Research & Projects

Our research & projects.

Here you can find our research philosophy statement and digests of our current projects.

Condition-based theory

Our position is rooted in the cognitive conditions-based theory postulating that "instructional strategies should facilitate the internal processes of learning" (Richey, Klein & Tracey, 2011, p. 105). It means that a teacher is responsible to design and conduct classroom activities in a way that maximizes learners' cognitive ability and facilitates information processing.

Why cognitive and not neuro-?

Our choice for cognitive as opposed to neuro-pedagogy is based on the understanding of the term neuro- in its narrow sense, which refers to data from empirical brain imaging studies. We share Dr. Daniel Willingham’s position who insists upon distinguishing between a neuro- and cognitive level of analysis and considering the cognition (cognitive processes) as a bridge between the pure physiological brain activities and the learning process rooted in a social environment.

Guiding research topics

cognitive and neuro-processes underlying native and foreign language learning and use
specifics of language acquisition by adults
rethinking existing teaching methods and practices from a cognitive perspective
designing new instructional strategies and activities to enhance language learning from a cognitive perspective
linguistic theories and representations of language underlying L2 teaching methods and practices
technology in the L2 classroom: a cognitive perspective
L2 teaching with games and edugames

Current Research & Academic Projects

Virtual Laboratory of Cognitive Pedagogy for L2 Instruction: continuing web-conference

The project aims at creating an educational web ressource consisted from video-modules presenting current ideas of North-American and European cognitive and neurocognitive science which impact our understanding of L2 acquisition process and help to rethink L2 teaching methodology. The project is sponsored by DAAD foundation and hosted by the Institute of Slavic Studies at Heidelberg University (Germany).

Approaches deriving from the Evolution of Communicative Paradigm in Russian L2 Instruction at the Low Proficiency Levels

L1 as an Asset and an Instructional Strategy for L2 Learning by Adults:
- Authenticity
- Underlying Cognitive Theory
- Theoretical Model
- Typology, Design and Implementation of L1-based activities

Teaching Russian Verbs of Motions: Alternative Approaches grounded into cognitive semantics and usage-based linguistics

Spin-off approaches deriving from the evolution of Communicative Language Teaching Paradigm traditionally encompass the Natural L2 language learning (Krashen, 1981), Content-, Project- and Task-based instruction and collaborative learning (Richards & Rogers, 2001). They prioritize student-centered collaborative pedagogy, focusing on community-related real-world topics, using authentic language materials and resources. The implementation of these approaches in a L2 classroom imposes some restrictions to teaching techniques. For example, the Content-based instruction is associated with a non-textbook-based curriculum, Open Architecture Curricular Design (OACD, the modular structure of the curriculum, which is reflected in interchangeable self-contained units of instruction sequenced according to students’ level, interests, and needs), but also with avoiding direct errors correction, the usage of students' L1 and explicit grammar teaching. Traditionally, the principles of Content-, Project- and Task-based methodologies have been developed in the learning contexts of English or the Roman languages (Spanish and French). Are the approached deriving from Communicative paradigm compatible with other languages, and specifically at low beginners’ levels? And if yes, how might instructors best adapt these approaches to this specific learning contexts? Based on our experience of teaching Russian L2 in the Summer Intensive Language Program (Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, CA, USA), firmly oriented towards content-based instruction, our research includes both a theoretical reflection and case studies of successful implementation of these approaches. Among others, in we suggest in completing the OACD initial model with a spiral(matryoshka)-like curriculum design which is based on pedagogical principles derived from the cognitive architecture theory.

Since the 1970s many popular teaching approaches to second and foreign language (L2) that originated from communicative and immersion paradigms have been challenging the usage of students’ first language (1L), which includes students mother tongue as well as other languages they speak at a higher level of proficiency. For example, content-based teaching (Met, 1991; Wesche, 1993), project- and task-based learning (Hedge, 1993; Beckett, 2006; Ellis, 2003) and the neurolinguistic approach (Germain, 2018) ban classroom activities based on translation, contrastive grammar/phonetics (1L vs L2), explicit instruction in L1, immediate negative feedback (error correction), among others, from the repertoire of recommended instructional strategies. The arguments defending this position could be reduced to the following controversial references: the way children learn the L1 and the functioning of the adult native speakers’ L1 mechanisms. The objectives pursued under our research are the following:

to explore the (neuro)cognitive theory applied to L2 acquisition to provide arguments in favor of selective explicit teaching strategies based on the usage of 1L.
to develop a theoretical model acknowledging the role of students' L1 as an asset and an instructional strategy for L2 learning process viewed both as cognitive and Identity transformation.
to develop a classification of 1L-based learning activities. We suggest distinguishing three groups depending on the role that 1L plays in learning process and the cognitive and linguistic support it provides to learners:

1. activities where 1L represents a (meta)language of instruction;
   2. activities where 1L is used as a reference to make comparisons with other languages, e.g., playing simultaneous translation,
comparing analogous street signs in 1L and L2 with a focus on form;
   3. activities that integrate 1L, alongside with the target language (L2), as an object of comparative analysis, ex. learning activities
   based on Contrastive Analysis.

to explore the potential of the Contrastive Analysis for L2 instruction (3d type of 1L-based learning activities). Our first case study is focused on theoretical premises and design aspects of the Accent Modeling, an instructional strategy based on Contrastive Analysis for development of phonetic-phonological awareness in L2.

The traditional instruction of the Verbs of Motion (VoM), specific part of Russian aspect system, is based on the invariant concept Directionality (opposition: uni- vs. multidirectional motion). However, the teaching practice shows that it is almost impossible for students exposed to the traditional instruction to achieve a satisfactory assimilation of this topic and to apply the provided rules to real contexts. In recent years, the efficiency of this procedure has been questioned (Hasko 2009; Israeli 2017; Six 2018a, 2018b; 2020; Bondarenko 2019) and the need for alternative approaches has been clearly claimed. The research/development project, on which Maria Bondarenko has been working since 2015, comprises the following parts.