TESOL Certificate. The MMBS Course. January 2008eflclassroom.com/teachertraining/book1tesol.pdf ·...

TESOL Certificate. The MMBS Course. January 2008

TESOL Certificate Studies 1



The TESOL Certificate Studies Program

January 2008

Volume 1

Editors: Dr. Paul Robertson and Professor Rod Ellis



Published by the Asian EFL Journal Press

Asian EFL Journal Press

A Division of Time Taylor International Ltd

Time Taylor College

Daen Dong

Pusan

S. Korea

http://www.asian-efl-journal.com

© Asian EFL Journal Press 1999-2008

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

no reproduction of any part may take place without

the written permission of the Asian EFL Journal Press.

No unauthorized photocopying

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means,

electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior

written permission of the Asian EFL Journal.

[email protected]

Editor: Dr. Paul Robertson

Senior Associate Editor: Professor Rod Ellis

Advisor. Professor Rebecca Oxford

Director TTI. Shin Young



TESOL Certificate Studies

Philippines

MMBS

Index. The Asian EFL Journal 6

Biography 7

Introduction to course 8

Course Outline 9

Articles to read.

1. Important tasks of English education. Asia wide and beyond 10-14

2. The methodology of Task based teaching 15-31

3. Educational Settings and Second Language Learning 32-44

4. Effective Reading 45-50

5. The Importance of Teaching Pronunciation to Adult Learners 51-57

6. Learning Vocabulary Through Games. 58-64

7. Teaching English Pronunciation Skills to the Asian Learner. 65-77

8. The critical age hypothesis. 78-101

9. Questions for consideration 102-102

10. Picture description as a very useful learning tool 103-106

11. Lesson Plans 107-108



The Asian EFL Journal TESOL Certificate The Asian EFL Journal, a world leading academic research journal and leading

accredited TESOL Certificate provider, and Time Taylor College (Korea) is the world

accredited organization for teaching TESOL.

TESOL Certificates are unique and may only be presented by accredited

organizations. There are only two organizations in the world to do this (CELTA in the

UK) an the Asian EFL Journal

This is the only TESOL Certificate in the world supported by:-

a) International Conferences

b) 5 prestigious linguistics journal

c) in conjunction with a licensed college

d) with such a famous list of international EFL SLA experts

e) personally backed by world leaders Professors Rod Ellis and Rebecca Oxford

The Asian EFL Journal The Asian EFL Journal examines issues within the Asian EFL linguistic scene, and

considers how traditional educational Approaches are integrated with or contrasted

against what is arguably a very specialized and relatively new field of study. The

journal is accessible to the global academic and teaching community, where articles

relating to Asian EFL may be published and viewed by all EFL professionals. The

primary function of the Asian EFL Journal is to provide a freely accessible alternative

journal on a quarterly basis.

The AEJ also provides new insights into key issues and subjects that are emerging and

are of contemporary interest that may not gain space in a variety of hard copy and

more 'established' publications. Some of these publications, whilst of academic merit,

do not support an injection of new and future oriented thinkers. Thus the new

generations of high quality indigenous and native speaker authors now have a

professional accessible medium to post and read insightful and ground-breaking

articles.



Biographies.

Dr. Paul Robertson

CEO Time Taylor Group of Companies.

Principal Time Taylor College. Founder of 7 international academic Language

Journals. Author of numerous books on Second Language Acquisition. Author of

legal tests on teacher and student responsibilities

Ba, LLb, Dip Law, Ma TESOL, Ma Law, PhD

International Attorney

Professor Rod Ellis

MA (Leeds), MEd (Brist), PhD (Lond)

Chair, Graduate School of Education; Professor, Teaching English to Speakers of

Other Languages; Applied language studies and Linguistics dept. Professor Ellis, a

renowned linguist, received his Doctorate from the University of London and his

Master of Education from the University of Bristol. A former professor at Temple

University both in Japan and the US. Prof. Ellis has taught in numerous positions in

England, Japan, the US, Zambia and New Zealand. Dr. Ellis, who is known as the

"Father of Second Language Acquisition", has served as the Director of the Institute

of Language Teaching and Learning at the University of Auckland. Author of

numerous student and teacher training textbooks for Prentice Hall and Oxford

University Press, Prof. Ellis's textbooks on Second Language Acquisition and

Grammar are core textbooks in TESOL and Linguistics programs around the world.

Rebecca L. Oxford, Ph.D.

Curriculum and Instruction Professor, Rebecca L. Oxford, named University

Distinguished Scholar-Teacher for 2006-07. Professor in the Department of

Curriculum and Instruction, has been selected as one of six faculty as a recipient of

the 2006-07 University of Maryland Distinguished Scholar-Teacher Award. Oxford

will be recognized during the 23rd

Annual Faculty and Staff Convocation that will be

held during fall semester 2006.



Introduction to Course

By Dr. Paul Robertson

Welcome to the TESOL Certificate course. I hope we can make good

friendships over the next few days and that you will hear some things of interest to

help you in your teaching duties. I have been teaching English as a second language

since 1993 (interspersed with a few years working as an attorney,) yet at all times

with Education authorities and in the Second Language Acquisition area. I have

gained various qualifications culminating in my PhD in English Education, however,

the more knowledge I have gained, there is one thing that I have learnt very clearly,

and that is there are always questions that I do not have an answer to, for the study of

English and its teaching is a vast area that no one person can fully master.

You are in a profession that is still in its early days of development. It was not

long ago (1980s) that Dr. Stephen Krashen pronounced his Language Acquisition

Device as the answer to how one learnt a second language. Whilst largely discredited,

there have since been few pronouncements (Chomsky on Universal Grammar) to

really test Krashen’s bold statement. These days MRIs are helping us understand the

workings of the brain in so far as language storing in the brain goes, but that science is

still in its early days.

Ten yeas ago there was no such as thing as Culture affecting language

acquisition. In 1999 I began the Asian EFL Journal based on the premise that

language learning and culture were inextricably connected. Now it is largely agreed

that this I so, but as the concept is still very hard to quantify, it is often avoided as

being ‘too difficult.’ Another area of dispute goes to ‘pronunciation’ and just what

constitutes good pronunciation. I hope we can discuss this much more in our group

sessions.

Finally’ let me just say - English is no longer the property of the English,

Australians, Americans or Canadians. English is as much the property of you, the

Filipino teachers, as me. English is an International Language (EIL) and you have the

skills and professionalism to teach English as good as anyone across the globe. Never

doubt that. Enjoy the course, ask questions often, and I will do my best to make you

great teachers in the eyes of your students.



Course Outline

Day 1.

Lesson 1. Introduction to EFL and EIL

Lesson 2. Preparing the best lesson – Lesson Plans

Lesson 3. Theories in Second Language Acquisition

Lesson 4. Pronunciation issues

Lesson 5. Task Based Teaching

Lesson 6. Test

Day 2.

Lesson 7. One on One – teacher student expectations

Lesson 8. Extensive Reading

Lesson 9. Grammar for TESOL

Lesson 10. Games in the TESOL Classroom

Lesson 11. Test (Group work)

Lesson 12. Overview of your responsibilities



Title

Important Tasks of English Education:

Asia-wide and Beyond

Author

David Nunan

Bio Data:

Professor David Nunan is Director of the English Centre and Professor of Applied

Linguistics at the University of Hong Kong. He has worked as an ESL/EFL teacher,

researcher, curriculum developer, and materials writer in many parts of the world,

including Australia, Oman, Japan, Singapore, Thailand, and the UK.

Professor Nunan has published books on language teaching curriculum development,

discourse analysis, second language teacher education, language teaching

methodology, and research methods in applied linguistics.

Dr. Nunan is on the Advisory Board of the Asian EFL Journal

We need to look deeply at times into the specific needs of learners in Asia and the

Pacific region who we cannot forget are still very much living in local contexts -not

only an evidently increasingly global one. That being said, there is much to learn from

these studies that can be borrowed and lent across a number of frontiers. Further, it is

evident that we must not exclude research into second language learning because of it

its geographical or cultural source. That has to underlay an important part of the

integrity of research and this book is very much devoted to that principle.

One approach, that does seem to meet a wide range of cross-regional needs and to

which a number of the authors deal with directly or indirectly is one to which I have

continuously been drawing attention and analysis for more than two decades. It is that

of task based learning. Interestingly, its popularity is accelerating in East Asia as well

as elsewhere. A demonstration of this is the fact that I was asked by the Chinese

Government to prepare a new task based publication for the English curriculum.

China represents, as Li (2004) states in his included work, the world's largest source

of English learners, let alone the largest segment of EFL learners anywhere in the

world.

India with its huge population and apparent new boom for English learning as

mentioned by Gupta (2005) is also a large beacon of English learning. Just these two

countries alone and their appetites for English education give us a new sense of the

increased diversity of language ownership; something Phan Le Ha (2005) touches on

in her article on the internationalization of the language and non-natives increasing

critical role in teaching, development and learning. It signals the reality that those

learning English will be significantly centered around or originating from Asia.



Therefore educators need evermore to recognize the importance and distinctive

context based needs of those requiring education in English outside the traditional

native speaker contexts. This is not inherently contradictory with those with persistent

arguments that many general principles of acquisition should be understood and

appropriately applied by educators within their distinctive classroom settings and

communities.

In keeping with such thoughts, I believe it can be reasonably well argued that the task

based teaching as I have largely described in various publications -more recently, "An

introduction to Task Based Teaching", 2004, Cambridge University Press- does

provide a flexible, functionally compatible and contextually sensitive approach for

many learners, as well as teachers. There may not be a magic approach anywhere for

this region or others, but let us look at some of the attractive features of task based

learning. It offers the potential for the following:

1. A replacement to or a supportive infusion of more student centered learning to

certain single approach based syllabi.

2. Utilizing more authentic experiences and materials as well as principles of

constructivism compared to top down teaching.

3. More of a sense of personal and active accomplishment including developing a

greater sense of language ownership.

4. Increased student participation when task teaching is well planned and

implemented sensitive to learners' learning styles, learning and communicative

strategies, personalities, multiple intelligences and the overall local contexts, for

example.

5. Making specific lesson goals more evident through movement towards and/or

success of task completion.

6. Important and ongoing assessment and "washback" to both teacher and learner.

Tasks, well chosen and developed which are centered around relevant acquisition

principles, as well as sensitive to context have also the potential to lessen the need for

test cramming and excessive reliance on a result/test based oriented syllabi.

Cramming, described by Poole (2003) in the Asian EFL Journal amongst others as

part of an "Exam Hell" represents a significant phenomenon in a large part of Asia.

Further, a result based syllabus, especially one with a narrow focus on grammar-

translation and reading and vocabulary may not provide a full set of language skills

needed by various L2 learners including those wishing to become communicatively

capable.

Tasks can be also fun and highly student centered when borrowing on effective games

and other such activities though task is not a substitute word for games. Where

students are conscious of marks, including many Asian high school students, if tasks

are not clearly supportive of good grades, they may find such exercises as either

irrelevant or even label them as bad teaching. For games may not be always

supportive of important curricular goals. Nevertheless, it can be argued that putting

fun (back) into learning represents positive motivation that can achieve even

worthwhile outcomes in respect to the curriculum. It is really difficult to think of most

learners whatever their context as appreciating boring teaching on a sustained basis.



It is also learners' complaints that that they do not always understand the teaching

goals through teacher centered lectures that make task based teaching potentially

dynamic for learning. Such task approaches can represent to students not only

achieving the better learning of a language item but in organizing time effectively,

learning to work cooperatively -an important Asian value- and using a variety of

intelligences and skills such as computer mediation. Thus, students can become

cognitively and pragmatically more fully engaged which can reduce tedium and make

class work more challenging and relevant to their wider needs and interests.

Again, too many students in the region and elsewhere may become overly committed

to rote, passive approaches and formulaic thinking associated with certain multiple

choice questions that are simply re-stylized from practice tests. Combined within a

teacher centered, top down approach, students may simply associate English with a

kind of assembly line and formulaic work to be tolerated but not to be enjoyed. The

end result is that English becomes firmly embedded within some students thinking as

a chore and not really being authentic enough to act as a door to a whole new world of

possibilities, career or otherwise -be it in the business world or other sectors. Rather,

many students in Asia and elsewhere may, see their own world and future successes

in terms of fulfilling tasks especially when the teacher reinforces such a link with

practical activities.

It is not to argue against there being merit at times for the grammar-translation, audio-

lingual approaches or lexical approaches, many of which remain popular and central

to quite a few teachers in the region. Learners' needs, proficiency, teacher competency

and confidence, government policy and a host of other factors may determine the

validity of how instructors’ best deal with instructed learning.

In fact, Chew (2005) in her article on reviewing the evolution of syllabi in

Singaporean English education, indicates that the single centered approach to a

syllabus may be ebbing, increasingly substituted by a more eclectic one. Whether this

experience will be replicated in other countries in the region, may be difficult to

exactly say. It may be that we are in a period of the "end of methods". But like others

in different social sciences who harkened the end of ideology, it may be more prudent

to view change as largely evolutionary with recurring ebbs and flows depending upon

the current contextual streams of challenges.

However, the attractiveness of task based learning relates not only to the enumerated

benefits. It provides rather a useful practice that that can be applied across many

approaches, as well as boundaries. Task based learning may provide an enduring

legacy that meets the test of time. It may also provide a curricular and syllabus

framework of flexibility that logically students and teachers will be drawn to even if it

need not be the central leitmotif for certain places.

For example, tasks could include, completing a grammar bingo game after a

contrastive analysis, grammar-translation based presentation. Subsequently, task

based communicative teaching practices could be supported to incorporate the

appropriate grammar into developing two way oral skills through an interview

exercise. Again, the task approach does not deny that in some Asian classes -or

anywhere in the world for that matter- that certain traditional approaches need to have



their day. Rather it is especially supportive of an integrated approach, or even where

the needs of the learner may be solely communicative. However, again task selection

and development is the key to better ensure specific needs are met. In doing this, the

educator needs to be conscious of principles and aspects of acquisition.

In this respect Ellis, (2005) has so well summarized here with authority and clarity the

general understanding in the profession on instructed language learning. We are

further faced with the fact that the true task of learning a second language in the many

EFL environments that Asian learners find themselves are removed from a lot of

'naturalistic", non-classroom, English speaking settings. Such an understanding of

these realities and the principles that surround realistic classroom learning can be of

service to classroom teachers wondering what methods, approaches and practices to

choose at a specific time. It reminds us of the value of the extensive reading

programmes to which Helgesen (2005) alludes can be so useful for Asian learners

where they are limited in their accessibility to communicative English in a natural

environment.

Teachers in such contexts may need to be reminded, at times to extend the task work

outside the classroom with proper direction that permits students to develop

independent learning skills that facilitate students to do the extensive work necessary

to gain fluency. In cultures where top down approaches are in the main, instructors be

they native teachers or not, need to be cognizant of these realities and limitations. We

can not simply, for example, put all learners on the Internet or through CALL, clap

our hands and say "go to it". Again learning context, as related to acquisition can be

highly relevant, which Ellis (2005) would seem to imply.

Countries that have ESL environments, some of which appear comparatively

advanced in terms of their English education systems such as Singapore and Hong

Kong, may for historical or special leadership reasons have cultivated English as a

second language. Here students may have to be approached differently in general as

they may be better motivated through seeing English on a daily basis in coming to

terms as to why they may be spending more than a thousand hours to learn it within

the school system. They may also have more opportunities to integrate classroom

learning into day to day usage if not immediately then possibly in the relatively near

future when they obtain employment. Task work in such circumstances can even draw

on giving real world assignments of surveying store managers and others in English

that extend instruction quantitatively to a level that helps develop real authentic

competency.

Simply speaking, English is not foreign to all parts of the region. This should draw

more Asian educators towards thinking about what techniques and experiences within

their own region itself that can be borrowed and/or adapted from places like Hong

Kong. This is a place I know personally for its significant daily use of English

especially in the professional areas.

Whatever one argues is precisely workable, there is no denying that the future of

English education, as so well discussed by the likes of Ellis, (2005) Chew, (2005)

Helgesen (2005) and many others at the Asian EFL Journal Conference (2005) is well

secured in respect to its growth.



Chew, P. (2005). Change and Continuity: English Language Teaching in Singapore

[Electronic version]. Asian EFL Journal Vol. 7, Issue 1.

Ellis, R. (2005).Principles of Instructed Language Learning [Electronic version].

Asian EFL Journal Vol. 7, Issue 3.

Gupta, D. (2005). ELT in India: A Brief Historical and Current Overview [Electronic

version]. Asian EFL Journal Vol. 7, Issue 1.

Helgesen, M. (2005). Classroom Practices & Materials. Future Directions [Electronic


Li, M. (2005). Culture and Classroom Communication: A Case Study of Asian

Students in New Zealand Language Schools [Electronic version]. Asian EFL Journal

Vol. 6, Issue 1.

Nunan. D. (2004). An introduction to Task Based Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

Phan Le Ha. (2005). Toward a critical notion of appropriation of English as an

international language [Electronic version]. Asian EFL Journal Vol. 7, Issue 3.

Poole, G. (2003). Assessing Japan's Institutional Entrance Requirements [Electronic




Article Title

The Methodology of Task-Based Teaching

Author

Rod Ellis

University of Auckland

Dr. Ellis is on the Advisory Board of the Asian EFL Journal

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to consider methodological procedures for teaching tasks.

These are of two basic kinds. Firstly, there are those procedures relating to how the

tasks specified in a task-based syllabus can be converted into actual lessons. Secondly,

there are procedures relating to how the teacher and learners are to participate in the

lessons. This paper will address only the first of these.

The design of a task-based lesson involves consideration of the stages or components

of a lesson that has a task as its principal component. Various designs have been

proposed (e.g. Estaire and Zanon 1994; Lee 2000; Prabhu 1987; Skehan 1996; Willis

1996). However they all have in common three principal phases, which are shown in

Figure 1. These phases reflect the chronology of a task-based lesson. Thus, the first

phase is 'pre-task' and concerns the various activities that teachers and students can

undertake before they start the task, such as whether students are given time to plan

the performance of the task. The second phase, the 'during task' phase, centres around

the task itself and affords various instructional options, including whether students are

required to operate under time-pressure or not. The final phase is 'post-task' and

involves procedures for following-up on the task performance. Only the 'during task'

phase is obligatory in task-based teaching. Thus, minimally, a task-based lesson

consists of the students just performing a task. Options selected from the 'pre-task' or

'post-task' phases are non-obligatory but, as we will see, can serve a crucial role in

ensuring that the task performance is maximally effective for language development.

Access to a clear framework for a task-based lesson is of obvious advantage to both

teachers and learners. Richards (1996) shows how many experienced teachers adhere

to a maxim of planning ('Plan your teaching and try to follow your plan') while

Numrich (1996) reports on how novice teachers feel the 'need to be creative and

varied in teaching'. A framework such as the one outlined in Figure 1 caters to both

needs. It provides a clear structure for a lesson and it also allows for creativity and

variety in the choice of options in each phase.

The pre-task phase

The purpose of the pre-task phase is to prepare students to perform the task in ways

that will promote acquisition. Lee (2000) describes the importance of 'framing' the

task to be performed and suggests that one way of doing this is to provide an advance



organizer of what the students will be required to do and the nature of the outcome

they will arrive at. Dornyei (2001) emphasizes the importance of presenting a task in

a way that motivates learners. Like Lee, he sees value in explaining the purpose and

utility of the task. This may be especially important for learners from traditional

'studial' classrooms; they may need to be convinced of the value of a more

'experiential' approach. Dornyei also suggests that task preparation should involve

strategies for whetting students' appetites to perform the task (e.g. by asking them to

guess what the task will involve) and for helping them to perform the task. Strategies

in this latter category are discussed below.

Skehan (1996) refers to two broad alternatives available to

the teacher during the pre-task phase:

an emphasis on the general cognitive demands of the task, and/or an emphasis

on linguistic factors. Attentional capacity is limited, and it is needed to

respond to both linguistic and cognitive demands … then engaging in

activities which reduce cognitive load will release attentional capacity for the

learner to concentrate more on linguistic factors. (p. 25).

These alternatives can be tackled procedurally in one of four ways; (1) supporting

learners in performing a task similar to the task they will perform in the during-task

phase of the lesson, (2) asking students to observe a model of how to perform the task,

(3) engaging learners in non-task activities designed to prepare them to perform the

task or (4) strategic planning of the main task performance. We will consider each in

some detail.

