framework. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 40 (1), 1-26.

Whyte, S., Beauchamp, G., & Alexander, J. (2014). Researching interactive whiteboard use from primary school to university settings across Europe: an analytical framework for foreign language teaching. University of Wales Journal of Education, 17, 30-52.

Whyte, S., Beauchamp, G., & Hillier, E. (2012). Perceptions of the IWB for second language teaching and learning: the iTILT project. In L. Bradley & S. Thouësny (Eds.), CALL: Using, Learning, Knowing, EUROCALL Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, 22-25 August 2012, Proceedings (pp. 320-6). doi: 10.14705/rpnet.2012.000074

Whyte, S., & Cutrim Schmid, E. (in press).  A task-based approach to video communication with the IWB: a French-German primary EFL class exchange.  In Cutrim Schmid, E., & Whyte, S. (Eds.). Teaching languages with technology: communicative approaches to interactive whiteboard use. A resource book for teacher development. London: Bloomsbury.

Whyte, S., Cutrim Schmid, E., & van Hazebrouck, S. (2011). Designing IWB Resources for Language Teaching: the iTILT Project. International Conference on ICT for Language Learning, 4th Edition. Simonelli Editore.


Teacher education research
Investigating technology-mediated teaching practice: a number of papers using semi-structured video-stimulated recall (VSR) interviews with teachers, and drawing on teacher efficacy (Bandura) frameworks.

Cutrim Schmid, E. (2011). Video-Stimulated Reflection as a Professional Development Tool in Interactive Whiteboard Research. ReCALL, 23 (3), 252-270.

Cutrim Schmid, E. & Whyte, S. (2012). Interactive Whiteboards in School Settings: Teacher Responses to Socio-constructivist Hegemonies.  Language Learning and Technology 16 (2), 65-86.

Hillier, E., Beauchamp, G., & Whyte, S. (2013). A study of self-efficacy in the use of interactive whiteboards across educational settings: a European perspective from the iTILT project. Educational Futures, 5 (2)

Jones, S., Tanner, H., Kennewell, S., Parkinson, J., Denny, H., Anthony, C., Beauchamp, G., Jones, B., Lewis, H., & Loughran, A. (2009). Using Video Stimulated Reflective Dialogue to support the development of ICT based pedagogy in Mathematics and Science, The Welsh Journal of Education, 14(2), 63-77

Whyte, S. (2011). Learning to teach with videoconferencing in primary foreign language classrooms. ReCALL 23(3), 271–293.


Language teacher education
Supporting language teachers in technology-mediated practice: case studies, collaborative action research, and research projects on IWB education for language teachers.

Cutrim Schmid, E. (2010). Developing competencies for using the interactive whiteboard to implement communicative language teaching in the English as a Foreign Language classroom. In Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 9 (2), 159-172.

Cutrim Schmid, E. & Schimmack, E. (2010). First Steps towards a Model of Interactive Whiteboard Training for Language Teachers. In Thomas, M. and Cutrim Schmid, E. (Eds) Interactive Whiteboards: Theory, Research and Practice. IGI Global, USA.

Cutrim Schmid, E., & Whyte, S. (Eds.) Teaching languages with technology: communicative approaches to interactive whiteboard use. A resource book for teacher development. Advances in Digital Language Learning and Teaching (Series editors: Michael Thomas, Mark Warschauer & Mark Peterson). Bloomsbury.

Cutrim Schmid, E. & Whyte, Shona (2014). Ongoing professional development in IWB mediated language teaching: evening up the odds. In Cutrim Schmid, E., & Whyte, S. (Eds.) Teaching languages with technology: communicative approaches to interactive whiteboard use. A resource book for teacher development. London: Bloomsbury.

