This chapter examines second language learning and teaching from a skills perspective, that is, reading, writing, listening, and speaking. The chapter first explains the differences among the four skills (e.g., receptive vs. productive; the necessity of formal instruction). Then, the chapter dissects each skill. As for reading and writing, the chapter discusses the necessity of formal instruction, and how the two skills are developed cognitively. The chapter also distinguishes writing-to-learn-language and learning-to-write. In terms of listening, the chapter explains different ways of processing incoming information (i.e., parsing). In relation to speaking, the chapter discusses differences between monologues or dialogues and the influence that time pressure has on second language production. By drawing on the previous chapters focusing on specific language components, the chapter ends with pedagogical recommendations for teaching the academic skills (e.g., how to target and sequence different skills).

Cognitive and metacognitive strategies are key to successful learning with multimedia; however, research shows that learners rarely use these strategies effectively and consequently fail to develop a deep understanding of complex topics and domains. Dynamically and accurately monitoring and regulating one’s own cognitive and metacognitive strategies is necessary to be a successful learner but demands an enormous amount of effort. In this chapter, we (1) define metacognitive strategies during multimedia learning; (2) review recent empirical literature on metacognitive strategies during multimedia learning; (3) present a new model of multimedia learning ; (4) provide recommendations for augmenting contemporary cognitive theories of multimedia learning to account for metacognition; (5) propose empirically-based principles for designing multimedia environments aimed at fostering metacognitive strategies; and finally (6) highlight directions for future research.

This chapter presents argument-based validation research to evaluate the interpretation of scores from an English collocational ability test. The argument-based validity framework guided the development of an interpretation/use argument that helped identify the types and amount of research needed to evaluate the plausibility of the claims about test score interpretation. Research presented in this chapter focuses on the explanation inference which is made when test users interpret the score as having substantive meaning about the construct assessed, specifically the construct of collocational ability in academic writing. The construct was defined by specifying the nature and scope of the construct following an interactionalist construct, which consists of three parts 1) the knowledge skills and abilities of a trait, 2) the types of contexts that delimit the scope of applicability of the trait, and 3) the metacognitive strategies to put the trait into use in those contexts. The target collocation was identified and defined based on applied linguistics theory and research, analysis of test-takers‘ responses to items on the test and statistical analysis of test scores. The relationship between collocational ability and other constructs of language ability were hypothesized in the nomological network to provide a basis for interpreting observed statistical relationships among sets of test scores reflecting those constructs. Evidence from screen capturing analysis, responses on a post-test survey and post-test interviews provided backing of strategy use. Data were collected in two phases of an embedded, sequential explanatory design to first obtain results from qualitative analysis of test takers' responses and then explain the results of the quantitative data with results from the supplementary qualitative data. Evidence collected in this study supported the construct of collocational ability underlying the explanation inference and demonstrated how argument-based validity can be used to lay a foundation for interpretation of test scores that is essential to score meaning.