Performing a similar task

The use of a 'pre-task' was a key feature of the Communicational Teaching Project

(Prabhu 1987). It was carried out as a whole-class activity with the teacher and

involved the learners in completing a task of the same kind as and with similar

content to the main task. Thus, it served as a preparation for performing the main task

individually. For example, if the main task involved working out a class timetable

from the timetables of individual teachers, then the pre-task would be the same but

with different information in the teachers' timetables.

Prabhu explains that the pre-task was conducted through interaction of the question-

and-answer type. The teacher was expected to lead the class step-by-step to the

expected outcome, to break down a step into smaller steps if the learners encountered

difficulty and to offer one of more parallels to a step in the reasoning process to

ensure that mixed ability learners could understand what was required. The teacher

was provided with a lesson plan that included (1) the pre-task and (2) a set of graded

questions or instructions together with parallel questions to be used as needed. When

implemented in the classroom, the plan results in a 'pedagogic dialogue'. Prabhu

emphasises that the pre-task was not a 'demonstration' but 'a task in its own right'. It is

clear from this account that the 'pre-task' serves as a mediational tool for the kind of

'instructional conversation' that sociocultural theorists advocate. The teacher, as an

expert, uses the pre-task to scaffold learners' performance of the task with the



expectancy that this 'other-regulation' facilitates the 'self-regulation' learners will need

to perform the main task on their own.

Providing a model

An alternative is to ask the students to observe a model of how the task can be

performed without requiring them to undertake a trial performance of the task (see

Aston (1982) for an early example of such an approach). Minimally this involves

presenting them with a text (oral or written) to demonstrate an 'ideal' performance of

the task. Both Skehan (1996) and Willis (1996) suggest than simply 'observing' others

perform a task can help reduce the cognitive load on the learner. However, the model

can also be accompanied by activities designed to raise learners' consciousness about

specific features of the task performance - for example, the strategies that can be

employed to overcome communication problems, the conversational gambits for

holding the floor during a discussion or the pragmalinguistic devices for performing

key language functions. Such activities might require the learners to identify and

analyze these features in the model texts. Alternatively, they might involve pre-

training in the use of specific strategies. Nunan (1989) lists a number of learning

strategies (e.g. 'Learning to live with uncertainty' and 'Learning to make intelligent

guesses') that students can be taught to help them become 'adaptable, creative,

inventive and above all independent' (p. 81) and thus more effective performers of a

task. However, the effectiveness of such strategy training remains to be convincingly

demonstrated.

Non-task preparation activities

There are a variety of non-task preparation activities that teachers can choose from.

These can centre on reducing the cognitive or the linguistic demands placed on the

learner. Activating learners' content schemata or providing them with background

information serves as a means of defining the topic area of a task. Willis (1996)

provides a list of activities for achieving this (e.g. brainstorming and mind-maps).

When learners know what they are going to talk or write about they have more

processing space available for formulating the language needed to express their ideas

with the result that the quantity of the output will be enhanced and also fluency and

complexity. Recommended activities for addressing the linguistic demands of a task

often focus on vocabulary rather than grammar, perhaps because vocabulary is seen as

more helpful for the successful performance of a task than grammar. Newton (2001)

suggests three ways in which teachers can target unfamiliar vocabulary in the pre-task

phase; predicting (i.e. asking learners to brainstorm a list of words related to the task

title or topic), cooperative dictionary search (i.e. allocating different learners words to

look up in their dictionary), and words and definitions (i.e. learners match a list of

words to their definitions). Newton argues that such activities will 'prevent the

struggle with new words overtaking other important goals such as fluency or content-

learning' when learners perform the task. However, there is always the danger that

pre-teaching vocabulary will result in learners treating the task as an opportunity to

practise pre-selected words. In the case of task-supported teaching this can be seen as

desirable but in the case of task-based teaching it can threaten the integrity of the task.

Strategic planning



Finally, learners can be given time to plan how they will perform the task. This

involves 'strategic planning' and contrasts with the 'online planning' that can occur

during the performance of the task. It can be distinguished from other pre-task options

in that it does not involve students in a trial performance of the task or in observing a

model. However, it may involve the provision of linguistic forms/strategies for

performing the task but a distinction can still be drawn between the non-task

preparation procedures described above and strategic planning, as the former occur

without the students having access to the task they will be asked to perform while

strategic planning involves the students considering the forms they will need to

execute the task workplan they have been given.

There are a number of methodological options available to teachers who opt for

strategic planning. The first concerns whether the students are simply given the task

workplan and left to decide for themselves what to plan, which typically results in

priority being given to content over form, or whether they are given guidance in what

to plan. In the case of the latter option, the guidance may focus learners' attention on

form or content or, as in Sangarun's (2001) study, form and content together. Skehan

(1996) suggests that learners need to be made explicitly aware of where they are

focusing their attention - whether on fluency, complexity or accuracy. These planning

options are illustrated in Figure 2. Here the context is a task involving a balloon

debate (i.e. deciding who should be ejected from a balloon to keep it afloat). The

guidance can also be 'detailed' or 'undetailed' (Foster and Skehan 1996). The examples

in Figure 2 are of the undetailed kind. Skehan (1998) gives an example of detailed

planning for a personal task involving asking someone to go to your house to turn off

the oven that you have left on. This involved instructions relating to planning content

(e.g. 'think about what problems your listener could have and how you might help

her') and language (e.g. 'think what grammar you need to do the task'). These options

do not just provide for variety in planning activities; they also enable the teacher to

channel the learners' attention onto different aspects of language use. For example,

Foster and Skehan (1996) found that when students were given detailed guidance they

tended to prioritise content with resulting gains in complexity when they performed

the task.

Strategic planning options Description

1. No planning The students were introduced to the idea of a balloon debate, assigned

roles and then asked to debate who should be sacrificed.

2. Guided planning - language focus The students were introduced to the idea of a

balloon debate and then shown how to use modal verbs and conditionals in the

reasons a doctor might give for not being thrown out of the balloon (e.g. 'I take care of

many sick people - If you throw me out, many people might die.'

3. Guided planning - content focus The students were introduced the idea of a balloon

debate. The teacher presents ideas that each character might use to defend his or her

right to stay in the balloon and students were encouraged to add ideas of their own.

Another option concerns the amount of time students are given to carry out the pre-

task planning. Most of the research studies that have investigated this kind of planning

have allocated between 1 and 10 minutes. An effect on fluency was evident with very



short periods of planning in some studies but longer was needed for an effect on

complexity (Skehan 1998 suggests 10 minutes is optimal). Finally, planning can be

carried out individually, in groups, or with the teacher.

Summary and final comment

In these four ways, teachers can help to create conditions that will make tasks work

for acquisition. As Skehan (1998) points out, they serve to introduce new language

that the learners can use while performing the task, to mobilize existing linguistic

resources, to ease processing load and to push learners to interpret tasks in more

demanding ways. However, it is not yet possible to 'fine tune' learners' performance of

a task through selecting specific pre-task options. At best, all that the research to date

has demonstrated is the likely effects of some of the procedures referred to above.

Important questions remain unanswered. For example, we do not know whether task

preparation that involves an actual performance of the task is more or less effective

than preparation that involves just observation. Nor is it clear to what extent linguistic

priming subverts the 'naturalness' of a task resulting in teaching of the present-

practice-produce (PPP) kind. Only in the case of strategic planning do we have some

idea of how the different options affect task performance.

The during-task phase

The methodological options available to the teacher in the during-task phase are of

two basic kinds. First, there are various options relating to how the task is to be

undertaken that can be selected prior to the actual performance of the task and thus

planned for by the teacher. These will be called 'task-performance options'. Second,

there are a number of 'process options' that involve the teacher and students in on-line

decision making about how to perform the task as it is being completed.

Task performance options

We will consider three task performance options that have figured in the research to

date. The first of these options concerns whether to require the students to perform the

task under time pressure. The teacher can elect to allow students to complete the task

in their own time or can set a time limit. Lee (2000) strongly recommends that

teachers set strict time limits. This option is important because it can influence the

nature of the language that students' produce. Yuan and Ellis (2002) found that giving

students unlimited time to perform a narrative task resulted in language that was both

more complex and more accurate in comparison to a control group that was asked to

perform the same task under time pressure. The students used the time at their

disposal to monitor and reformulate their utterances. Interestingly, the opportunity to

plan on-line produced a different effect from the opportunity to engage in strategic

planning, which led to greater fluency and complexity of language. It seems, then,

that if teachers want to emphasize accuracy in a task performance, they need to ensure

that the students can complete the task in their own time. However, if they want to

encourage fluency they need to set a time limit.

The second task performance option involves deciding whether to allow the students

access to the input data while they perform a task. In some tasks access to the input

data is built into the design of a task (e.g. in Spot the Difference, Describe and Draw,



or many information gap tasks). However, in other tasks it is optional. For example, in

a story retelling/recall task the students can be permitted to keep the pictures/ text or

be asked to put them on one side as they narrate the story. This can influence the

complexity of the task, as tasks that are supported by pictures and texts are easier than

tasks that are not. Joe (1998) reports a study that compared learners' acquisition of a

set of target words (which they did not know prior to performing the task) in a

narrative recall task under two conditions - with and without access to the text. She

found that the learners who could see the text used the target words more frequently,

although the difference was evident only in verbatim use of the words not generated

use (i.e. they did not use the target words in original sentences). Joe's study raises an

important question. Does borrowing from the input data assist acquisition? The term

'borrowing' in this context comes from Prabhu (1987).

He defines it as 'taking over an available verbal formulation in order to express some

self-initiated meaning content, instead of generating the formulation from one's own

competence' (p. 60). Prabhu distinguishes borrowing from 'reproduction' where the

decision to 'take over' a sample of a language is not made by the learner but by some

external authority (i.e. the teacher of the text book). Borrowing is compatible with

task-based teaching but reproduction is not. Prabhu sees definite value in borrowing

for maintaining a task-based activity and also probable value in promoting acquisition.

Certainly, from the perspective of sociocultural theory, where learning occurs through

'participation', borrowing can be seen as contributing directly to acquisition.

The third task performance option consists of introducing some surprise element into

the task. Skehan and Foster (1997) illustrate this option. They asked students to

complete a decision-making task that required them to decide what punishment

should be given to four criminals who had committed different crimes. At the

beginning of the task they were given information about each criminal and the crime

he/she had committed. Half way through the task the students were given further

information of a surprising nature about each criminal. For example, the initial

information provided about one of the criminals was as follows:

The accused is a doctor. He gave an overdose (a very high quantity of a painkilling

drug) to an 85-year-old woman because she was dying painfully of cancer. The doctor

says that the woman had asked for an overdose. The woman's family accuse the

doctor of murder. After talking for five minutes, the students were given the following

additional information: Later, it was discovered that seven other old people in the

same hospital had died in a similar way, through overdoses. The doctor refuses to say

if he was involved.

However, this study failed to find that introducing such a surprise had any effect on

the fluency, complexity or accuracy of the learners' language. This does not mean that

this option is of no pedagogic value, as requiring learners to cope with a surprise

serves as an obvious way of extending the time learners spend on a task and thus

increases the amount of talk. It may also help to enhance students' intrinsic interest in

a task.

Process options



Process options differ from task performance options in that they concern the way in

which the discourse arising from the task is enacted rather than pedagogical decisions

about the way the task is to be handled. Whereas performance options can be selected

in advance of the actual performance of the task, process options must be taken in

flight while the task is being performed.

The teacher's on-line decision about how to conduct the discourse of a task reflect

his/her 'theory-in-use' (Schon 1983) and 'practical knowledge' (Eraut 1994). On the

learners' part, they reflect the language learning beliefs (Horwitz 1987) they bring to

the classroom and, more particularly, to a specific task. How teachers and learners

conduct a task will be influenced, to a large extent, by their prior experiences of

teaching and learning and their personal definitions of the particular teaching-learning

situation. Thus, the options described below are primarily descriptive, reflecting an

internal rather than external perspective (Ellis 1998) on the methodology of task-

based teaching.

A common assumption of task-based teaching is that the texts, the discursive practices

and the social practices of the classroom (Breen 1998) that are constructed by and

through a task resemble those found in non-pedagogic discourse. To achieve this,

however, is no mean feat, especially if the teacher is directly involved in the

performance of the task. As Breen points out, the 'texts' of lessons (i.e. the actual

language produced by the participants) are typically teacher-centred with learners 'not

actually required to do much overt or explicit discursive work' (p. 123), while the

'discursive practices' (i.e. the means by which the text are produced) 'construct

learners as primarily responsive and seemingly fairly passive participants in the

discourse' (p. 124) and the 'social practices' (i.e. the organisational and institutional

circumstances that shape the texts and discursive practices) are directed at the

avoidance of 'social trouble'. Task-based teaching, however, seeks the converse - texts

that are learner-centred, discursive practices that encourage the learner to actively

engage in shaping and controlling the discourse, and social practices that are centred

on allowing and resolving social trouble. This poses a problem, which teachers need

to address.

Two questions arise. The first concerns what the participants in a task need to do to

ensure that the interactions they engage in manifest the processes. Implicit in this

question is an acknowledgement of the importance of these processes for task-based

instruction. The second question, however, challenges this assumption by asking

whether in fact these processes are criterial of task-based pedagogy and whether,

minimally, they need to be complemented by processes from column A.

It has often been pointed out (see, for example, Nunan 1987) that the processes

described in column B are a rarity even in classrooms where the teacher claims to be

teaching communicatively. The main reason for this lies in the difficulty teachers and

students have in achieving the required orientation. As Goffman (1981) has pointed

out, classrooms are governed by an 'educational imperative' which dictates the kind of

discourse that arises. It is for this reason that teachers and students find it difficult to

consistently orient to language as a tool and to adopt the role of language users when

they both know that the raison-d'etre for their being together is to teach and learn the

language. In effect, task-based teaching calls for the classroom participants to forget

where they are and why they are there and to act in the belief that they can learn the



language indirectly through communicating in it rather than directly through studying

it. This is asking a lot of them, especially if the social practices the participants bring

to the classroom belong to a pedagogy of transmission rather than of interpretation

(Barnes 1976). It is probably easier to achieve when students are interacting among

themselves, without the teacher being present, as the greater symmetry of social roles

this affords leads naturally to the kinds of risk-taking behaviour required of a task-

based pedagogy (Pica 1987). This is one reason why pair and group work are seen as

central to task-based teaching.

However, even when the participants in a task are oriented to treat language as a tool

and to function as language users, the text of the task may disappoint, manifesting few

of the characteristics facilitative of acquisition. Seedhouse (1999) has pointed out that

the characteristics of task-based interaction do not always match those described in

Figure 3. He illustrates how in some tasks the turn-taking system is conspicuously

constrained, there is a tendency for students to rely on topic-comment constructions

where verbal elements are omitted (a feature also noted in pidgins) and to produce

highly indexicalised utterances. An even greater limitation in task-based interaction,

according to Seedhouse, is the minimalization that characterizes some task-based

interactions. This is illustrated in the extract below where the students were required

to complete and label a geometric figure:

L1: What?

L2: Stop.

L3: Dot?

L4: Dot?

L5: Point?

L6: Dot?

LL: Point, point, yeh.

L1: Point?

L5: Small point.

L3: Dot

(From Lynch 1989, p. 124; cited in Seedhouse 1999).

Here all the utterances but one consist of a single word. Clearly, such interactions do

not help the 'stretch' learners' interlanguages, one of the stated goals of task-based

pedagogy (Nunan 1989). Seedhouse suggests that such limited interactions arise

because 'learners appear to be so concentrated on completing the task that linguistic

forms are treated as a vehicle of minor importance' (p. 154). In other words, the very

nature of a task (i.e. the fact it is directed at accomplishing a specified outcome) may

result in a restricted variety of communication.

Seedhouse overstates this limitation of tasks. First, it is possible to argue that the

restricted nature of the talk shown in the extract above is well suited to the students'

purpose. Second, the nature of the interaction depends crucially on the design

characteristics of tasks and procedures for implementing them. Thus, richer varieties

of communication characterized by more complex language use, are achievable if, for

example, students are asked to perform open tasks with divergent goals and are given

the opportunity to plan their performance before hand. Nevertheless, Seedhouse's

critique needs to be addressed. Clearly, teachers need to monitor their students'



performance of a task carefully, examining to what extent the processes described in

Figure 3 arise and, crucially, whether the interactions manifest the minimalized and

pidgin-like uses of language Seedhouse illustrates. The information obtained from

such monitoring can be used to inform decisions about what tasks and procedures to

use in subsequent tasks. In this way, teachers can build up a fund of experience of the

task characteristics and methods of implementation that will ensure the kinds of

interactions hypothesized to promote acquisition. Thus, the solution, to the problem

Seedhouse identifies lies not in attempting to manipulate process options directly,

which may well be impossible without imperilling the 'taskness' of the task, but

through careful selection from the pre-task options and the performance options

described above.

Where Seedhouse questions whether the kinds of behaviours shown in Figure 3 are

achievable in task-based teaching, others have challenged whether they constitute

appropriate goals for interaction in a classroom. Cullen (1998) has pointed out that the

classroom context constitutes a communicative environment in its own right that is

distinct from the communicative contexts of the world outside and on these grounds

has challenged the basis for assessing the communicativeness of classroom discourse.

In effect, then, Cullen disputes the assumption that underlies task-bask pedagogy -

that classrooms need to replicate the kind of communicative behaviour found outside

the classroom. He illustrates how 'what appears to be non-communicative teacher talk

is not necessarily so in the classroom context' (p. 183) with an extract from an English

lesson in Egypt. This interaction is teacher-led, is full of display questions, includes

feedback that is form-focused and contains a lot of echoing - all processes associated

with a traditional form-focused pedagogy. However, Cullen argues that in the context

of the classroom, the interaction can be considered 'communicative' in that the entire

sequence manifests a focus on message content, the teacher's questions are carefully

structured, the feedback is clear and the use of echoing serves to ensure that the

students' attention is not lost. He claims that the discourse is pedagogically effective

because the teacher has successfully combined the role of 'instructor' and 'interlocutor'.

Arguably, this is what a task-based pedagogy needs to strive for. How might it be

achieved?

One way is by incorporating a focus on form into the performance of the task. Ellis,

Basturkmen and Loewen (2001) report this can be achieved in either responding

focus-on-form episodes, where one of the participants, usually the teacher, responds

to a student utterance containing an error, or in initiating episodes, where either the

teacher or a student elects to take time out from the exchange of message content to

attend briefly to form, usually by means of a direct query about a specific form. Such

attention to form differs from that arising in lessons of the traditional, focus-on-forms

kind because, for, as Wilberg (1987) notes, 'the content is dictated by the student, the

form only by the teacher' (p. 27). It also differs in another way. As Prabhu (1987)

points out, correction during a task is 'incidental' rather than 'systematic' in nature. In

incidental correction, only 'tokens' are addressed (i.e. there is no attempt to generalize

the type of error), it is seen by the participants as 'a part of getting on with the activity

in hand, not as a separate objective' (p. 63) and, crucially, it is transitory. Prabhu

excludes preventive or pre-emptive attention to form but, as Ellis, Basturkmen and

Loewen's study shows this too can be 'incidental'.



Teachers can employ both implicit and explicit techniques to achieve this focus on

form. These techniques can be used when some kind of communication problem

arises (as occurs in the negotiation of meaning) or they can be used when the teacher

chooses to abandon his/her role as a language user momentarily in order to function as

an instructor (i.e. to negotiate form rather than meaning). Teachers can play a very

direct role by initiating this negotiation but they can also intervene to support a

process that students have started for themselves, a technique that involves 'nudging'

the learners towards a solution . Teachers can also allow or even encourage students

to use the same techniques themselves - for example, by accepting and responding to

students' queries about form.

To sum up, it is clear that process options cannot be prescribed. Nevertheless, it is

possible to identify, in broad terms, the kinds of processes that the participants in a

task performance need to strive for. These are:

1. Discourse that is essentially 'conversational' in nature (i.e. as described in column B

of Figure 3). Such discourse can include 'instructional conversations'.

2. Discourse that encourages the explicit formulation of messages.

3. Opportunities for students to take linguistic risks.

4. Occasions where the task participants focus implicitly and/or explicitly on specific

linguistic forms.

5. Shared goals for the task.

6. Effective scaffolding of the participants' efforts to communicate in the L2.

The post-task phase

The post-task phase affords a number of options. These have three major pedagogic

goals; (1) to provide an opportunity for a repeat performance of the task, (2) to

encourage reflection on how the task was performed, and (3) to encourage attention to

form, in particular to those forms that proved problematic to the learners when they

performed the task.