Koenraad, A. L. M., Whyte, S., & Cutrim Schmid, E. (2013). iTILT and SmartVET: 2 EU Projects to Promote Effective Interactive Whiteboard Use in Language and Vocational Education. In L. Bradley & S. Thouësny (Eds.), 20 Years of EUROCALL: Learning from the Past, Looking to the Future. Proceedings of the 2013 EUROCALL Conference, Évora, Portugal (pp. 149-157). Dublin/Voillans: © doi: 10.14705/rpnet.2013.000153

Whyte, S. (2013). Orchestrating learning in the language classroom: the IWB as digital dashboard. Babylonia, 2013(3), 55-61.

Whyte, S., Cutrim Schmid, E., van Hazebrouck, S., & Oberhofer, M. (2013). Open educational resources for CALL teacher education: the iTILT interactive whiteboard project.  Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27 (2), 122-148 doi: 10.1080/09588221.2013.818558


General teaching with (IWB) technology

Beauchamp, G. (2011). Interactivity and ICT in the primary school: categories of learner interactions with and without ICT, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(2), , 175–190 (DOI: 10.1080/1475939X.2011.588408)

Beauchamp, G. (2004). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard (IWB) in primary schools – towards an effective transition framework, Technology, Pedagogy and Education Volume 13 (3), 327 – 348 .

Beauchamp, G. & Kennewell, S. (2013). Transition in pedagogical orchestration using the whiteboard, Education and Information technologies,18 (2), 179-191

Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010) ‘Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning’, Computers and Education. 54. pp.759-766.

Beauchamp, G. and Kennewell, S. (2008) ‘The influence of ICT on the interactivity of teaching’, Special Issue of the Education and Information Technologies, Vol.13, No. 4, pp305-315.

Beauchamp, G. & Parkinson, J. (2005). Beyond the ‘wow’ factor: Developing interactivity with the interactive whiteboard, School Science Review, 86(316), 97-103

Kennewell, S. & Beauchamp. G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning, Learning, Media and Technology 32(3), pp227-241

Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Beauchamp, G., Parkinson, J., Jones, S., Meiring, L., Norman, N., Morgan, A., Thomas, G. (2009) ‘Interactive Teaching and ICT’, The Welsh Journal of Education, 14(2), 29-44.

Kennewell, S., Tanner, H, Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008) Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching’ Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 24(1), 61-73.

Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G. & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards’,  Learning, Media and Technology 32(3), 213-225

Van Laer, S., Beauchamp, G. And Colpaert, J. (2012). Teacher use of the Interactive Whiteboards in Flemish Secondary Education – mapping against a transition framework, Education and Information Technologies. DOI 10.1007/s10639-012-9228-6


Second language acquisition and teaching
Research on the relationship between interactive technologies and second language acquisition.

Whyte, S. (2014). Theory and practice in second language teaching with interactive technologies. In Cutrim Schmid, E., & Whyte, S. (Eds.) Teaching languages with technology: communicative approaches to interactive whiteboard use. A resource book for teacher development. London: Bloomsbury.

Cutrim Schmid, E. (2009). Interactive Whiteboard Technology in the Language Classroom: exploring new pedagogical opportunities. Saarbruecken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Mueller.

Cutrim Schmid, E. (2008). Facilitating Whole-Class Collaborative Learning in the English Language Classroom: the Potential of Interactive Whiteboard Technology. In Müller-Hartmann, A. & Schocker-v. Ditfurth, M. (Eds.). Aufgabenorientiertes Lernen und Lehren mit Medien: Ansätze, Erfahrungen, Perspektiven in der Fremdsprachendidaktik. Frankfurt/ Main u.a.: Peter Lang.

Recherches en enseignement-acquisition des langues en France : les revues scientifiques

AILE : Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Etrangère

ALSIC : Apprentissage des langues et systèmes d’information et de communication

APLIUT :Recherche et pratiques pédagogiques en langues de spécialité – Cahiers de l’APLIUT

Asp : Anglais de Spécialité

CORELA : Cognition, Représentation, Langage

ELA : Etudes de linguistique appliquée

Mélanges CRAPEL

Langues modernes

LIA : Language, Interaction and Acquisition




Recherches en Didactique des Langues et des Cultures – Cahiers de l’Acedle

Revue française de linguistique appliquée

Travaux Neuchâtelois Linguistique