Repeat performance

Several studies (e.g. Bygate 1996 and 2001; Lynch and Maclean 2000) indicate that

when learners repeat a task their production improves in a number of ways (e.g.

complexity increases, propositions are expressed more clearly, and they become more

fluent). A repeat performance can be carried out under the same conditions as the first

performance (i.e. in small groups or individually) or the conditions can be changed.

One interesting possibility examined by Skehan and Foster (1997) is that of requiring

students to carry out the second performance publicly. As their study examined the

'threat' of such a requirement on learners' initial performance of the task, it technically

constituted a during-task option. However, if students are not told to repeat the task

publicly until after they have completed the first performance, it becomes a post-task

option. There has been no research comparing the learner production that results from



a second performance carried out under 'private' conditions, as in the initial

performance, and publicly. Clearly, performing a task in front of the class increases

the communicative stress (Candlin 1987) placed on the learner and thus can be

predicted to lead to a reduction in fluency and complexity. However, it is not without

value if students need experience in using English in front of an audience, as, for

example, might be the case with foreign academics training to give oral presentations

in the L2. Public performance is likely to encourage the use of a more formal style

and thus may push learners to use the grammaticalised resources associated with this

style.

Reflecting on the task

Willis (1996) recommends asking students to present a report on how they did the

task and on what they decided or discovered. She considers this 'the natural

conclusion of the task cycle' (p. 58). The teacher's role is to act as a chairperson and to

encourage the students. The reports can be oral or written. Willis' examples make it

clear that the reports should primarily focus on summarising the outcome of the task.

However, it would also be possible to ask students to reflect on and evaluate their own

performance of the task. For example, they could be invited to comment on which

aspect of language use (fluency, complexity or accuracy) they gave primacy to and

why, how they dealt with communication problems, both their own and others, and

even what language they learned from the task (i.e. to report what Allwright (1984)

has called 'uptake' [1]). Students could also be invited to consider how they might

improve their performance of the task. Encouraging students to reflect on their

performance in these ways may contribute to the development of the metacognitive

strategies of planning, monitoring and evaluating, which are seen as important for

language learning (O'Malley and Chamot 1990).

There is also a case for asking students to evaluate the task itself. Such information

will help the teacher to decide whether to use similar tasks in the future or look for a

different type. I have suggested that student-based evaluations of tasks can be carried

out quickly and effectively using simple questionnaires (see Ellis 1997a for an

example).

Focussing on forms

Once the task is completed, students can be invited to focus on forms, with no danger

that in so doing they will subvert the 'taskness' of the task. It is for this reason that

some methodologists recommend reserving attention to form to the post-task phase of

the lesson. Willis (1996), for example, sees the primary goal of the 'task component'

as that of developing fluency and promoting the use of communication strategies. The

post-task stage is needed to counter the danger that students will develop fluency at

the expense of accuracy. In part, this is met by asking students to report on their

performance of the task, as discussed above, but it can also be achieved by a direct

focus on forms. It should be noted, however, that this is the not the position taken in

this paper. I have emphasised that a focus on form constitutes a valuable during-task

option and that it is quite compatible with a primary focus on message content, which

is the hallmark of a task. Furthermore, in some tasks (e.g. consciousness raising tasks)

a linguistic feature is made the topic of the task. Attention to form, in one way or

another, can occur in any (or indeed all) of the phases of a task-based lesson. In the



pre-task and post-task phases the focus will be on forms while in the during-task

phase it will be on form, to invoke Long's (1991) distinction .

Two obvious methodological questions arise regarding attention to form in the post-

task phase. The first concerns which forms should be attended to. The answer is fairly

obvious; teachers should select forms that the students used incorrectly while

performing the task or 'useful' or 'natural' forms (Loshcky and Bley Vroman 1993)

that they failed to use at all. In other words, teachers should seek to address errors or

gaps in the students' L2 knowledge. Consideration also needs to be given to how

many such forms a teacher should seek to address. Should the focus be placed on a

single form that is treated intensively or a number of forms that are treated

extensively? Both approaches are warranted and are reflected in the various options

described below.

The second question concerns how the target forms should be dealt with. There is a

whole range of options available to the teacher. It should be noted however that in

many cases the effectiveness of these options has not been investigated.

1. Review of learner errors

While the students are performing a task in groups, teachers can move from group to

group to listen in and note down some of the conspicuous errors the students make

together with actual examples. In the post-task phase, the teacher can address these

errors with the whole class. A sentence illustrating the error can be written on the

board, students can be invited to correct it, the corrected version is written up, and a

brief explanation provided. Lynch (2001) offers an interesting way of conducting a

post-task analysis, which he calls 'proof-listening'. This involves three cycles based on

repeated playing of a recording of the task. First, the students who did the task review

and edit their own performance. Second, the recording is replayed and other students

are invited to comment, correct or ask questions. Finally, the teacher comments on

any points that have been missed.

2. Consciousness-raising tasks

CR-tasks constitute tasks in their own right and, therefore, can be used as the main

task in a lesson. But they can also be used as follow-up tasks to direct students to

attend explicitly to a specific form that they used incorrectly or failed to use at all in

the main task. Willis and Willis (1996) and Ellis (1997b) offer descriptions of the

various options that are available for the design and implementation of CR tasks.

When used as follow-up tasks, CR tasks can profitably take their data from recordings

of the students' performance of the task. For example, students might be presented

with a number of their own utterances all illustrating the same error and asked to

identify the error, correct the sentences and work out an explanation.

3. Production practice activities

An alternative or addition to CR tasks is to provide more traditional practice of

selected forms. Traditional exercise types include repetition, substitution, gapped

sentences, jumbled sentences, transformation drills, and dialogues. Willis (1996; pp.

110) offers a number of more novel ideas. The value of such production practice



activities has been called into question (see, for example, VanPatten 1996) on the

grounds that they have no direct effect on learners' interlanguage systems. However,

they may help learners to automatize forms that they have begun to use on their own

accord but have not yet gained full control over.

4. Noticing activities

A number of suggestions have been made for developing noticing activities as a

follow-up to a task performance. Fotos (1994) used dictation exercises that had been

enriched with the target structures that students had tackled initially in CR tasks to

examine whether the subjects in her study subsequently attended to the structures. She

found that they did so quite consistently. Lynch (2001) recommends getting students

to make transcripts of an extract (90-120 seconds) from their task performance as a

method for inducing noticing. After transcribing, they are required to make any

editing changes they wish. The teacher then takes away the word-processed

transcripts and reformulates them. The next day the students are asked to compare

their own edited transcript with the teacher's reformulated version. In a study that

investigated this procedure, Lynch found that students cooperated effectively in

transcribing, made a number of changes (most of which resulted in accurate

corrections of linguistic forms), and engaged in both self- and other-correction. Lynch

also analysed the types of changes the students made, noting that the majority

involved grammatical corrections, 'editing' slips (i.e. removal of redundancies, literal

repetitions and dysfluencies) and 'reformulation' (i.e. changes directed at more precise

expressions). Finally, Lynch comments that there was plenty left for the teacher to do

after the students had made their changes.

Using the framework for designing a lesson

What constitutes the main activity of a lesson is largely a matter of perception and

therefore, to some extent at least, arbitrary. For example, Prabhu (1987) talks of a

'pre-task' and a 'task'. The former is carried out between the teacher and the whole

class. The latter is performed by the students working individually. But, such a

sequence of activities could easily be described in terms of 'task' and 'post-task'.

Indeed, Prabhu's 'pre-task' involves the type of activity that most task-based

methodologists would consider to belong to the during-task phase of a lesson.

Similarly, a sequence of activities consisting of 'task' and 'post-task' where the latter

involves the kind of transcribing activity advocated by Lynch could also be described

in terms of 'pre-task' and 'task', if the transcribing activity is viewed as the main

activity.

However, this caveat does not detract from the usefulness of the design framework

described above as a basis for planning task-based lessons. Teachers need to decide

first on the basic format of the lesson. Minimally, it will consist of the during-task

phase but it can also include either or both of a pre-task and post-task phase. Once the

basic structure of the lesson has been decided, the specific option(s) to be included in

each phase of the lesson can be considered. The description of the process options for

implementing the during-task phase of the lesson also provides a guide for the

navigation of the actual task and for the teacher's ongoing monitoring of the task

performance.



Notes:

1. Allwright's (1984) use of 'uptake' differs from that of researchers who have

investigated corrective sequences in classroom discourse. Allwright uses the term to

refer to what learners are able to explicitly report having learned as a result of

participating in a lesson.

References

Allwright, D. 1984. Why don't learners learn what teachers teach? The interaction

hypothesis. In D. Singleton and D. Little (eds.). Language Learning in Formal and

Informal Contexts (pp. 3-18). Dublin: IRAL.

Aston, G. 1982. Interact. Oxford: Modern English Publications.

Barnes, D. 1976. From Communication to Curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Breen, M. 1998. Navigating the discourse: On what is learned in the language

classroom. In W. Renandya and G. Jacobs (eds). Learners and Language Learning.

Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Bygate, M. 1996. Effects of task repetition: Appraising the development of second

language learners. In J. Willis and D. Willis (eds). Challenge and Change in Language

Teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.

Bygate, M. 2001. Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral

language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan and M. Swain (eds). (pp. 23-48).

Bygate, M., P. Skehan, and M. Swain. (eds). 2001. Researching Pedagogic Tasks,

Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Harlow: Longman.

Candlin, C. 1987. Towards task-based language learning. In C. Candlin and D.

Murphy (eds.). Language Learning Tasks. Englewood Cliffs N.J.: Prentice Hall

International.

Candlin, C. and D. Murphy. 1987. Language Learning Tasks. Englewood Cliffs N.J.:

Prentice Hall International.

Cullen, R. 1998. Teacher-talk and the classroom context. ELT Journal 52: 179-187.

Dornyei, Z. 2001. Motivational Strategies in the Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Ellis, R. 1997a. SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Ellis, R. 1997b. Explicit knowledge and second language pedagogy. In L. Van Lier

and D. Corson (eds.). Encyclopedia of Language and Education Vol 6: Knowledge

about Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.



Ellis, R. 1998. Discourse control and the acquisition-rich classroom. In W. Renandya

and G. Jacobs (eds). Learners and Language Learning (pp. 145-171). Singapore:

SEAMEO.

Ellis, R. 2001. Focussing on form: Towards a research agenda. In W. Renandya and N.

Sunga (eds). Language Curriculum and Instruction in Multicultural Societies (pp.

123-144). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Ellis, R., H. Basturkmen and S. Loewen. 2001. Learner uptake in communicative ESL

lessons. Language Learning 51: 281-318.

Eraut, M. 1994. Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence. London:

Falmer.

Estaire, S. and J. Zanon. 1994. Planning Classwork: A Task Based Approach. Oxford:

Heinemann.

Foster, P. and P. Skehan. 1996. The influence of planning and task type on second

language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 299-323.

Foster, P. and P. Skehan. 1999. The influence of planning and focus of planning on

task-based performance. Language Teaching Research 3: 215-247.

Fotos, S. 1994. Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use

through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly 28: 323-351.

Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Horwtitz, E. 1987. Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In Wenden, A.

and Rubin, J. (eds). Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Joe, A. 1998. What effects do text-based tasks promoting generation have on

incidental vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics 19:357-77.

Lee, J. 2000. Tasks and Communicating in Language Classrooms. Boston: McGraw-

Hill.

Long, M. 1991. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology.

In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch (eds.). Foreign Language Research in

Cross-Cultural Perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.

Loscky, L. and R. Bley-Vroman. 1993. Grammar and task-based methodology. In

Crookes, G. and Gass, S. (eds.) Tasks in a Pedagogical Context: Integrating Theory

and Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Lynch, T. 1989.Researching teachers: Behaviour and belief. In C. Brumfit and R.

Micthell (eds). Research in the Language Classroom. London: Modern English

Publications and the British Council.



Lynch, T. 2001. Seeing what they meant: Transcribing as a route to noticing. ELT

Journal 55: 124-32.

Lynch, T. and J. Maclean. 2000. Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recyling

for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research 4: 221- 250

Lynch, T. and J. Maclean. 2001. Effects of immediate task repetition on learners'

performance. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan and M. Swain (eds). (pp. 99-118).

Newton, J. 2001. Options for vocabulary learning through communication tasks. ELT

Journal 55: 30-37.

Numrich, C. 1996. On becoming a language teacher; Insights from diary studies.

TESOL Quarterly 30: 131-153.

Nunan, D. 1987. Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT Journal 41:

136-45.

Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom.

Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

O'Malley, J. and A. Chamot. 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language

Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pica, T. 1987. Second language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom.

Applied Linguistics

Prabhu, N.S. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Richards, J. 1996. Teachers' maxims in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 30: 281-

296.

Sangarun, J. 2001. The effects of pre-task planning on foreign language performance.

Doctoral thesis, University of Toronto, Canada.

Schon, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Seedhouse, P. 1999. Task-based interaction. ELT Journal 53: 149-156. Oxford

University Press.

Skehan, P. 1996a. A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction.

Applied Linguistics 17: 38-62.

Skehan, P. 1998a. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Skehan, P. and P. Foster. 1997. Task type and task processing conditions as influences

on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research 1: 185-211



Wilberg, T. 1987. One-to-One. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.

Willis, D. and J. Willis. 1996. Consciousness-raising activities in the language

classroom. In J. Willis and D. Willis (ed). A Framework for Task-Based Learning.

Harlow: Longman.

Willis, J. 1996. A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Harlow: Longman.

Willis, J. and D. Willis. (eds.). 1996. Challenge and Change in Language Teaching.

Oxford: Heinemann.

Yuan, F. and Ellis, R. 2002. The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on

fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics



Article Title

Educational Settings and Second Language Learning

Author

Rod Ellis

University of Auckland

Dr. Ellis is on the Advisory Board of the Asian EFL Journal

Introduction A general distinction can be drawn between ‘natural’ and ‘educational’ settings. The

former arise in the course of the learners’ contact with other speakers of the L2 in a

variety of situations—in the workplace, at home, through the media, at international

conferences, in business meetings, etc. The latter are traditionally found in institutions

such as schools and universities but, increasingly, in computer-mediated

environments. There will be some learners who experience the L2 entirely in natural

settings and others whose only contact with it is in educational settings. Many learners

will experience the L2 in both natural and educational settings. The focus of this

article is educational settings.

In considering the relationship between setting and language learning, it is important

to clarify what is meant by ‘setting’. In this respect, Coupland’s (2001) distinction

between two types of sociolinguistics is helpful. Type 1 sociolinguistics adopts the

perspective of sociolinguistic realism, according to which social life is viewed as ‘a

structured set of social categories which, to some extent, control our social

characteristics and opportunities’ (p. 2). Type 2 sociolinguistics assumes that ‘social

life and our entire experience of society is best seen as structured through local

actions and practices’ (p. 2).

Accordingly, we can view educational settings as both determining how successful

learners are in learning an L2 and/or as constructed by the participants (the teacher

and the learners) through the social actions that they perform in a particular setting. In

the discussion of the different settings that follows both perspectives will be drawn on.

Types of educational settings

Skuttnab-Kangas (2000) distinguished a number of different types of educational

settings, which she divides into ‘non-forms’ (i.e. types that do not use two languages

of the learner as the media of teaching and learning), ‘weak forms’ (i.e. types that

have monolingualism, strong dominance of one language or limited bilingualism as

their aim) and ‘strong forms’ (i.e. types that aim to promote high levels of bi- or

multilingualism and multiliteracy for all participants). Table 1 summarizes the

different types that Skuttnab-Kangas lists under these headings. However, for reasons

of space, I will only consider the main ones in detail.

The language classroom setting



‘The language classroom’ is defined here as a setting where the target language is

taught as a subject only and is not commonly used as a medium of communication

outside the classroom. In this sense it includes both ‘foreign’ language classrooms

(for example, Japanese classes in the United States or English classes in China) and

‘second’ language classrooms where the learners have no or minimal contact with the

target language outside the language classroom (for example, ‘ESL’ classes in a

francophone area of Canada).

Whereas the second language classroom has been the subject of a number of

sociolinguistic studies (see, for example, Miller, 2004 and Poole, 1992), the foreign

language classroom has been largely neglected by sociolinguists. Rampton (2006)

offered a number of reasons for this neglect. First, in accordance with Type 1

sociolinguistics, the social significance of the target language has been deemed

minimal because its speakers are remote from the learners. Second, sociolinguistic

enquiry has focused on the interface between the home language and the language of

the nation-state (i.e. with language use in majority language settings) and such an

interface does not arise in foreign language classrooms. Third, the overarching

concern with ‘competence’ and with the tacit acquisition of language has led

sociolinguists to view the ‘specialized languages’ of the foreign language classroom

as of no real interest.

However, the distinction between Type 1 and Type 2 sociolinguistics affords a way of

examining the language classroom setting from a social perspective. I will first adopt

a Type 1 perspective by considering the differences between the foreign-language and

second-language classroom in terms of choice of target, the different roles that

teachers and students adopt, and parental support for language learning and the impact

that these factors have on what and how well a learner learns. I will then draw on

Rampton’s (2006) interesting study of how learners of German as a foreign language

in an urban school in London appropriated ‘Deutsch’ for their own purposes as a way

of exploring a Type 2 approach to the language classroom.

Foreign-language classroom contexts can be distinguished from second language

classroom contexts in that native-like cultural and pragmatic competence is not a high

priority in the former (Nayar, 1997). To make it so would constitute a threat to the

learners’ own ethnic identities and also might not be favourably received by native

speakers. Janicki (1985) commented:

It has been noticed that non-natives are likely to face social consequences when their

linguistic behaviour complies with sociolinguistic rules saved (by some norm) for the

natives. Examples are the usage of obscenities, slang expressions, or very formal

pronunciation. It seems that there exists a set of as yet unidentified norms which

proscribe the use of some forms on the part of the non-native speaker.

Preston (1981) suggests that an appropriate model for the L2 learner is that of

‘competent bilingual’ rather than a native-speaker model. This may well be the

implicit model of many learners in foreign-language settings.

The role relationships between teacher and student influence learning in a classroom.

In the case of traditional approaches to language teaching, where the target language

is perceived primarily as an ‘object’ to be mastered by learning about its formal



properties, the teacher typically acts as a ‘knower/informer’ and the learner as an

‘information seeker’ (Corder, 1977). In the case of innovative approaches (for

example, communicative language teaching) where the emphasis is on the use of the

target language in ‘social behaviour’ a number of different role relationships are

possible, depending on whether the participants are ‘playing at talk’, as in role-play

activities, or have a real-life purpose for communicating, as in information gap

activities; the teacher can be ‘producer’ or ‘referee’ and the learner ‘actor’ or ‘player’.

However, Corder noted that even ‘informal learning’ inside the classroom may differ

from that found in natural settings.1 As noted earlier, classroom learners often fail to

develop much functional language ability, which may reflect the predominance of the

knower/information seeker role set in classrooms.

Parents may play an active role by monitoring their children’s curricular activities.

They may also play a more indirect role by modelling attitudes conducive to

successful language learning. A number of studies have found a positive relationship

between parental encouragement and achievement in L2 classroom learning (for

example, Burstall, 1975; Gardner and Smythe, 1975). Gardner (1985) argues that

parents’ influence on proficiency is mediated through the students’ motivation.

I will turn now to examine a Type 2 approach to examining language classroom

settings. Rampton (2006), drawing on the techniques of interactional sociolinguistics,

documented how foreign language learners of German in a London school used

‘Deutsch’ (i.e. their spontaneous improvizations of German) outside their German

classes—in break time, in corridors, and in other subject lessons. Rampton found that

the boys he studied made much greater use of Deutsch than the girls but put this down

to differences in their interactional dispositions rather than their sex (i.e. the boys used

it to show off).

Rampton suggested that the use of German words and phrases served as a resource for

the ‘voluntary “performance” of exhuberant students intent on embellishing the

curriculum discourse in whatever ways they could’ (p. 163), for making ‘music’ out

of their linguistic resources and for ritual purposes (for example, thanking and

apologizing). Rampton also noted that German did not belong to anyone and therefore

served as a racially-neutral language that was ‘safe’ for linguistically heterogeneous

students. Rampton noted however, that the use of Deutsch was a ‘passing fad’. In an

interview some 18 months after the last classroom recording, the students who had

been shown to use Deutsch said they no longer used it and expressed a dislike of their

German classes. Thus, whereas Rampton’s study sheds light on how students can

appropriate elements of a foreign language to enact their social lives in and out of the

classroom, it also suggests that such use may not contribute much to their actual

proficiency in the foreign language.

Skuttnab-Kangas (2000) noted that foreign language classroom settings are

characterized by very varying degrees of success. In countries where the learners’ L1

does not function as a lingua franca the teachers are well-qualified and the language

curricula are well designed (for example, the Nordic countries and the Netherlands)

high levels of proficiency are often achieved. In such countries, learners may also

have exposure to some exposure to the target language outside the classroom (for

example, through TV). In other countries (for example, the UK, France, Japan, and

the USA) the results are less impressive. Ultimately, success in learning a language in



a foreign language classroom may depend on to what extent the learners see the

language playing a role in whatever identity they wish to construct for themselves.

Submersion Skuttnab-Kangas (1988) defined a submersion programme as:

a programme where linguistic minority children with a low-status mother tongue are

forced to accept instruction through the medium of a foreign majority language with

high status, in classes where some children are native speakers of the language of the

instruction, where the teacher does not understand the mother tongue of the minority

children, and where the majority language constitutes a threat to their mother

tongue—a subtractive language learning situation. (p. 40)

Submersion is common in Britain and the United States, where ethnic minority

children are educated in mainstream classrooms. Skuttnab-Kangas (2000) also noted

that deaf children also experience submersion education as there are very few schools

in the world teaching deaf children through the medium of sign languages.

The characteristics of submersion settings are discussed by Cohen and Swain (1979)

and Baker (2006). Right from the beginning, L2 learners are taught with native

speakers. This can create communication problems and insecurity in the learners. If

L1 support is provided, it is of the ‘pull-out’ kind, which stigmatizes the L2 child and

also deprives learners of the opportunity to progress in content subjects. The language

teachers are typically monolingual and thus unable to communicate with the learners

in their L1. In some cases, the learners are actively discouraged from speaking in their

L1. The students’ low academic performance may reflect the low expectations that

teachers often have of the students, particularly those from certain ethnic groups (for

example, Mexican American students in the United States). Reading material and

subject-matter instruction in the L1 are not available, resulting in increased insecurity

in the learners. Parental involvement in the school programme is usually limited.

There are often problems with the learner’ social and emotional adjustment to school.

For many learners, the disjunction between L1 use in the home and L2 use at school

constitutes a painful experience, as Rodriguez’ (1982) autobiography illustrates.

Rodriguez was the son of a Mexican immigrant who settled in a mainly white locality

of California. At school he was required to use English exclusively. At home Spanish

was spoken, until his parents accepted the advice of the Catholic nun teachers at his

school to speak English. Gradually, Rodriguez lost the ability to communicate in

Spanish, signalling his rejection of his Spanish-Mexican identity. Although Rodriguez

was ultimately successful in developing a high level of L2 proficiency, this was

achieved at considerable personal and social cost. Rodriguez himself, however, while

acknowledging the discomfort he experienced at both school and home, did not

question the subtractive model of bilingualism to which he was exposed. In contrast,

other learners, do question it and refuse to assimilate (for example, Skuttnab-Kangas

(2000) mentioned two case studies of members of the Sami group in Nordic countries

in Europe who made strenuous efforts to maintain their L1 and develop literacy skills

in it).

Although submersion settings do not invariably result in lack of success in learning an

L2 (as the Rodriguez example demonstrates), in general they do not facilitate it and



they can lead to L1 attrition. Cummins (1988) identified three characteristics that are

important for L2 acquisition; (1) a bilingual teacher who can understand students

when they speak in their L1, (2) input that has been modified to make it

comprehensible, and (3) effective promotion of L1 literacy skills. Submersion

contexts have none of these. Baker (2006) argued that the basic assumption of

submersion is assimilation, commenting that ‘the school has become a melting pot to

help create common social, political and economic ideals’ (p. 196).

Segregation Segregation occurs where the L2 learner is educated separately from the majority or a

politically powerful minority, who speak the target language as their mother tongue.

As Baker (2006) put it, it ‘forces a monolingual policy on the relative powerless’ (p.

198). Immigrants or migrant workers who are educated in special schools, centres, or

units designed to cater for their language needs constitute an example of segregation

in a majority setting. ‘Bantu education’ in Namibia prior to independence is an

example of segregation in a setting where a powerful minority spoke the official

language (Afrikaans) as a mother tongue.

Skuttnab-Kangas (1988) claimed that segregation settings produce poor results. She

argued that the overall aim of education in these settings is the development of a

limited L2 proficiency—sufficient to meet the needs of the majority or powerful

minority and to ensure their continued political and economic control. Although some

support for L1 development is provided, this is also usually limited. Negative L2-

related factors identified by Skuttnab-Kangas include the poor quality of L2

instruction and the lack of opportunity to practise the L2 in peer-group contexts.

However, the case against segregation is not as clear-cut as Skuttnab-Kangas makes

out. In certain situations, the provision of separate educational facilities may have

beneficial effects. For example, short-term programmes for refugee populations newly

arrived in the United States or European countries can help them adjust socially,

affectively, and linguistically to the demands of their new country. It can also be

argued that the maintenance of minority languages requires at least some segregation.

Magnet (1990), for example, drew on the Canadian experience to argue that a

minority language will only be viable if its speakers enjoy a ‘degree of autonomy and

segregation in order to develop in their own way’ (1990, p. 295). The advantages of

segregation are also recognized by minority communities themselves, as illustrated by

their attempts to set up separate schools for their children. In a later discussion of

segregation, Skuttnab-Kangas (2000) acknowledged that it has ‘a somewhat better

record than submersion’ (p. 592).

Segregation also has some advantages where L2 learning is concerned. In particular,

because the learners are likely to be at the same level of development, it is possible to

tailor input to their level. Where the learners have different L1s, the L2 is likely to

serve as a language of classroom communication and not just as a learning target.

This is likely to broaden the functions that it typically serves. For these reasons,

segregation may facilitate the development of ‘survival skills’ in the L2. However, as

Skuttnab-Kangas (2000) pointed out, it has a number of disadvantages, such as the

failure to develop high levels of bilingualism and, in some contexts, negative societal

consequences. She argued that, in contrast to mother tongue maintenance settings it is

distinctly inferior.



Mother tongue maintenance

Skuttnab-Kangas pointed out that mother tongue maintenance can take two forms. In

the weaker form, pupils are given classes in their mother tongue, directed at

developing formal language skills, including full literacy. In the stronger form, pupils

are educated through the medium of their mother tongue. Examples of the former are

the programmes for Panjabi established in Bradford, UK (Fitzpatrick 1987) and the

Heritage Language Program established in Ontario, Canada (Cummins, 1992). These

programmes were all funded by government or regional agencies. However, there is

often reluctance on the part of such agencies to pay for community language

programmes. Saravanan (1995), for example, reports that it took several years of

lobbying to persuade the Singaporean government to support community run

classrooms in Hindi, Panjabi, Bengali, and Urdu. In the USA, Chinese heritage

community language schools are funded through tuition and private fund-raising

(Wang 1996). Examples of programmes where learners are educated through the

medium of their mother tongue can be found in the Finnish-medium classes for

Finnish migrant workers in Sweden (Skuttnab-Kangas, 1988). Summing up national

policies and practices regarding minority language maintenance in Western countries,

Skuttnab-Kangas (2000) commented: ‘Despite the small recent improvements, it

seems clear that Western countries have so far not respected what should be basic

linguistic human rights, especially in education, and that the world so far does little to

prevent linguistic and cultural genocide’ (p. 563).

Mother tongue maintenance programmes are based on enrichment theory, according

to which high levels of bilingualism are seen as a cognitive and social advantage. This

contrasts with deficit theory, which views bilingualism as a burden and as likely to

result in cognitive disadvantage. The results of research strongly suggest that additive

bilingualism (the goal of mother tongue maintenance) confers linguistic, perceptual,

and intellectual advantages. (See Swain and Cummins, 1979 for a review.)

There is also evidence that mother tongue maintenance settings, particularly those of

the strong kind, result in considerable educational success (Skuttnab-Kangas, 1988).

They are characterized by positive organizational factors (for example, appropriate

cultural content in teaching materials), positive affective factors (for example, low

anxiety, high internal motivation, self-confidence in the learners), success in

developing full control of the L1, metacultural awareness, and a high level of

proficiency in the L2.

Mother tongue maintenance provides support for L2 learning in two main ways. First,

it ensures that the L2 is an additional rather than a replacement language and thus

results in learners developing a positive self-identity. As Spolsky noted, learning an

L2 is intimately tied up with one’s personality and being forced to learn an L2 as a

replacement for the L1 is a ‘direct assault on identity’ (1986, p. 188). Mother tongue

maintenance, then, is more likely to result in the positive attitudes needed for

successful L2 development.

The second way involves a consideration of Cummins’ interdependency principle

(Cummins 1981). This claims that whereas basic interpersonal communication skills

(BICS) develop separately in the L1 and L2, cognitive academic language proficiency

(CALP) is common across languages.2 Cummins noted that whereas L2



communicative skills are typically mastered by immigrant learners in about two years,

it can take from five to seven years for the same learners to approach grade norms for

L2 academic skills. The interdependency principle has been demonstrated in a number

of studies. Studies of the Portuguese-Canadian community in Toronto (Cummins et

al., 1990), of Japanese immigrant children in Canada (Cummins and Nakajima, 1987),

and of Turkish immigrant children in Holland (Verhoeven, 1991) support the

importance of L1 academic skills as a basis for successful development of L2 CALP.

Swain and Lapkin (1991) also showed that literacy in a community language benefits

the learning of a second L2 (in this case, French) as a result of the transfer of

knowledge and learning processes. The notion of interdependency is an important one

because it suggests that the development of full L1 proficiency confers not only

cognitive and social advantages attendant on mother tongue use but also benefits the

acquisition of L2 proficiency.

Immersion Immersion programmes began with the St. Lambert Experiment (Lambert and Tucker,

1972), a French immersion programme for English-speaking children living in

Quebec, Canada. Similar programmes were then started in other parts of Canada.

Subsequently, immersion programmes sprang up in many different parts of the world,

for example in Hungary (Duff 1997), Finland (Bjorklund, 1997), and Catalonia

(Artigal, 1997).

The term ‘immersion’ has come to refer to a number of different contexts, which need

to be clearly distinguished.

Initially, in the context of the Canadian French immersion programmes, it referred to

programmes where members of a majority group (native speakers of English) were

educated through the medium of French, the language of a minority group. There are

a number of variants of these programmes, depending on whether the programme

begins early (for example, in kindergarten) or late (for example, in Grades 4 or 7), and

whether it is full (more or less all instruction is conducted in the L2) or partial (only

part of the curriculum is taught through the L2). However, as Cummins (1988)

pointed out, the term ‘immersion’ is used to refer to a variety of programmes for

minority students. He distinguishes ‘L2 monolingual immersion programs for

minority students’ which provide English-only instruction directed at classes

consisting entirely of L2 learners; ‘L1 bilingual immersion programs for minority

students’, which begin with L1-medium instruction, introducing L2-medium

instruction some time later; and ‘L2 bilingual immersion programs for minority

students’, which emphasize instruction in and on the L2 but which also promote L1

skills. He also noted that, misleadingly, even submersion programmes have been

referred to as ‘immersion’. Skuttnab-Kangas (2000) took the view that the term

‘immersion’ should be reserved for programmes where learners with a high-status L1

are taught through the medium of a low-status L2.

In an attempt to resolve definitional problems, Johnson and Swain (1997) identify a

number of core features of immersion programmes. These are:

1. The L2 is the medium of instruction.

2. The immersion curriculum parallels the local L2 curriculum.

3. Overt support for the L1 exists.



4. The programme aims for additive bilingualism (a feature that Skuttnab-

Kangas considers pivotal).

5. Exposure to the L2 is largely confined to the classroom.

6. Students enter with similar (and limited) levels of proficiency.

7. The teachers are bilingual.

8. The classroom culture is that of the local L1 community.

Swain and Lapkin (2005) reviewed these features in the light of the dramatic increase

in ethnic diversity in Canada’s urban centres, which make feature (8) problematic.

They also revised their views about restricting the learners’ use of the L1,

acknowledging that ‘judicious use’ may be warranted.

The Canadian French immersion programmes have met with considerable success.

Genesee (1987) and Swain and Lapkin (1982) reviewed the various programmes,

reaching similar conclusions. English-speaking immersion students acquire normal

English language proficiency and show the same or better level of general academic

development. Furthermore, they tend to have less rigid ethnolinguistic stereotypes of

the target-language community, and place greater value on the importance of inter-

ethnic contact. These advantages are evident in ‘disadvantaged’ as well as

‘advantaged’ children.

Evaluation of the different kinds of programmes shows that in general, total

immersion produces better results than partial immersion, and also that early

immersion does better than late. The Canadian French immersion settings also lead to

a high level of L2 French proficiency, particularly with regard to discourse and

strategic competence, where learners achieve near-native-speaker levels (Swain,

1985). However, such levels are not usually reached in grammatical proficiency and,

as Hammerley (1987) pointed out, in some cases a kind of ‘classroom pidgin’ can

develop.3 Also, in comparison to younger immersion students (i.e. second graders),

older immersion learners (i.e. fifth and sixth graders) have been observed to rely more

on their L1 when interacting with each other. Tarone and Swain (1995) suggested that

this is because, whereas change from above occurs in early immersion (i.e. learners

are predominantly influenced by the superordinate style, represented in this case by

L2 French), older learners experience increasing pressure for change from below to

perform important interpersonal functions such as play, competition and positioning

within their peer group and resort to L1 English because they do not have access to a

vernacular style French. Swain and Tarone’s argument is supported by Caldas and

Caron-Caldas’ (2002) study, which reported that two adolescent children in a French

immersion programme in Louisiana resisted using French when speaking outside

class with their peers.

Overall, however, immersion programmes are very successful in promoting L2

acquisition. There are many reasons for this. One undoubtedly has to do with the fact

that immersion settings ensure a plentiful supply of input that has been tailored to the

learners’ level and is therefore comprehensible. There are also social reasons. The

learners’ L1 and their ethnic identity are not threatened, so it is easy for the learners to

adjust to the immersion setting. Furthermore, the immersion programmes are optional

and, therefore, are well-supported by those parents who elect to send their children to

them.

Dual language



Dual language programmes are often referred to as ‘bilingual minority immersion

programmes’. They are common in the United States, where they have been

controversial. There has been considerable opposition to bilingual programmes for

linguistic minorities, as reflected in the Official English Movement—the attempt to

have English designated as the official language of the United States and to ensure

that educational resources are directed towards teaching English rather than some

other language—see Bingaman 1990.

Cummins (1988) pointed out that the debate has centred on two arguments, both of

which are mistaken. Supporters of minority bilingual programmes have advanced the

‘linguistic-mismatch’ argument, according to which minority children will be retarded

academically if they are required to learn exclusively through the L2. This is mistaken

because the French Canadian immersion programmes have shown conclusively that

early instruction through the medium of the L2 has no negative effects. Critics of

bilingual immersion programmes have also advanced the ‘maximum exposure’

argument, according to which bilingual education is detrimental because it deprives

learners of the exposure to the L2 necessary for successful acquisition. This is refuted

by programmes which show that minority children who spend less time on English

while they are developing L1 literacy skills ultimately do just as well in L2 academic

skills as those who are educated exclusively through the L2. Cummins argued that

minority programmes that are designed in such a way that they reflect the

interdependency principle and the comprehensible input hypothesis have been shown

to be successful. Genesee, however, suggested that the success of minority immersion

programmes also depends on ‘changing the sociocultural fabric of the school’ (1987:

168–9). He noted that ways are needed to upgrade the status and power attached to the

minority language and to teachers and support personnel who speak it as an L1.

Genesee’s comment points to the need to consider social as well as organizational

factors in immersion education.

Conclusion In this article, I have considered the relationship between different educational

settings and L2 learning. The aim has been to identify the potential learning outcomes

associated with different types of settings, defined in very broad terms. It is important

to note that there will be considerable variance in learning outcomes within settings as

well as between settings. Research to date (with the exception of that investigating the

immersion programmes) has focused more or less exclusively on identifying the

actual or potential ‘learning opportunities’ that arise in the different settings rather

than investigating ‘learning outcomes’.

It is possible to identify a set of general principles that underlie likely language

learning success in educational settings. The following is a list of such principles.

1.L1 maintenance—ensuring that learners achieve a high level of both oracy and

literacy in their L1 will promote learning of the L2.

2. Perceptions of L1—learning is enhanced when the setting confers status on both

their L1 and the L2.

3. Social need—learners learn best when they have a clear social need for the L2. This

social need is highly varied, however. (For example, it can derive from the desire for



power and status, from the use of the L2 as a medium of instruction, from the

importance learners attach to achieving social cohesion, or from the ‘gaming’ that

takes place in peer groups.)

4.Target norms—success in L2 learning cannot always be measured in terms of a set

of norms based on a standard form of the language. Learners may be targeted on a

nativized variety of the language or on a local dialect. There may a conflict between

the norms the students are targeted on and the norms the educational setting promotes.

5. Initial learning—initial L2 learning is more successful if learners have the

opportunity to learn within an L1 speaking group (as opposed to a context where they

are immersed in a group of native speakers).

Notes

1. This discussion of roles focuses on the interactional roles adopted by teachers and

learners in the classroom. Such roles reflect the status of the participants as teachers

and students. They reflect the positions which educational institutions expect them to

adopt. These are socially and culturally determined. This may be why teachers in

some African and Asian countries seem to find it especially difficult to abandon the

traditional role of ‘knower’.

2. Contrary to Cummins’ claim, there is also some evidence that BICS is

interdependent. Verhoeven (1991) showed that children’s ability to produce context-

embedded language in an L2 matches their ability to do so in their L1.

3. Hammerley’s attack on the Canadian French immersion programmes has come in

for considerable criticism. Collier (1992, p. 87), for example, characterizes his 1989

book as an ‘emotional, polemical, one-sided account of his personal views … with

scant research evidence cited to undergird his opinions’.

References Artigal, J. (1997). The Catalan immersion program. In R. Johnson and M. Swain

(Eds.), Immersion Education: International Perspectives (pp. 133-150). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

Bingaman, J. (1990). On the English proficiency act. In K. Adams and D. Brinks

(Eds.), Perspectives on official English: The campaign for English as the official

language of the USA. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bjorklund, S. (1997). Immersion in Finland in the 1990s: A state of development and

expansion. In R. Johnson and M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion Education: International

Perspectives (pp. 85-102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burstall, C. (1975). Factors affecting foreign-language learning: a consideration of

some relevant research findings. Language Teaching and Linguistics Abstracts, 8,

105-125.



Caldas, S. and Caron-Caldas, S. (2002). A sociolinguistic analysis of the language

preferences of adolescent bilinguals: Shifting allegiances and developing identities.

Applied Linguistics, 23, 490-514.

Cohen, A. and Swain, M. (1979). Bilingual education: The 'immersion' model in the

North American context. In J. Pride (Ed.), Sociolinguistic aspects of language

learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Corder, S. P. (1977). Language teaching and learning: A social encounter. In H.

Brown, C. Yorio, and R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL '77. Washington D.C.: TESOL.

Coupland, N. (2001). ‘Introduction: Sociolinguistic theory and social theory.’ in N.

Coupland, S. Sarangi and C. Candlin (Eds.), Sociolinguistic and social theory (pp. 1-

26). Harlow: Pearson Education.

Cummins, J. (1981). Bilingualism and minority children. Ontario: Ontario Institute for

Studies in Education.

Cummins, J. (1988). Second language acquisition within bilingual education

programs. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: multiple

perspectives (pp. 145-166). New York: Newbury House.

Cummins, J. (1992). Heritage language teaching in Canadian schools. Journal of

Curriculum Studies, 24, 281-6.

Cummins, J., Harley, B., Swain, M. and Allen, P. (1990). Social and individual

factors in the development of bilingual proficiency. In Harley et al. (Eds.), The

development of second language proficiency (pp. 119-133). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Cummins, J. and Nakajima, K. (1987). Age of arrival, length of residence, and

interdependence of literacy skills among Japanese immigrant students. In B. Harley, P.

Allen, J. Cummins and M. Swain (Eds.). The development of bilingual proficiency:

Final report. Volume III: Social context and age. Toronto: Modern Language Centre,

O.I.S.E.

Duff, P. (1997). Immersion in Hungary: An EFL experiment. In R. Johnson and M.

Swain (Eds.), Immersion Education: International Perspectives (pp. 19-43).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fitzpatrick, F. (1987). The open door: The Bradford bilingual project. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

Gardner, R. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of

attitude and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Gardner, R. and Smythe, P. (1975). Second language acquisition: A social

psychological approach. Research Bulletin 332. Department of Psychology,

University of Western Ontario. Cited in Gardner 1985.



Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and

bilingual education. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.

Hammerley, H. (1987). The immersion approach: Litmus test of second language

acquisition through classroom communication. Modern Language Journal, 71,

395-401.

Janicki, K. (1985). The foreigner's language: A sociolinguistic perspective. Oxford:

Pergamon Press.

Johnson, R. and Swain, M. (Eds.) (1997). Immersion education: International

perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lambert, W. and Tucker, G. (1972). The bilingual education of children: The St.

Lambert experiment. Rowley, MA.: Newbury House.

Magnet, J. (1990). Canadian perspectives on official English. In K. Adams and D.

Brink (Eds.), Perspectives on official English: the campaign for English as the official

language of the USA. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Miller, J. (2004). Identity and language use: The politics of speaking ESL in schools.

In A. Pavlenko and A. Blackledge, I. Piller, and M. Teutsch-Dwyer (Eds.),

Multilingualism, Second Language Learning, and Gender (pp. 290-315). Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter.

Poole, D. (1992). Language socialization in the second language classroom. Language

Learning, 42, 593-616.

Preston, D. (1981). The ethnography of TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 105-16.

Preston, D. (1989). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Rampton, B. (2006). Language in later modernity: Interaction in an urban school.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Rodriguez, R. (1982). Hunger of memory: The education of Richard Rodriguez.

Boston: David R. Godine.

Saravanan, V. (1995). Linguistic and cultural maintenance through education for

minority groups in Singapore. In M. Tickoo (Ed.), Language and culture in

multilingual societies (pp. 139-151). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Skuttnab-Kangas, T. (1988). Multilingualism and the education of minority children.

In T. Skuttnab-Kangas and J. Cummins (Eds.), Minority education (pp. 9-44)..

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Skuttnab-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education – or worldwide

diversity in human rights? Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum.



Spolsky, B. (1986). Overcoming language barriers to education in a multilingual

world. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Language and education in multilingual settings.

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input

and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds.),

Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-256) Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Swain, M. and Cummins, J. (1979). Bilingualism, cognitive functioning and education.

Language Teaching and Abstracts, 4-18. Reprinted in V. Kinsella (Ed.), 1982.

Surveys 1: Eight state-of-the-art articles on key areas in language teaching.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1982). Evaluating bilingual education: A Canadian case

study. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.

Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1991). Heritage language children in an English-French

bilingual program. Canadian Modern Language Review, 47, 635-41.

Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (2005). The evolving socio-political context of immersion

education in Canada: some implications for program development. International

Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 169-186.

Tarone, E. and Swain, M. (1995). A sociolinguistic perspective on second-language

use in immersion classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 79, 166-178.

Tosi, A. (1984). Immigration and bilingual education. Oxford: Pergamon.

Verhoeven, L. (1991). Predicting minority children's bilingual proficiency: child,

family and institutional factors. Language Learning, 41, 205-233.

Wang, X. (Ed.). (1996). A view from within: A case study of Chinese heritage

community language schools in the United States. Washington, DC: National Foreign

Language Center.



Article Title

Effective Reading

Author

Ngan Phan

Introduction Reading is not merely a receptive process of picking up information from the page in

a word-by-word manner (Grabe, 1991). Rather, it is a selective process and

characterized as an active process of comprehending. Therefore, non-English-

speaking readers find it important to employ reading strategies to read English texts

more effectively. According to Grabe, effective reading is rapid, purposeful,

comprehending, flexible and gradually developing. So, reading is a very complex

process, and this is what drives many researchers to attempt to understand and explain

its process.

Reading strategies

According to Oxford and Crookall (1989), strategies can be operationalized as

learning techniques, behaviors, and problem-solving or study skills that enhance

learning more effectively and efficiently. In the light of second language learning,

however, it is crucial to see the difference between strategies that enhance learning

and strategies that improve comprehension. For this study, reading comprehension

strategies are the main focus and are seen as comprehension processes that enable

readers to construct meaning from the printed page most effectively. In other words,

those strategies show how readers tackle a reading task, how they interpret their

reading and what they do when they do not comprehend. Brantmeier summarizes

these strategies as follows:

“The strategies may involve skimming, scanning, guessing, recognizing cognates and

word families, reading for meaning, predicting, activating general knowledge, making

inferences, following references, and separating main ideas from supporting ideas”

(2002, p.1).

Furthermore, the reading strategies can consist of evaluating content, such as agreeing

or disagreeing, making an association with prior knowledge or experience, asking and

answering questions, looking at the key words, using sentence structure analysis such

as determining the subject, verb or object of the sentence, skipping and rereading

(Almasi, 2003; Sugirin, 1999). Clearly, not all strategies are of equal effectiveness

due to the different types of reading texts and tasks, and reading strategy use by each

reader.

A number of studies have been conducted on the use of reading strategies by second

language readers. In a qualitative study, Hosenfeld (1977) examined successful and

unsuccessful readers to find out what types of cognitive operations they used to

process written texts. In an oral interview, the participants were asked to read a text



and do think-aloud reports, i.e. they were directed to say in their first language

whatever came to their minds while processing each sentence in the text. By doing so,

the researcher could identify relationships between certain types of reading strategies

and successful or unsuccessful second language readers. Specifically, the good

readers tended to maintain the meaning of the text in mind, read in large phrases,

ignore unimportant vocabulary and had a positive self-concept as a reader. However,

inexperienced readers failed to extract the main idea from the sentences, worked in

short phrases, rarely skipped any unimportant words and had a negative self-concept.

Think-aloud procedures were also used by Block (1986) to find the effect of using

strategies on reading comprehension. Block compared the reading comprehension

strategies used by native English speakers and English as a Second Language (ESL)

students who were enrolled in a remedial reading course at the university level, and

she connected these behaviors to comprehension. Having failed a college reading

proficiency test before the study, the subjects were designated as non-proficient

readers. They were asked to read two expository passages and do a think-aloud while

reading (they reported all the thoughts that occurred to them after each sentence).

After finishing reading and retelling each passage, they were instructed to answer

twenty multiple-choice comprehension questions. Results showed that the

participants’ first language background (Chinese, Spanish and/or English) did not

account for the use of particular strategies. The results showed that readers with

higher comprehension scores on the retellings and the multiple-choice questions

integrated new information in the text with old information, extracted main ideas from

details, referred to their background, and focused on textual meanings as a whole that

are all classified as top-down strategies. Readers with low comprehension scores, on

the other hand, seldom did so.

In a later study and using the same protocol, Block (1992) investigated the

comprehension-monitoring process used by proficient and non-proficient ESL readers.

The results indicated that when being confronted with a vocabulary problem,

proficient ESL readers used their background knowledge, decided on whether the

word was the key to the overall meaning of the passage, reread the sentence and

worked out the meaning of the word by using syntactic clues. These strategies are

categorized as top-down behaviors. Meanwhile, less-proficient ESL readers

concentrated on identifying lexical problems and did not make an effort to figure out

the meaning of words and, therefore, failed to recognize the key words from the

reading text.

Sugirin (1999) used a multi-method study to explore the comprehension strategies

of EFL readers. He collected data by using think-aloud protocol analysis, retellings, a

reading comprehension test, in-depth interviews and casual observations. There were

fifteen participants in the study, but only the profiles of the two participants rated as

above-average readers were displayed. The two participants did the think-aloud

activity in their native language, Indonesian. The analysis showed that employing the

think-aloud protocols alone might not have effectively revealed some of the strategies

and phenomena in the study. Others, such as in-depth interviews, were helpful in

discovering strategies. The results indicated that there were noticeable gaps among the

participants in the degree of comprehension and the strategies used. Moreover, the

subjects were found to share characteristics of both poor and good readers. In the

think-aloud activity, they skimmed the whole text at the beginning although they were



instructed to read it sentence by sentence, which indicates that their strategies follow

top-down processing, considered a characteristic of good readers’ strategies.

Interestingly, the reading text seemed to be easy for one participant whose strategy

pattern included the three elements of inferring, association with prior knowledge, and

evaluation followed by paraphrasing. The other participant focused attention on

questioning the meaning of a word or words before trying to paraphrase the sentence

and making an inference, which is deemed to be bottom-up processing, characteristic

of poor or less proficient readers’ strategies.

Ahmad Asraf (2004) did a research study on the underlying strategies used by second

language learners in responding to English texts. This case study investigated how the

learners made an effort to comprehend the texts by selecting, understanding and

integrating information in the context of eight reading comprehension sub-skills in the

form of comprehension questions, such as word meaning, words in context, literal

comprehension, drawing inferences from single strings, etc. The main goal of this

study was to test the hypothesis: “there is a difference between good and average

readers in their response to the various question types within the framework of the

eight sub-skills” (p. 34). In this study, average readers were selected by their class

teachers, the school supervisors, the head teacher, their language teachers, and their

mid-year language test scores, which were from 50-70 out of a possible 100. In

addition, the monthly test scores for English were counted, and their verbal

communication ability was good. Likewise, the same selection criteria were applied

for good readers whose mid-year language test scores were from 80-100 and oral and

written abilities were very good. The results suggested that the same comprehension

answering strategies were used by the good and average readers. However, the good

readers were more consistently focused on each question type than the average ones;

they articulated their comprehension answering strategies more often on each question

type than the average readers. This, therefore, shows the importance of cognitive

contextual awareness in obtaining reading comprehension.

Metacognitive awareness

Together with cognitive strategies, metacognitive awareness plays an essential part in

achieving comprehension. Metacognitive awareness in reading processes deals with

the knowledge about ourselves as readers, the reading tasks that we confront, and the

reading strategies that we apply so as to solve the tasks (Baker & Brown, (1984) as

cited in Singhal, 2001). Several studies have been carried out to seek the relationship

between metacognitive awareness and reading comprehension. Devine’s (1983) (as

cited in Shinghal, 2001) conducted a study on L2 readers’ conceptualizations of their

L2 reading processes through interviews. The results showed that older and more

proficient readers tended to focus on reading as a meaning-making process rather than

a decoding process. Meanwhile, the younger and less proficient readers appeared to

do the opposite. In addition, conducting a study of L2 reading with 278 French

language students, Barnett (1988) pointed out that proficient ESL readers displayed

more awareness of their use of strategies in reading English than less proficient ESL

readers. Carrell’s (1989) study (as cited in Chern, 1994) also found support for

positive relationships between readers’ metacognitive awareness of strategy use and

their reading capacity in both L1 and L2. More recently, Sheorey and Mokhtari

(2001) (as cited in Mokhtari, K. & Sheorey, R. (2002)) discovered the relation

between students’ reading capacity and strategy use while reading. In both ESL and



U.S college student groups, high-ability readers showed a higher level of awareness

and strategy use than low-ability ones.

The above research findings on reading strategies indicate that there are, indeed,

differences between proficient readers and non-proficient readers in terms of strategy

use. There is also a strong relationship between reading strategies and proficiency

level. Overall, good readers appear to use a wider range of strategies with higher

frequency than poor readers do. As a result, detecting reading strategies used by

readers when reading plays an essential part in this domain. It is anticipated that the

more reading strategies readers employed while reading, the better the comprehension.

Conclusion Although much literature has been devoted to reading, there is still little known about

the reading process of ESL learners. Block (1986) stated the significance of widening

the knowledge about the process of reading, not just the product of reading, so as to

design reading programs that truly meet the needs of students. Grabe (1991)

emphasized the need to conduct more second language reading research. Furthermore,

with an overview of the research on L2 learners and reading strategies, Singhal (2001)

called for more studies, such as studies of reading strategies and metacognitive factors

in L2 reading, because “many questions about reading comprehension and the reading

process still remain” (p. 8). Similarly, after Brantmeier (2002) carried out her second

language reading strategy research at the secondary and university levels, she stressed

that there remains important research to be done in this area, especially similar studies

to obtain consistent results before generalizing to the whole population. Indeed, past

investigations have focused mainly on the question of comparing effective readers

with less effective readers in terms of reading strategies. What is apparent is that not

many studies have specifically examined which reading strategies are selected and

employed by non-English-speaking students while coping with a reading text in

English. Consequently, discovering reading strategies used by non-English students

when interacting with an English reading text in an academic context is the goal of

this study. Another goal is to deepen the understanding of the process of their

employing reading comprehension strategies.

References Ahmad, I. S. & Asraf, R. M (2004, April). Making sense of text: Strategies used by

good and average readers. Reading Matrix, 26-37. Retrieved March 10th, 2005, from:

http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/asraf_ahmad/article.pdf

Ahmad, I.S. & Asraf, R. M (2004, April). Making sense of text: strategies used by

good and average readers. Reading Matrix, 26-37. Retrieved March 10th, 2005, from:

http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/asraf_ahmad/article.pdf

Almasi, J.F. (2003). Teaching strategic processes in reading. New York: The

Guilford Press.

Benhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical,

empirical, and classroom perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL

Quarterly, 26(2), 319-341.



Brantmeier, C. (2002, September). Second language reading strategies research at the

secondary and university levels: Variations, disparities and generalizability. Reading

Matrix, 1-14. Retrieved March 10th, 2005, from:

http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/brantmeier/article.pdf

Chiou-lan, Chern (1994). Chinese readers’ metacognitive awareness in reading

Chinese and English. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED 386 060, FL 023 225).

Dechant, E. (1991). Understanding and teaching reading: An interactive model.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence

from an empirical study of ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 13, 431-469.

Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL

Quarterly, 25(3), 375-406.

Grabe, W. & Stoller, F. L (2002). Teaching and researching reading. Harlow:

Pearson Education Longman.

Hosenfeld, C. (1977). A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of

successful and unsuccessful second language learners. System, 5, 11-123.

Levine, A & Reves, T. (1998). Data-collecting on reading-writing strategies: a

comparison of instruments: A case study. Retrieved October 9th, 2005, from:

http://writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej11/a1.html

Maria, K. & Hathaway, K. (1993). Using think alouds with teachers to develop

awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Reading, 37(1), 0022-4102.

Nuttal, C. (1982). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. London: Heinemann.

Oxford, R. & Crookall, D. (1989). Research on language learning strategies: Methods,

findings, and instructional issues. Modern Language Journal, 73, 404-419.

Rosenberg, V. M. (1989). Reading, writing, thinking: Critical connections. New

York: Random House.

Pica, T. (1994). Questions from the classroom: research perspectives. TESOL

Quarterly, 28, 49-79

Singhal, Meena (2001, April). Reading proficiency, reading strategies, metacognitive

awareness and L2 readers. Reading Matrix, 1-9. Retrieved March 10th, 2005, from:

http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/singhal/

Sugirin (1999). Exploring the comprehension strategies of EFL readers: A multi-

method study. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED 428 548, FL 025 735).



Sugirin (1999). Studying the academic reading comprehension process: responding to

methodological concerns. Retrieved October 2nd, 2005, from:

http://www.herdsa.org.au/branches/vic/Cornerstones/pdf/Sugirin.PDF

Swaffar, J.K., Arens, M.K., & Byrnes, H. (1991). Reading for meaning: An

integrated approach to language learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.



Article Title

The Importance of Teaching Pronunciation to Adult Learners

Authors

Tim Thompson & Matt Gaddes

Abstract

If the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) is valid, what can be gained from attempting

to teach pronunciation at the college level? According to Vitanova and Miller (2002),

students were excited about their improvement in segmentals, supra-segmentals, self-

monitoring and self-correction. Improvement is important and attainable even though

native speaker like pronunciation may be impossible after a certain age. So while

younger learners may have the advantage of being able to achieve such pronunciation

proficiency, adult learners are able to use their cognitive abilities to improve through

self-monitoring and self-correction.

Introduction Those of us who teach English as a second language to adults might be tempted to

avoid teaching pronunciation since the Critical Period Hypothesis suggests that adults

won't be able to achieve native-like fluency. This is reinforced by the current language

learning methodology, namely Communicative Language Teaching, failing to know

what to do with the teaching of pronunciation (Krashen and Terrell, 1983, pp. 89-91;

Terrell, 1989, p. 197) What, then, is to be gained by pursuing pronunciation

instruction in our adult classes? The answer is quite a lot.

While adult students may never be able to pass as native-speakers, improving

pronunciation can improve learners' confidence and motivation. Adults stand to

improve their fluency and comprehension levels in both the segmental and supra-

segmental areas of pronunciation as well as learn to self-monitor and self-correct.

After all, one of the major advantages adult students possess is the ability to self

examine how they learn. Hammond (1995) notes that we must also take into account

the importance of handling both sound and meaning in the pursuit of the linguistic

goals of our students (p.294). To do any less is to short -change our learners.

The paper will begin with an overview of the Critical Period Hypothesis. Segmental

and supra-segmental aspects of pronunciation will be discussed and it will be shown

that adults, specifically Koreans, can improve in these areas. Finally, self-monitoring

and self-correction will be examined as tools for adults to improve their pronunciation

skills. Korean language learners will be used as examples.

The Critical Period Hypothesis

The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) posits that after a certain period of time our

language learning abilities decrease significantly. Scientists say that as we get older

and our brains begin to mature, lateralization occurs as certain functions are assigned



to either the left or right side of the brain. Children's brains, which have not lateralized

yet, are able to use both hemispheres for language learning. But once lateralization is

complete, research suggests that we rely solely on our left hemisphere for language

skills. Therefore, we have a critical period of time before we lose this ability to use

both hemispheres simultaneously for language learning (Brown 2000).

There is a solid body of evidence supporting the CPH. Jayeon Lim (2003) cites

Johnson & Newport (1991) who connect L2 proficiency with the age of exposure.

Proficiency goes down as the age increases (Lim, p.1). Gina La Porta (2000) cites

Patkosky's (1980) point which "found that learners under the age of fifteen achieved

higher syntactic proficiency than those who were over the age of fifteen at the onset

of exposure" (p.1). The concept of a Language Acquisition Device (LAD) also adds

weight to the Critical Period Hypothesis because if the LAD does exist inside us,

could it not shut off and cause a diminished ability to acquire languages?

Thomas Scovel (1969), cited in Brown (2000), spoke out strongly against the CPH.

He pointed out that adults are superior learners in areas such as literacy, vocabulary

and syntax. Accent was the only advantage that children possessed as language

learners (Brown, 2000). Therefore, we can no longer expect our adult students to

improve to what Guiora, Beit-Hallami, Brannon, Dull and Scovel (1972), cited in

(Brown, 2000), called "authentic" pronunciation (p. 55). Teachers should help

students improve in their weakest areas as well as areas that might hinder them from

being understood.

Belief in the CPH -especially the wholesale kind- can cause an adult language teacher

to lose heart. Why are we bothering to teach a second language to people who have

lost the ability to learn the language well? However, if we take a closer look at the

CPH, we see that it doesn't state that adults can't learn an L2. It doesn't even say that

adults can't improve their pronunciation. What it states is that after lateralization

occurs at a certain age (i.e. puberty) learners' accents are directly effected (Lenneberg,

1967, p.9), and thus their pronunciation. Having said that, the inference is that adults

aren't able to acquire a perfect accent and pronunciation while acquiring a language.

While that may be true, there is still a great deal that they can learn and work towards

in their language acquisition goals.

Segmentals Hansen (1995) notes that segmental techniques, like drilling minimal pairs, have lost

favor in the current pedagogical climes of CLT (p. 289). As often happens older

methodologies and approaches that offer students something worthwhile are discarded

in favor of more ideologically appropriate methodologies.

Yet one area where adult learners can improve rapidly is the pronunciation of

segmentals. Segmentals are the individual sounds that can be broken down in a

language and focused on individually. Hammond (1995) notes that adults learning a

second language are capable of "perceiving and articulating subtle" differences.

However, the inference is that these must be made explicit (p.300). Segmentals don't

need to be taught technically, although a background in phonetics would be useful.

Tricks such as telling students to make a rabbit face to correctly produce an /f/ sound

can help them to remember longer.



Korean students can be taught to identify the differences between the sounds that

aren't present in the Korean Hangul alphabet. Learning to distinguish differences

aurally can help students recognize individual, distinct sounds so they are better able

to focus on producing them. Fraser (1999) points out that there can be a sizeable gap

between "what people think they are saying, a phonetic description of the sounds they

are actually producing, and how someone from a different language background

describes their speech" (p.2). Students may not realize that they sound different from

the teacher or an audio tape. Dalton (1997) suggests that students will convert unclear

input into a similar sound in their own language. Since the Korean alphabet doesn't

have an /f/ sound, Koreans will substitute /p/ or even /hw/. Through the use of

contrastive analysis students can develop a better understanding of the differences

between their L1 and English.

Improvement with segmentals can lead to a feeling of accomplishment and increased

motivation. Vitanova and Miller (2002) cite a student who wrote:

"I changed my wrong consonant sounds likes F, P, B, V and RL sounds into correct

enunciation. I was very happy to hear that my American friends told me, 'Your

pronunciation is getting better'" (Vitanova & Miller, p.2). Conversely, segmental

pronunciation mistakes can also lead to embarrassing misunderstandings such as

asking for a cap but receiving a cup.

Supra-segmentals The supra-segmental aspects of pronunciation can also be improved by adult learners.

Supra-segmentals are comprised of language stress, rhythm, intonation, pitch,

duration and loudness. Students whose first language is syllable timed, like Korean,

will inevitably find mastering a stress timed language, such as English, a very

daunting task (Bell, 1996). By placing more or less stress on certain words the

speaker's context can change completely. Therefore, the differences in supra-

segmentals between Korean students' L1 and English are topics that our students

should not only be aware of but should make a conscious effort to study and focus on.

Fortunately, intonation can be learned as a set of rules similar to grammar

(Wennerstrom, 1999). Cognitive learning, such as this, is generally easier for adult

learners.

In order to help students improve what could be considered the musical aspect of

pronunciation, teachers must start with the basics. Can your students identify the

number of syllables in words? Many students aren't aware that most dictionaries show

syllabic divisions. The ways that words are broken down vary between languages.

The Korean language, for example, requires that a vowel sound be present between

consonants. Therefore, one syllable words such as 'stress' or 'school' become 'suh-tuh-

re-suh' and 'suh-kool'. Students can practice counting syllables with clapping or

underlining drills. Teachers should keep in mind that, as with segmentals, "the

learners actually hear speech very differently than the teachers themselves do" (Fraser,

1999, p. 4). Therefore, what might sound like one syllable to a native speaker might

sound like two or even three syllables to a student and be reproduced incorrectly.

After students have mastered English syllables, teachers should discuss word stress.

Students should be aware that by stressing certain words in a sentence the context will

change. Let's consider a sentence like: He is driving to the beach. By stressing the

word "He" we are ruling out other people. By stressing the word "driving" we are



ruling out other forms of transportation. By stressing the word "beach" we are ruling

out other locations for him to go to.

Vitanova and Miller (2002) mention a student who achieved positive results by

focusing on suprasegmentals. The student wrote:

Before I took this course, my speech tone was very flat. The most important thing is I

didn't realize it, but now, I know a lot of how to divide thought groups, and where I

should make an emphasis when I read sentences. I really think I made a big progress

on it (p. 3).

Self-Monitoring and Self-Correction

Research has shown (Vitanova & Miller, 2002) that adults can see improvement in

both segmental and supra-segmental areas of pronunciation. However, once students

have mastered the basic sounds of English and identified some of the supra-segmental

differences between their L1 and English, it is time to help them learn some strategies

so that they can study more effectively on their own. The advantage of advanced

cognitive awareness is something that adults possess but children do not. Self-

monitoring is the conscious action of listening to one's own speech in order to find

errors. Self-correction is the process of fixing one's errors after they have occurred by

repeating the word or phrase correctly. By teaching our adult students to self-monitor

and self-correct, we enable them to make their learning more personal and hopefully

more meaningful.

Some strategies for helping students improve self-monitoring and self-correction

include: critical listening, compiling learning portfolios, utilizing CALL resources and

studying in pronunciation-specific classes. Critical listening can be very useful for

enabling students to recognize and correct their own errors (Fraser, 1999). Once

students recognize that a long /i/ sound requires that the mouth be stretched widely,

they can feel the difference when they speak or watch others speak. Watching others

serves to reinforce the forms that they have been taught.

Effective self-monitoring requires that students take control of their learning. Students

can become more autonomous learners by compiling pronunciation portfolios and

keeping records of their progress (Thompson, Taylor & Gray, 2001). Pronunciation

portfolios could contain tongue twisters, diagrams of mouth and tongue positions or

any activity that pertains to pronunciation. Students can also keep learning journals,

which outline their feelings or concerns while improving their pronunciation. This

allows them to go back and think about their mistakes as well as monitor their own

progress.

CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning) can also be an important tool when

attempting to help students become more autonomous by allowing them to hear their

own mistakes and see both segmental and supra-segmental graphic representations.

CALL benefits students by letting them study at their own pace in a semi-private

environment as well as allowing them to build profiles which enable teachers to

monitor their improvement (Nari, Cucchiarni & Strik, 2001). Molholt, Lane, Tanner

and Fischer (1988) point out that when students see and hear similar words they are



more able to differentiate both segmental and supra-segmental aspects of the language

and thus self-correct their own pronunciation difficulties.

Pronunciation classes can also be an effective way for students to improve self-

assessment skills. Rajadurai (2001) writes about Malaysian students who took

pronunciation classes saying, "… students felt that pronunciation classes had helped

make them more conscious of their own pronunciation and aware of ways in which

their pronunciation differed from the model offered (p. 14)."

Helping our students take more control of their learning is an important "next step" in

the learning process. We, however, must remember that students need a solid

understanding of phonetics and phonology before they can be expected to monitor

their own speech or utilize self-evaluation effectively (Vitanova & Miller, 2002).

Research by Jones, Rusmin and Evans, (1994) cited in Jones (1997), showed that by

teaching phonological rules, we can help students become better equipped to listen to

their own speech and catch their own mistakes.

Conclusion Adult ESL and EFL learners may never sound like native speaks. Therefore many

language teachers read to reevaluate their teachers' goals in respect to pronunciation.

Educators must focus on helping students improve their pronunciation and their

ability to monitor and correct their own pronunciation. Robertson (2003) quotes

Morley (1991) in saying that "intelligible pronunciation is an essential component of

communicative competence" (p. 4). Hammond (1995) suggests that this can be done

in a CLT environment, but the best method is to provide explicit classroom

pronunciation instruction.

Language teachers can improve their students' pronunciation markedly drilling

minimal pairs in order to help them improve their intelligibility (Hansen, 1995). By

raising our students' awareness of supra-segmental aspects such as connected speech

and word stress and helping them to become more autonomous learners, we can take

advantage of the positive aspects of teaching adults instead of simply assuming that's

it's too late to improve their pronunciation. We need to change our goals from

expecting our students to speak like native speakers to having them make strides in

different areas of pronunciation and helping them to identify, understand, and

overcome their weaknesses.

References

Bell, M. (1996). Teaching pronunciation and intonation to E.F.L. learners in Korea.

Retrieved on 14 October, 2004, from

http:// www.geocities.com/Athens/ Acropolis/9583/PRONUN.html

Brown, H. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Pearson

Education.

Dalton, D. (1997). Some techniques for teaching pronunciation. The Internet TESOL

Journal, Vol. III, No. 1, January. Retrieved on 14 October, 2004, from

http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Dalton-Pronunciation.html



Fraser, H. (1999). ESL pronunciation teaching: Could it be more effective?

Australian Language Matters, 7 (4). Retrieved on 14 October, 2004, from http://www-

personal.une.edu.au/~hfraser/docs/HFLanguageMatters.pdf

Hammond, R. M. (1995). Foreign accent and phonetic interference: The application

of linguistic research to the teaching of second language pronunciation. Ed. Eckman,

P. Second Language Acquisition: Theory and Pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Hansen, D. (1995). A study of the effect of the acculturation model on second

language acquisition. Ed. Eckman, P. Second Language Acquisition: Theory and

Pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jones, R. (1997). Beyond 'listen and repeat': Pronunciation teaching materials and

theories of second language acquisition. System, 25:1, 103-112. Retrieved

on 28, 14 October, 2004, from

http://personal.cityu.edu.hk/~enrodney/Research/system.html

Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. (1983). The Natural Approach. Hayward, CA. Alemany.

Lenneberg, Eric H. (1967) Biological Foundations of Language. John Wiley and Sons

Inc.

La Porta, G. (2000). A critical look at the critical period hypothesis. Retrieved

on 14 October, 2004, from

http://www.tc.columbia.edu/academic

/tesol/Han/GinaLaporta.htm

Lim, J. (2003). A new look at the critical period hypothesis. The Applied Linguistics

Association of Korea, 10. Retrieved on 14 October, 2004,

from www.alak.or.kr/2_public/2003oct/

document/200310_feature_article.pdf

Molholt, G., Lane, L., Tanner, J. & Fischer, L. (1988). Computer graphics in the

language lab. T H E Journal. Vol. 15 No. 3.

Nari, A., Cucchiarini, C., & Strik, H. (2001). Effective feedback on L2 pronunciation

in ARS-based CALL. Paper presented at the workshop of the Computer Assisted

Language Learning, Artificial Intelligence in Education conference, San Antonio, TX.

Rajadurai, J. (2001). An investigation of the effectiveness of teaching pronunciation

to Malaysian TESL students. Forum, Vol 39 No 3, July - September. Retrieved on 14

October, 2004, from http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol39/no3/p10.htm

Robertson, P. (2003). Teaching English pronunciation skills to the Asian learner. A

cultural complexity or subsumed piece of cake? Asian EFL Journal, June.


http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/june2003subpr.php



Thompson, S., Taylor K., & Gray, H. (2001). Pronunciation with an Eye on Multiple

Intelligences. WATESOL Convention Fall 2001. Retrieved on 14 October, 2004,

from http://www.soundsofenglish.org/Presentations/WATESOL2001/

multipleintelligencesactivities.htm

Terrell, T. (1989). Teaching Spanish pronunciation in a Communicative Approach.

American Spanish Pronunciation - Theoretical and Applied Perspectives, ed.

Bjarkman, P. and Hammond, R. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Vitanova, G. & Miller, A. (2002). Reflective practice in pronunciation learning. The

Internet TESOL Journal, Vol. VIII, No. 1, January. Retrieved 14 October, 2004, from

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Vitanova-Pronunciation.html.

Wennerstrom, A. (1999). Why suprasegmentals? TESOL Matters, Vol. 9, No. 5.


http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/sec_document.asp?

TrackID=&SID=1&DID=580&CID=196&VID=2&RTID

=0&CIDQS=&Taxonomy=False&specialSearch=False



Title

Learning Vocabulary Through Games.

Author

Nguyen Thi Thanh Huyen

Khuat Thi Thu Nga

Vietnamese students usually feel bored in vocabulary lessons because they have not

changed their learning habits, such as writing words on paper, trying to learn by heart

or learning passively through the teacher's explanations. To help students find

language classes, especially vocabulary lessons more interesting, and to achieve more

from games, we conducted action research to find the answer to the question, "Do

games help students learn vocabulary effectively, and if so, how?" Most academic

reviews start from an assumption that games, bundled with other aspects of learning,

e.g., CALL, are beneficial. However we singled out the component of games to study

that in isolation. After reviewing academic opinions on this specifically focused

matter, of which there are relatively few, we began action research which included

applying games in our own classes, observing other teachers' classes, and

interviewing both teachers and learners so as to elicit students' reactions, feelings and

the effectiveness of games in vocabulary learning. The research shows they are

effective in helping students to improve their vocabulary building skills.

1.0 Introduction

Problem In learning a foreign language, vocabulary plays an important role. It is one element

that links the four skills of speaking, listening, reading and writing all together. In

order to communicate well in a foreign language, students should acquire an adequate

number of words and should know how to use them accurately.

Even though students realize the importance of vocabulary when learning language,

most Vietnamese students learn vocabulary passively due to several factors. First,

they consider the teacher's explanation for meaning or definition, pronunciation,

spelling and grammatical functions boring. In this case scenario, language learners

have nothing to do in a vocabulary learning section but to listen to their teacher.

Second, students only think of vocabulary learning as knowing the primary meaning

of new words.

Therefore, they ignore all other functions of the words. Third, students usually only

acquire new vocabulary through new words in their textbooks or when given by

teachers during classroom lessons. For example, learners find many new words in a

text and then ask the teacher to explain the meanings and usage's. Forth, many

Vietnamese learners do not want to take risks in applying what they have learnt.

Students may recognize a word in a written or spoken form and think that they

already "know the word", but they may not be able to use that word properly in

different contexts or pronounce it correctly.



In recent years, communicative language teaching (CLT) has been applied in Vietnam

and from our own experience, it has shown its effectiveness in teaching and learning

language. CLT is an approach that helps students be more active in real life situations

through the means of individual, pair and group work activities. It encourages

students to practice the language they learn in meaningful ways. In a CLT classroom,

playing vocabulary games is one of the activities which requires students to actively

communicate with their classmates, using their own language. Thus the question we

began to examine is, "Do games help students learn vocabulary effectively and if so,

how?"

Literature review

Learners of English have to deal with unfamiliar vocabulary during their language

acquisition. In order to learn and retain new words, learners should participate in

different task-based activities in their classroom whether it is a guessing task, a

describing exercise or conversation making. Such activities also include vocabulary

games which especially focus on helping learners develop and use words in different

contexts by making the lessons enjoyable. Therefore, it is necessary to explore

whether students learn vocabulary effectively through games and how they learn it.

Traditionally, vocabulary has not been a particular subject for students to learn, but

has been taught within lessons of speaking, listening, reading and writing. During the

lesson, students use their own vocabulary and are introduced to new words provided

by the teacher and classmates which they apply to classroom activities. For many

learners of English, whenever they think of vocabulary, they think of learning a list of

new words with meanings in their native language without any real context practice.

A number of learners may share the same experience of looking up words in a

bilingual dictionary to find their meanings or definitions when they encounter new

words. They may even write down lines of new words without any idea of the real use

of them in context. Working this way, after a short period of time, many learners may

find out that learning vocabulary in lists does not satisfy themselves, and they think

the cause for it is just their bad memorization, Gnoinska (1998:12). Research and

publications have shown that this is not a very effective way to study. Decarrico

(2001) states that words should not be learnt separately or by memorization without

understanding. Moreover, "learning new words is a cumulative process, with words

enriched and established as they are met again", Nation (2000, p.6). Therefore, the

"look and remember" way of vocabulary learning seems to be not very effective for

learners of the English language.

Furthermore, some other students may require teachers to give meaning and

grammatical function for words that they are not familiar. Learners just wait for

teachers who control the lesson to provide new forms of words then they write those

words in their notebooks or complete their exercises. They may use words they learn

in the exact formats as the original patterns in which those words appeared. This kind

of rote verbal memorization is good to a certain extent since it helps learners learn and

use the correct form of words. However, according to Decarrico (2001), the

vocabulary used in such context is rather simple because grammatical and phonologic

aspects are emphasized; and as a result, the lexical aspect is neglected. In other words,

learners just know how to use the vocabulary in an exact form, but they do not know

how to use it with different shades of meanings in real life communication.



Unlike the traditional method of learning and teaching, in a communicative language

teaching (CLT) approach, learners are required to take part in a number of meaningful

activities with different tasks. This is to improve learners' communicative competence

by encouraging them to be a part of the lessons themselves. Newton (2001) refers to

this approach as a way that can enable learners to manage their vocabulary meaning

and develop their communicative skills at the same time. Many experts of language

teaching methodology also agree that playing games is a good way to learn

vocabulary, especially in CLT class. With the use of games, the teacher can create

various contexts in which students have to use the language to communicate,

exchange information and express their own opinions (Wright, Betteridge and Buckby,

1984). Huang (1996: 1) comes to a conclusion that "learning through games could

encourage the operation of certain psychological and intellectual factors which could

facilitate communication heightened self-esteem, motivation and spontaneity,

reinforcing learning, improving intonation and building confidence."

Some experts have also figured out characteristics of games that make vocabulary

learning more effectively. Lee (1995:35) lists several main advantages when games

are used in the classroom, including "a welcome break from the usual routine of the

language class", "motivating and challenging" "effort of learning", and "language

practice in the various skills." Ersoz (2000) holds that games are highly appreciated

thanks to their amusement and interest. Teachers can use games to help their students

practice more their skills of communication. In addition, Uberman (1998) also affirms

the helpful role of games in vocabulary teaching after quoting and analyzing different

opinions of experts. From her own teaching experiences, Uberman observed the

enthusiasm of her students in learning through games. She considers games a way to

help students not only enjoy and entertain with the language they learn, but also

practice it incidentally.

In summary, games are useful and effective tools that should be applied in vocabulary

classes. The use of vocabulary is a way to make the lessons more interesting,

enjoyable and effective.

Method To assess the effectiveness of learning vocabulary through games in the classroom,

we want to know how students' experiences help with their learning and what

progress they gain. Specifically, can we apply games as an effective means to make

students feel more comfortable and interested in learning the subject of vocabulary,

which, in Vietnam, is usually believed to be boring rather than enjoyable?

To achieve our goal, we focused on the perception and attitudes of our students as

well as what students gained through their learning with vocabulary games. The plan

involved conducting different kinds of games in our lessons so that we could see how

students reacted to this method of learning vocabulary. We also wanted to find if there

were any problems that occurred during the process of teaching. In addition, in line

with research methodology and principles (Robertson, 2002) it was necessary to

enrich our perspectives by observing some experienced teachers' classes at HUFS,

reviewing other teachers' lesson plans for games and interviewing some teachers and

students as well.



Over a period of two weeks we tried to apply as many games as possible in our

classes at the Distance Education Center (DEC) to learn from learners' reactions

whether they liked games or not and if games could help improve their existing

vocabulary. Another way for us to gather data was to interview our learners at DEC

orally so that we were able to better understand their expectations, problems and

progress in their process of learning vocabulary. In addition, we observed the classes

of CLT teachers at HUFS, and reflected back in our journals. We also conducted a

small post-class survey to elicit student's feelings and their own experiences in

learning vocabulary. A simple questionnaire was designed beforehand to help

students understand clearly the purpose of the survey. Furthermore, experienced

teachers also helped us work out different ways of conducting effective vocabulary

games by their lesson plans, handouts for games and their helpful advice. Further

triangulation involved interviewing a student who had conducted similar research one

year prior.

Results After collecting data by observing CLT teachers' classes, interviewing teachers and

students, and from our reflections of applying games in the classes we are teaching,

we have come to some findings that will be helpful for teaching and learning

vocabulary. The results will be displayed in three subsections, (i) students'

expectations and attitudes, (ii) students' progress and iii) unanticipated problems.

i. Students' expectations and attitudes

When being asked about the way of learning English vocabulary, most students in our

classes at the Distance Education Center said they just copied new words provided by

teachers or looked up words in the dictionary. Many of them marked or underlined

words they did not know in their textbooks and noted the meaning in Vietnamese.

Some students noted the time they had to copy lines and lines of new words in their

notebooks which were forgotten soon. "It was so boring. I hated learning new words

that way!". Sometimes, students asked many questions regarding learning vocabulary

like "Teacher, how can I remember words and their meanings quickly and for a long

time?", "How can I use words properly in different contexts?", "Can you tell me an

easy and simple way to retain the vocabulary that I have learnt?" etc. (Khuat,

Teaching journal, March, 2003). All of the learners expressed their wish to learn

vocabulary effectively in more interesting ways than the traditional ways that they

knew. What we wanted to know was whether vocabulary games worked or not.

Most of the learners (17 out of 20) were willing to join our games in groups and they

tried their best to be the winners. The students especially liked such games as

"Hangman" (guessing words that belong to the topic of jobs), animal squares (words

puzzle) and advertisement poster competition (making an advertisement for a travel

tour). Students collaborated quite actively in games that required group work, even

the quiet students. They said that they liked the relaxed atmosphere, the

competitiveness and the motivation that games brought to the classroom. This is

because students have a chance to "use their imagination and creativity" during

activities like games in the classroom; therefore they are motivated to learn, Domke

(1991).



However, there were usually one or two students who seemed to isolate themselves

from the activities. When asked to join their classmates, some students were reluctant

to move from their seats to play games with their groups, some others just said they

simply did not like to play the games. Nevertheless, 17 among 20 students expressed

their satisfaction after the games and many of them wanted to play more as they said

those games were fun and they found games helpful for their learning. In general, it

was encouraging for us to know that most of our students showed pleasant feelings

and positive attitudes towards learning vocabulary through games.

Moreover, we observed four lessons which applied games in providing and retaining

students' vocabulary by two CLT teachers at HUFS. In two different classes, we

watched the game-like activity called "Selling and Buying Things (in which 10

students were shopkeepers selling fruits and food to the rest of the class. The

shopkeepers had to sell all food they had and the shoppers had to buy all food they

needed in the shortest time) in two different classes, and we observed the same

students' reaction in both classes. Before the game started, the teachers tried to explain

the game' rules to students and gave some examples. Once students understood the

rules, they quickly rearranged their seats and grouped as instructed. The classes

became as noisy as a real market. Students tried to use as many phrases and words

they had learnt as possible. Thus, through this kind of activity students may be able to

remember their vocabulary better.

We had a second opportunity to observe a class again. This time, the teacher used a

game called "Snakes and Ladders". Students worked in groups of five and everyone

went from the start and tried to reach the finish as soon as possible by answering

correctly to questions which were prepared by the teacher. After observing the game,

we gave a small survey to 20 students with some questions about their feelings toward

the game like; "Do you think this game is useful for you to remember words you have

learnt?" and, "How can your classmates help you learn through the game?”... From

this survey, we learnt that all 20 students agreed that games help them a lot in

vocabulary learning. Among them, 12 students said that said that they could answer

well two-thirds of questions in the game; and only one student could always respond

to all questions.

ii. Students' progress

Although our games were short activities and were applied to create a relaxed,

pleasant learning atmosphere in the classrooms, we wanted games to be more than

just fun. Games should also promote learning and teach students vocabulary as well.

Therefore, it was important to know if our students made any progress in learning

vocabulary through games. However, the action research was conducted in a limited

time of two weeks, and it was hard to assess what our students had achieved because

vocabulary learning is a cumulative process.

However, students in our classes are gradually progressing in English vocabulary and

games help them to learn new words and phrases that appear in the games and to

recall their existing vocabulary at the same time. Generally, teachers can use the first

part of a lesson, warm-up activity, for checking what students remember about the

previous lesson or how many words of the topic they have. For example, a CLT

teacher at HUFS, conducted the game "Simon Says" to examine students' vocabulary



of parts of body. In the same way, we chose the game "Hangman" with the topic of

jobs to check students' memory of the vocabulary introduced in previous lessons. Our

students got eleven correct answers out of twelve job cards which were passed out.

Many students were really quick at answering and their answers were all accurate;

others could not guess, but they could learn from their friends' answers. Another

example is the advertisement poster game. This is a game to check the students'

understanding of the reading exercise about holiday tours in the U.S.A. and to see if

students can use similar vocabulary and structures to create a short piece of

advertising for an interesting place. Students worked in four groups and all groups in

the class produced quite nice, funny posters with short sentences using vocabulary of

tourism and advertising. The classroom atmosphere was exciting as students

discussed and chose the best poster of the class. In addition, our students revealed that

games were very useful for them to enrich their vocabulary because they could learn

from their classmates.

Regarding the effectiveness of games, interviewed teachers reported that their

students seemed to learn new vocabulary more quickly and retain it better when it was

applied in a relaxed and comfortable environment such as while playing games. In the

same way, Giang, a junior student at HUFS that we interviewed also shared that she

could remember new words more quickly and also for a long time when she learnt

them through games.

Through our post-game survey of one teacher's class, all students confirmed that their

classmates helped them to remember words for the games. 16 out of 20 students said

they could learn lots of new words from their classmates. Also, 18 questioned

students said that games are one of the most effective ways of learning vocabulary.

Most students agreed that their use of vocabulary was becoming better since they

actively joined games.

iii. Unanticipated problems

At first, we hypothesized that if vocabulary learning became more active with

activities like games, students would not face any difficulties. However, journal

reflections from our own experience, observations of other teachers' classes and

interviews reveal that sometimes games create problems for both students and

teachers.

Games cannot be successful if the teacher does not explain the tasks and roles of

students clearly in playing games. An American teacher working at HUFS once told

us that sometimes she failed to make her students understand the games' rules. Her

students felt embarrassed because they did not know how the games went and what

procedures they had to follow. Fortunately, some of her students were able to find out

what they had to do in the games and re-explained to their classmates. Since then, the

games went smoothly.

Using games in the classroom sometimes fails due to the lack of cooperation among

members of the class. Games require all students' involvement and they promote

friendly competition, therefore, it is very important that students have a cooperative

attitude. One attempt to conduct the game "Marvelous Cone Hat" (the Vietnamese



television version of the American "Wheel of Fortune") in a class at the Distance

Education Center was not successful. "I divided my students into three groups, each

group was a team. While members of two groups were enthusiastic to join with others

to win the game, members of the third group did not cooperate with each other. As a

result, the third group lost the game." (Nguyen, Teaching journal, November, 2002)

Another issue related to using games for language teaching is while playing games,

students usually speak in their mother tongue to discuss instead of the language they

are learning. From our own experience and HUFS teachers' comments, it is hard to

control the use of first language (L1) in classrooms when we use games as a tool to

have students practice more their communicative skills in a foreign language. One

unavoidable thing in utilizing games in English classrooms is that students, especially

those who speak the same language, prefer using their first language to English. Even

advanced students in our classes at the Distance Education Center still discussed with

each other in L1. Note Dash (2002) suggests this approach must be allowed.

Conclusion In Vietnam, learning vocabulary has been considered a boring subject for a long time

and the traditional way of learning vocabulary by mere copying and remembering has

shown to be less than effective. Meanwhile, games are also seen as a time-filling

activity in most English classrooms. It is believed that games are just for fun and they

have very little effect in teaching and learning. However, our research reveals that

games contribute to vocabulary learning if they give students a chance to learn,

practice and to review the English language in a pleasant atmosphere. From the

research, we found that students are demanding a new way of teaching vocabulary,

and they themselves are in search of a new way of learning this subject as well.

Under such circumstances, games have been shown to have advantages and

effectiveness in learning vocabulary in various ways. First, games bring in relaxation

and fun for students, thus help them learn and retain new words more easily. Second,

games usually involve friendly competition and they keep learners interested. These

create the motivation for learners of English to get involved and participate actively in

the learning activities. Third, vocabulary games bring real world context into the

classroom, and enhance students' use of English in a flexible, communicative way.

Therefore, the role of games in teaching and learning vocabulary cannot be denied.

However, in order to achieve the most from vocabulary games, it is essential that

suitable games are chosen. Whenever a game is to be conducted, the number of

students, proficiency level, cultural context, timing, learning topic, and the classroom

settings are factors that should be taken into account.

In conclusion, learning vocabulary through games is one effective and interesting way

that can be applied in any classrooms. The results of this research suggest that games

are used not only for mere fun, but more importantly, for the useful practice and

review of language lessons, thus leading toward the goal of improving learners'

communicative competence.

1. DEC, established by HUFs, is a center of English for learners who can either go to

a class or learn from a distance. Students are admitted to take the DECs course,

beginning at elementary level if they pass the entrance exam.



Article Title

Teaching English Pronunciation Skills to the Asian Learner.

Author

Paul Robertson

Introduction:

For the last two decades academics and publishers have propounded theories on

pronunciation acquisition and on pronunciation training. For the greater part, they

have paid lip service to the critical issue underlying both the aforementioned, namely

the culture behind the target of the pronunciation theory. With a broad sweep, all L2

learners were grouped as though there were no differences that could possibly affect

the learner. Politzer and McGroarty's 1985 survey, fleetingly cited by Ellis (1996:559)

notes the early suggestion that cultural differences are important. Carmichael (2001)

identifies the issues that immediately precede the role of pronunciation teaching,

whilst Robertson (2002a, 2002b) examines the Korean learner's characteristics and the

impact of Confucianism on the Korean learners learning style. Otlowski (1998) leads

the future in Asian pronunciation teaching by arguing for pronunciation programs to

be included in all L2 students training, and further believes there is optimism for

success in the outcomes of such programs.

Yet Dash (2002) researched and analyzed the Korean classroom and found that an

English Only policy was seriously flawed. Thus we have a chasm between what some

believe is the academically ideal way to proceed in any pronunciation program, and

those who consider clearly identifying cultural peculiarities within the target (Asian

learning zone) leads to identification of alternate approaches in delivery of

pronunciation programs in Asia. However, despite propounding the inclusion of

pronunciation programs, (Otlowski, 1998, Kenworthy, 1996) the method of delivery

is thrown into doubt by Dash's (2002) findings. This paper will submit, {i} based

upon the evidence to date, that pronunciation programs in Asia must and can be

delivered successfully by native speakers of English irrespective of their varying

levels of educational background. This view is supported by Kenworthy (1996:69)

whilst Fromkin and Rodman (1998:349) extend the category to those with near native

speech. Secondly, {ii} that the mode of delivery of a pronunciation program must

relate to that particular countries culture so as to complement, and not offend, cultural

complexities.

Otlowski (2001) notes the oft cited view that little relationship exists between

teaching pronunciation in the classroom and attained proficiency in pronunciation,

which was supported by research done by Suter (1976, 233) and Suter & Purcell

(1980, 286). They concluded that pronunciation practice in class had little effect on

the learner's pronunciation skills and moreover, 'that the attainment of accurate

pronunciation in a second language is a matter substantially beyond the control of the

educators,' Suter & Purcell (1980, 286). The findings were subject to the caveat (as

also noted throughout literature in numerous places) that variables of formal training



and the quality of training in pronunciation could affect the results, especially see

Carmichael, (2001) for analysis of this issue.

This seems, a fiori, obvious, but definitely worthy of further research. However

Pennington (1989, 203) noted that there was no 'firm basis for asserting categorically

that pronunciation is not teachable or that it is not worth spending time on…" (1989,

220) and Pennington and Richards (1986) suggest that there is little or no evidence to

support pronunciation training, but that view must now be seen as out dated, and

lacking credibility in the area of Intercultural L2 training issues. Between these

divergent views, Stern (1992, 112) says, "There is no convincing empirical evidence

which could help us sort out the various positions on the merits of pronunciation

training." Yet one decade later that evidence is slowly being manufactured. (This is

not to ignore the critical age hypothesis ramifications as discussed in Ellis (1996:492)

and Robertson (2001) proposing a 'window of opportunity' theory, but that is for

another paper.)

In highly specific research (compliant with the caveats of Saville-Troike (1989) of

research in another culture, and Robertson (2002a)) conducted in a language

laboratory in Korea in 2003, on 300 students aged 12-14 (Korean age) and 60 adults

aged 24-55, results showed that those in both groups who undertook six hours of

pronunciation training recorded noticeably higher computer analyzed results of

pronunciation than those whose training omitted the pronunciation program.

Instructors were native English speakers, qualified and unqualified in EFL teaching.

However, the software and language laboratory are something not generally available

to the greater majority of educators. But the results supported the view that

pronunciation training does help the student in his L2 mastery, and is an effective tool

in the teacher's repertoire. This supports and advances the view of Pennington (1989.)

Pronunciation Teaching & Presentation.

But, nevertheless, as the above views represent the split in opinion on the teaching of

pronunciation, what can the teacher do to improve their students' pronunciation, that is

if we accept the position that the momentum begun by Otlowski (1998) is clearly

worthy of advancement and we decide on the basis of the evidence before us that

improvement in student's pronunciation can be obtained? The time has come to find

further substantial empirical evidence and assuming that we educators determine that

pronunciation training is effective, for we also know the end users want it, indeed

demand it, as well, "...the teaching of pronunciation is so crucial to our students",

(Goodwin, 2001:117) then how do we teach and present it?

(1) Include it in government school curriculums?

(2) Include it in private school courses?

(3) Train and certify teachers in pronunciation teaching?

(4) Carefully monitor results?

(5) Draft new teaching programs?

(6) Devise a new culturally considerate methodology?

(7) Devise a culturally acceptable approach?

(8) Draft new comprehensive books?

(9) Teach the teachers about the target culture?



The options, not limited to the above, are numerous and in need of action. Publishing

companies on the whole seem to avoid their responsibility in this area for it is said to

be not a lucrative area to invest in, (Jones & Evans, 1995). According to Jones &

Evans (1995:224) "most materials still have a long way to go in presenting

pronunciation in a truly communicative and holistic manner." Examination of

education department books in Korea and China shows scant attention paid to the

subject, yet whilst graduate teachers note comprehensive L2 pronunciation training at

university level, this does not translate into classroom presentation. However, it is

clear that whilst the questions posed above are easy to formulate, until those persons

whose native tongue is not English and who dictate the terms of curriculum processes,

begin to admit and accept that native English speakers are well qualified to give

opinions about L2 issues in Korea (in this case) then change will be piecemeal, ad hoc

and relatively ineffective.

More recent research (University of Aizu, 1999) suggests that researchers are at least

looking for ways that may help the educator in the quest to teach pronunciation in a

meaningful way. After 7 years of observing Korean English teachers in the classroom,

it is obvious that Korean school teachers are well aware of the student's shortcomings

and pay attention to the problems, but usually long after they occur. Research carried

by Dash (2002) clearly shows that students in governments schools receive almost no

opportunity to speak in the L2 in classes that are still teacher centered. In one month

the student may get to speak for one minute only if lucky. Thus teacher centered

classes are the norm, and whilst this is the wrong approach, it is easy to see why

attention is not given to pronunciation issues so as to minimize the need for

subsequent corrections. Again one merely glances through the poorly and ill-designed

text books to see where the fault lies. However, even if the approach changed and

students were to receive more opportunities to speak, the native Korean speaker is

subject to the overriding silent yet powerful issue of Confucianism (Robertson,

2002b) and may be hesitant/scared to speak in the L2.

Generally speaking, changes in language learning and teaching have influenced a

move from teacher centered to learner-centered classrooms. Chamot (L&R 92) says,

"To develop classroom speaking skills, children need opportunities to participate in

small group discussion, to present oral reports, and to respond adequately to teacher

questioning…" No doubt the first aspect is easily arranged, but clearly the second

element depends upon numerous factors not elicited in the phrase, namely the

student's level of linguistic competency, inter alia.. The third aspect, whilst being an

ideal, is no more for overriding rules of Confucianism dictate that silence is the norm.

And whilst teachers talk of a shift towards student centered learning, this is more in

lip service than practice, for it is not an aspect of classroom management widely

understood.

Morley (1991,48) notes there has a shift from specific linguistic competencies to

broader communicative competencies as goals for teachers and students. In particular,

the Korean education system is focussing much attention on student centered classes,

with classrooms specifically designed for language teaching, whereby students

occasionally work in groups in a well equipped and spacious rooms, sometimes

stocked with reasonable reference materials for student use. However, Korean

teaching staff on the whole are reluctant to speak in English and have little or no

training in the appropriate methods of pronunciation teaching. Action research carries



out by numerous EPIK (1) instructors clearly shows the Korean teacher not willing to

speak English in his or her L2 lesson. And whilst Morley (1991) states the need for

the integration of pronunciation exercises with oral communication, a shift from

segmental to supra-segmentals, increased emphasis on individual learner needs,

meaningful task based practices, development of new teacher strategies for the

teaching and introduction of peer correction and group interaction, (also Castillo,

1977, 71) , the fundamental issues that underpin this theory have been ignored. In

other words, the cart is well before the horse in Asian English teaching programs.

As well, the 'individual learner needs' must often be ignored when dealing with a large

class size, with 35 - 45 students, though as noted by experienced NNS educators in

Korea, class size should not be a valid reason to avoid individual student attention.

The main factor identified and noted by numerous educators is that classes are 'test

driven' and not not 'learning driven.' This is also noted in Poole's (2003) expose' of the

Japanese education system and Lee's (2001) expose of the Korean education system.

Cohen (1977, 71) argues that teaching of pronunciation goes far beyond the teaching

of phonemes, thus with the emphasis on meaningful communication and Morley's

premise (1991, 488) that, "Intelligible pronunciation is an essential component of

communication competence,…" teachers should ideally include components of

pronunciation in their courses, and according to Otlowski (2001) "…expect students

to do well..." However if we consider the Asian classroom with its Confucian

influence, (Robertson, 2002b ) this 'expectation' should be qualified by first assessing

what inhibitors are at work in the group before such claim can be made. However, it is

undeniable, as Otlowski (2001) notes, that pronunciation training must be included in

the students' learning.

It is also said that that without adequate pronunciation skills the learner's ability to

communicate is severely limited. Morley (1991) believes that not attending to a

student's pronunciation needs, '…is an abrogation of professional responsibility'

(Morley, 1991, 489.) Unfortunately this requirement overlooks a list of criteria such

as, curriculum needs, student's motivation or the countries educational demands, to

mention but a few items of relevance. Other research gives support to Morley's (1991)

belief in the need for 'professional responsibility' when the results show that '…a

threshold level of pronunciation in English such that if a given non-native speaker's

pronunciation falls below this level, he or she will not be able to communicate orally

no matter how good his or her control of English grammar and vocabulary might be.'

This seems logical, however, it can be argued that there are numerous factors at play

if the student fails to communicate, and pronunciation is but one of many possibilities,

and it is submitted, not the only factor.

Good or bad pronunciation: The test?

Of course this makes one thing crystal clear. Bad pronunciation is a communication

that cannot be understood by the listener. What it does not do is add to the definition

of what is 'good or understandable pronunciation,' (Celce- Murcia 1987, 5). For

example, if a student utters a sentence in English which lacks all the 'function words,'

but the 'content words' make it clear what is being said, can we say this is good

pronunciation, or is there some unseen mix of 'understandability level' to be added?

Seemingly the utterance would pass the 'pronunciation threshold test' as being



understandable, yet fail the fluency and syntactic tests. This then adds up to the

exemplified conclusion that the term 'pronunciation' includes meanings not strictly

limited to the definition supplied. However I do note the arguments associated with

'konglish' (Kim, (2002)) and in an e-mail communication on 12 May 2003, Mr. P.

Dash pointed out that Chinese English 'chinglish,' often not understood by him, is

readily understood between Chinese speakers using English.

Gilbert (1995, 1) believes the skills of listening comprehension and pronunciation are

interdependent.” If they can not hear well, they are cut off from language. If they

cannot be understood easily, they are cut off from conversation with native speakers."

Nooteboom (1983, 183) also has suggested that speech production is affected by

speech perception; the hearer has become an important factor in communicative

discourse and suggests that body language (which varies between cultures) needs to

be taught. Does this not add a new dimension to pronunciation? Should the listener

now be faced with some 'test' to determine if what 'he hears/ sees' is of a satisfactory

level to qualify him as a commentator on the pronunciation, or does the speaker have

the added duty to determine that his utterance was understood as he wished?

This though, illustrates the need to integrate pronunciation with communicative

activities, to give the students situations to 'develop' their pronunciation by listening

and speaking. This begs the question, namely, what does 'develop' mean? The current

research and the current trend reversal in the thinking of pronunciation teaching

shows there is a consensus that a learner's pronunciation in a foreign language needs

to be taught in conjunction with communicative practices for the learner to be able to

communicate effectively with native speakers. Unfortunately, there is a significant

difference in 'the thinking of what makes good pronunciation' and the applying of the

thinking.

Pronunciation and Communicative Teaching.

Morely (1991, 496) submits that students can be expected to do well in the

pronunciation of English if the pronunciation class is taken out of a 'meaningless

isolation' and becomes an 'integral part of the oral communication class.' Of course

that predisposes that 'communication' is part of the curriculum. Further, just what

'communication class' means is open to interpretation. Is it a teacher centered class

where substance is first taught, as in the Czech Republic, then a student centered

approach takes over for the second part of the communication class, or is it totally

student centered with minimal teacher time apart from guidance? Or is it teacher

centered as in Greece, complemented by learner centered when students enter the

native English speaker's communication class?

It is argued by Morely (1991: 500) that the goal of teaching understandable

pronunciation should be changed from the attainment of 'perfect' pronunciation, to the

more realistic goals, but this imprecise term 'perfect pronunciation' is, at best, a

slippery slope, for who can say what perfect pronunciation is? What is the test, and

who are the testers? In a world of numerous different accented native English teachers

with localized dialects, one cannot begin to postulate even an image of 'perfect

pronunciation' without meeting a barrage of questions, most of which will succumb to

a different answer by a different nationality teacher. Kenworthy (1996:3) prefers to

see the terminology reduced to a goal of a 'comfortably intelligible' pronunciation, but



even this begs many questions when considered alongside a Chinese, Japanese or

Korean speaker. Secondly, Morely's goal can surely only apply to an ESL situation,

and have no relevance to an EFL situation such as exists in Japan, Korea and China

where English usage outside the four walls of the English classroom is non existent.

The teacher also has a specific role to play in the communicative learning program, a

role that Morley describes as one of 'speech coach' or 'pronunciation coach' (Morley,

1991, 507) and supported by Otlowski (1998). Rather than just correcting the learner's

mistakes, the speech coach supplies information, gives models, offers cues,

suggestions and constructive feedback about the performance, sets high standards,

provides a wide variety of practice opportunities, and overall supports and encourages

the learner (Morley, 1991, 507.) It is also submitted that whilst the majority of

teachers in Asia are not teachers in the normal sense of the word, they still have the

local cultural knowledge and skills required to effectively carry out the speech coach

program. Without an understanding of the student's culture, the application of

Morely's premise per se' is meaningless and may even transcend culturally

impermissible boundaries.

The Speech Coach.

Taking Morley's (1991) proposal one step further to reality, what is it that a speech

coach should know and do? Furthermore, who can be the speech coach must be

considered. And what differences must be applied to adult second language teaching

as opposed to adolescent second language teaching? The teacher can be a native

English speaker or can be a qualified teacher of that country. This is the 'ideal world'

scenario. In practice it will not apply but will be tempered with a concoction of good

professional teachers, bad professional teachers, good nonprofessional teachers and

bad nonprofessional teachers in some ratio. Whoever has the task allotted to them

must give attention to their role. Teachers must know their limitations, and not supply

advice when they are no more than giving an uneducated guess. Like a football coach

who has dozens of individual items to take his charges through, the speech coach is

but part of the teacher's overall function.

Rein (1995) reports on a study carried out in Israeli high schools wherein teacher's

perceptions for effective coaching of mixed ability classes were measured. Although

the term 'coach' has wider connotations than just 'speech coach' and includes all

teacher functions, the results showed that the teachers considered the coach's

personality to be the critical factor in the coaching process. Mutual understanding,

trust and respect were the prerequisite to the teachers' acceptance by students. The

teachers were mostly interested in practical guidance and ideas directly applicable to

their specific teaching situation, whilst staff development was also seen as a vital

component to teaching. It is submitted this study emphasizes that greater importance

and more useful training must be given by School boards and School directors to the

teachers and their particular roles if students are to receive the best second language

acquisition.

One consideration the speech coach must give is to error correction. At the outset it

should be decided in consultation with students (if age is sufficient to accept) that

error correction is both a team effort and the coaches overall responsibility. Madden,

Matt, Moore and Zena (1997) surveyed a group of university students to determine an



opinion about error correction in Pronunciation. Overall, students valued

pronunciation as an important part of their instruction, and wanted more correction

both within and outside the classroom, and demanding more emphasis be placed on

the pronunciation component within the course. (One wonders how a teacher can find

a solution to student error correction outside the classroom?) But those students in

their elementary years will find it hard to accept this principle, let alone understand it,

so the coach will be more dominant in his/her role in the early years.

Of course most teachers encounter a class well after they (the students) have begun

their training, that is they have been trained by one or more second language teachers

in the past. This can cause problems, as style will differ in coaching. The teacher as

coach must be aware then that his/her style and teaching philosophy will probably

differ from the previous coach, thus it must be made clear to the students what his/her

philosophy is and how they as a team can work together to obtain the new coaches

standards. Student centered approaches will lower the inhibiting factors

aforementioned. In particular, pronunciation teaching should be implemented, at least

to some degree, in pairs or groups. Crookes and Chaudron (1991, 46) note, "Contrary

to a popular negative view of the outcomes of learner dominated activities, classroom

centered research has demonstrated that at the same time that students have many

more opportunities to employ the target language, they manage to perform equally

successfully in terms of grammatical accuracy as when the teacher is leading the

discussion." In Japan and Korea, research has shown that some students who actively

communicate in a teacher centered class, will become passive in group work, and vice

versa. This is for the teacher/coach to observe and utilize to the pronunciation

program's benefit.

Whilst Do, (2001) seems to suggest a form of hopelessness in teaching Korean

students, "Although EFL learners in Korea are silent and inactive in terms of English

use, they do nor want to feel like, as they say, ""an imitation, a copy, a stuffed figure,

or a puppet with a talking mouth."" Their sense of being manipulated merely as

objects of teaching has often left them psychologically self-defeating and self-

alienated, which results in their poor self-image as English users...," is rather broad,

vague and unsupported by research, yet does indicate that the teacher/coach must be

acutely culturally sensitive to his students.

The speech coach will be able to do the following:

a) irrespective of curriculum demands, he/she will design and implement a program to

draw students' attention to their pronunciation, both strong and weak points. This

program will complement the curriculum.

b) Practice those areas that are identifiably causing problem.

c) Be aware of the problems that adult students 'may' face if the fundamental concept

of critical age period is accepted.

d) Monitor at the outset the student's L2 speech production and regularly assess their

progress and provide constructive feedback.

e) Feedback. By providing effective feedback the teacher is giving attention to 'one of

the most important aspects in pronunciation instruction…" (Celce-Murcia, 1991,

147.) Of course the underlying question is just what aspects of the student's

pronunciation must the speech coach correct, and more importantly, how to correct it

effectively? It is widely agreed that self-correcting is the most effective form of

learning, but arriving at the 'how' does not present a unified answer, and it does



depend upon the resources available to the speech coach, ranging from a well

equipped and easy to manage language laboratory, to the more common and widely

used classroom.

f) Consider introducing lessons related to body language in various cultures.

A Suggested Teachers' Guide to Pronunciation Monitoring.

(i) Consider the student's rate of speech. Fast speech may increase the

mispronunciation of syllables and change good English to poor English. This test is

subjective, but the teacher must be aware of the factor. It does no harm to slow the

rate of speech down of all speakers until their word pronunciation becomes clear.

Examples of fast speech pronunciation are too innumerable to cite, but a professional

teacher needs no list to know what spoken words are sounding 'bad' as opposed to

what spoken words are sounding 'very nice.' Educators who hold that speech should

be at a 'native rate' namely reasonably fast, miss the point completely when it comes

to professional speech coach training.

(ii) Asian students need practice with identifiable areas of speech, namely country

specific complex sounds, cluster problems, th' words, and linking words and sounds.

(iii) Students should be exposed to as wide a range of pronunciations as possible. This

must include careful slow speech to normal North American speed speaking.

Supplying a transcript of the words at first is suggested, with later playing putting

more emphasis on the student's word perception. The teacher can design any one of a

number of testing models.

(iv) As the 'listener understanding' plays an important role in pronunciation, strategies

for listening, evaluating, calculating and responding meaningfully become part of the

pronunciation program.

The L2 Educator's Speech Rate.

Learners of English, either juvenile or adult frequently say the hardest thing about

learning English is understanding the native English speaker. The vast majority of

Asian students lament that they cannot understand U.S. English, and have a clear

preference for Canadian English. The rate of U.S. speech is, for them, too fast.

Obviously it is the ultimate goal of proficiency to master the varied speech rates of the

various English speaking countries, but that is at the end of the line, not in the

formative stages. Thus the speech coach, if he/she is to teach pronunciation and to

teach it successfully, will be critically aware of his/her rate of normal speech. A

number of studies have been carried out which suggest that a slower rate of speech

aids comprehension, however, according to Ellis (1996) "… in many cases the speech

rate was investigated alongside other variables, making it difficult to assess the effect

of speech rate per se."

Various speech rate tests, ranging from speeds of 450 words per minute to 196 words

per minute were carried out by Conrad cited in Ellis (1996.) The subjects were native

speakers, high-level non-native speakers and low-level non-native speakers. The test

showed (as for the non-native speakers) that both groups displayed "…considerable

difficulty … even after the fifth reading." Griffiths (1990) tested varying speech rate,

using rates of (a) 94-107 words per minute (b) 143-156 w.p.m. and (c) 191-206 w.p.m.

The test required answers to true and false questions. The results note considerable

difficulty with the fast rate, whilst the medium and slow rate showed no difference in

comprehension.



According to Ellis (1996) "The studies suggest that there may be a threshold level -

around 200 words per minute - below which intermediate and advanced learners

experience little difficulty in comprehending and above which they might." However

it seems various caveats must be placed on such a broad formulation. Despite

Griffiths (1990) testing lower intermediate level English learners, the criteria for who

falls in this group needs clarification. Similarly, the active vocabulary of the subject

needs careful assessment. However, if we accept Ellis's premise (1996) that "…there

is mixed evidence regarding the value of linguistically simplified input for promoting

comprehension…whereas speech rate does have a clear effect, grammatical

modifications do not always result in improved comprehension…" then the following

should be applicable to the teacher in Korea, namely, materials that supply spoken

input should be carefully assessed for speech rate according to both level, age and

advancement of their learner. But it is nigh on impossible to imagine any publisher

will pay so much attention to what is clearly required. Further, the teacher himself

must be aware of his/her speech rate, (easily ascertained) and determine which speed

he/she desires to pursue for that level. It is suggested that the speech rate for Koreans

who (in Korea) are classified as low to medium level language ability learners, would

sit around the 120 words per minute rate. This would ideally be termed "foreigner talk

with explicit teaching function" (Naro, 1983.)

Conclusion.

The TEFL teacher as speech coach or pronunciation coach has a vital role to play. For

the speech coach to be effective he first must have the unfettered support of his

employer (Board of Education) to embark upon the coaching program. The

coach/teacher will then assess his students in relation to multiple criteria (ascertained

by the coach, for each class may need different assessment criteria,) and finally

prepare his/her program followed by the monitoring mode. And like any coach,

monitoring may result in changes back and forth until an 'ideal' is found. The teacher

will then implement a program inside of the cultural complexities to be found in that

country, and should be acutely aware of the boundaries of cultural acceptability, even

if that means a poorer pronunciation is the resultant. Loss of face is of far greater

harm than poor pronunciation is to an Asian speaker of English. Though Douglas-

Brown (1994:187) says language and culture are inextricably intertwined, it is

submitted that view, albeit 9 years old, is subject to critical review, and that well

fashioned research will untie the previously considered complexity.

What is clear from this paper and others, is that the teaching of pronunciation

programs must be included in the students' training, yet that training must be country

specific, and materials and research must now stop focusing on the 'general' and start

considering the 'specific'. I note that Dash (2003) in support of Mangubhai, (2002)

may well have taken the opposite view as to the extent culture plays in SLA. (It

remains to be seen if the two views might be reconciled in so far as pronunciation

teaching goes, to which this paper only addresses.) But as Otlowski (1998) notes,

pronunciation must be seen as "...a crucial part of communication." Yet what is

deemed an ideal pronunciation program for a Korean learner is unlikely to be the

program that should be applied to Japanese learner or Chinese learner. This statement

clearly leads to one conclusion,- that the field of EFL research must intensify and be

country culture specific, and materials that portray to cover the field of EFL/TEFL



training must be seen as inherently flawed if they suggest a particular program is good

for one and all.

(1) EPIK. English Program in Korea. A Korean government initiative to bring native

English speakers to help train Korean teachers and assist in the Korean L2 classes.

However, surveys show generally few EPIK teachers are qualified to do either role,

yet should be utilized far more effectively in light of the above analysis.

Index.

Ahn. Soo Wong, Park Mae Ran, & Ono S. 1986. A comparative study of the EPIK

and JET program. In English Teaching. Vol. 53 No 3. 241-267.

Castillo, L. 1990. L2 pronunciation pedagogy: Where have we been? Where are we

headed? The Language Teacher, Vol. xiv No' 10. 3-7.

Celce-Murcia, M. 1991. 'Teaching pronunciation' in Celce-Murcia ed, Teaching

English, Heinle & Heinle, p136-153.

Carmichael, S. 2001 (accessed March 2003), 'An Expose of 'What Is An English

Teacher', The Asian EFL Journal, (Online), http://www.asian-efl-

journal.com/arch3.htm

Chamot, A. 1981, 'Applications of second language acquisition', In Methodology in

TESOL, Long & Richards, eds, OUP, Oxf.

Cohen, A. 1977. Redundancy as a tool in listening comprehension, TESOL Quarterly,

16/1 pp. 71-77.

Crookes, G. & Chaudron, C. 'Guidelines for classroom language teaching.' in

Teaching English, M. Celce-Murcia (Ed) , Heinle & Heinle, NY, pp. 46-66.

Dalton, C. & Seidlhofe, B, 1994. Pronunciation. OUP.

Dash, P. 2002 (accessed March 2003), 'English Only in the Classroom. Time For a

Reality Check', The Asian EFL Journal, (Online), http://www.asian-efl-

journal.com/decart2002b.htm

Dash, P. 2003 (accessed April 2003), 'Culture as an Individual Difference in the SLA

Process: Significant, separate and appropriate?' The Asian EFL Journal, (Online),

http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/june2003.subpd.htm

Do, Seon Eur. 2001. A Psychoanalytic Approach to Teaching English as a Foreign

Language [1]. Journal for the Psychoanalysis of Culture & Society, v6 i2 p209.

Douglas-Brown, H. 1994. Principles of Language Learning And Teaching. Prentice

Hall, New Jersey.

Ellis, R. 1996, The Study of Second Language Acquisition, OUP. London.



Fromkin, V. & Rodman, R. 199,. An Introduction to Language, Harcourt Brace, Ft.

Worth.

Futatsuya, K. & Chick, J. 1996, Developing and implementing your own

pronunciation assessment program, The Language Teacher, 20 (8), pp.15-20.

Gilbert, J. 1995, Pronunciation practices as an aid to listening comprehension. in, A

Guide for the Teaching of Second Language Learning, D.J.Mendelson and J. Rubin

eds, San Diego. Dominic Press, pp.97-11.

Goodwin, J. 2001, Teaching Pronunciation, in Celce-Murcia ed, Teaching English as

a Second or Foreign Language, 3rd edn,, Heinle & Heinle, p117-138.

Griffiths, R 1990, Speech rate and NSS comprehension. Language Learning 40.

pp.311-336.

Higgins, M, Higgins, M. & Shima, Y. 1995, Basic training in pronunciation and

phonics: A sound approach. The Language Teacher, 19(4), 4-8.

Hite, S. 2000, 'Teaching Pronunciation Online', Training, 2000 v37 i7 p30.

Jones, R.H. & Evans, S. 1995, "Teaching Pronunciation Through Voice Quality",

ELT Journal, 49:3, pp. 244-251

Kenworthy, J. 1996, Teaching English Pronunciation, Longman, London.

Kenworthy, J. 2000, The Pronunciation of English: A Workbook, Arnold London.

Kim, P. 2002, (accessed February 2003) 'Korea. A cross cultural communication

analyzed', The Asian EFL Journal, (Online), http://www.asian-efl-

journal.com/june2002art3.htm

Lee, J. 2002, Korean Higher Education. A Confucian Perspective, Jimoondang

Publishing, Seoul.

Luh, J. 1999, Non-English Speakers Get Help From Plug-in.(Sentius' RichLink

software enhances Web pages to facilitate language comprehension) Internet World,

March 8, v5 i9 p21.

Madden. J, Matt. J. Moore. R & Zena. M. 1997, ESL students opinions about

instruction in Pronunciation. ERIC database, ED416716.

Makarova, V. & Ryan, S. 2000, 'Language teaching attitudes from learners'

perspectives: a cross-cultural approach', Speech Communication Education, Vol 23,

pp.135-165.

Mangubhai F. 1997, "Primary socialization and cultural factors in second language

learning: Wending our way through unchartered territory”, Australian Review of

Applied Linguistics, Series S, pp.23-54.



Milroy, J. 2001, Received Pronunciation: who "receives" it and how long will it be

"received"? Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: International Review of English Studies,

Annual 2001 p15 (18).

Morley. J. 1991, The pronunciation component in teaching English to speakers of

other languages. TESOL Quarterly, 25/1 pp. 51-74.

Morley. J. 1999, New developments in Speech Pronunciation Instruction, As We

Speak, Newsletter of the TESOL. Speech Pronunciation Interest Section 2(1) pp.1-5.

Naro, A. 1983, Comments on simplified input and second language acquisition. In

Anderson ed. 1983

Noteboom, S. 1983, 'Is speech production controlled by speech perception'? In Sound

Structure, van den Broecke et al eds, Dordrecht:Foris, pp183-194

Nunan, D. 1998, Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers,

Prentice Hall, New York

Otlowski, M. 1998, (accessed November 2002), 'Pronunciation: What are the

expectations'? The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IV, No. 1, January 1998, (Online)

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Otlowski-Pronunciation.html

Pennington, M. 1989, Teaching pronunciation from the top down. RELC Journal,

20/1 pp. 21-38

Pennington, M & Richards, J. 1986,"Pronunciation Revisited," TESOL Quarterly,

20:2 pps. 207-225.

Poole, G. 2003, (accessed January 2003) Assessing Japan's Institutional Entrance

Requirements, The Asian EFL Journal, (Online), http://www.asian-efl-

journal.com/march03.sub5a.htm

Purcell, E. & Suter, R. 1980, Predictors of Pronunciation Accuracy: A

Reexaminatio,Language Learning, 30/2, pp.271-287.

Rein, M. 1995, (accessed November 2002), Teachers perceptions of effective

coaching for mixed class ability. Unpublished Ma dissertation, (Online), Surrey

University. U.K. www.surrey.ac.uk

Robertson, P. 2002a, (accessed March 2003), 'Asian EFL Research Protocols', The

Asian EFL Journal, (Online), http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/decart2002a.htm

Robertson, P. 2002, (accessed February 2003), 'Confucius and Mencius: Their

Influence in Modern Day EFL', The Asian EFL Journal, (Online), http://www.asian-

efl-journal.com/june2002.conf.htm

Saville-Troike, M. 1989, 'The Analysis of Communicative Events', in The

Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction, 2nd edn, Basil Blackwell, Oxford,

pp. 107-180.



Stapp, Y. 199,. Neural Plasticity and the issue of Mimicry tasks in L2 pronunciation

studies. University of Tsukuba. Japan, TESL-EJ, vol. 3 No. 4.

Stern, H. 1992, Issues and Options in Language Teaching, Oxford, Oxford University

Press.

Suter, H. 1976, Predictors of Pronunciation Accuracy in Second language learning,

Language Learning, 26. p.p233-253

University of Aizu, 1999, Using Electronic Visual Feedback to Teach

Suprasegmentals, System 20:1, pp.51-62.



Article Title

The critical age hypothesis. A critique of research methodology.

Author

Paul Robertson

A1. Introduction:

A couple of years ago a rare opportunity in EFL/ESL education annals occurred in

Korea. The English curriculum, which hitherto had begun teaching English in Middle

schools to students at the age of 14 changed to a situation where students in

Elementary schools would begin to learn English. So for one year we had two groups,

namely 8 year olds and 14 year olds beginning to learn English for the first time. This

presented a unique opportunity to survey students whose age coincided with the

critical period hypotheses debate. The schools are all part of the Korean government

education system. The question at the heart of the research was whether young

Korean learners found learning and the speaking of English easier than older students

and adults, and secondly, if teaching English pronunciation to 8 year olds had

educational development merit.

A2. Initial research:

The material the subject of this critique is annexed at page 12, (Abstract) page 14

(Literary review), and pages 23-46, (Survey questions and analysis). This is in the

original form as prepared in 2000 and 2001.

A3. Overview:

Influencing this research is the issue of Confucianism and how it impacts on the

Korean students. J.K. Lee (2002:45-61), arguing for the Confucionist survival notes

that contemporary Korean education policy is influenced by an intricate combination

of factors, dominated by Confucianism. The policy translates to practice and W. Lee

(1996) states "…Asian students are not only diligent, but they also have high

achievement motivation" but these factors may have less to do with Confucianism

than other factors, such as, according to Ko, (2002) being "…educational zealots." W.

Lee's view (1996), finds support from J. Lee (2002:58) who talks in terms of the

"…educational enthusiasm of Korean people…" Ellinger and Beckham, (1997), note,

"South Koreans view education as they view the rest of life: a process of winning and

losing. They have no concept of a game played well for its own sake. The family

emphasis on educational achievement is so strong that it has been dubbed "education

mania.""

Whichever view one subscribes to, Confucianism with its attendant rules of filial

piety, or educational enthusiasm or educational zealots, or a combination of both, it is

clear that the issues, to some degree or other, impact the subject of this research.

It became arguably clear that qualitative research, "...the systematic collection,



organization, and interpretation of textual material derived from talk or observation"

Malterud (2001:483), was applicable. Against this was the consideration of ethno-

methodology research, described by Cohen, Manion and Morrison, (2001:24) as

"…the mechanisms by which participants achieve and sustain interaction in a social

encounter - the assumptions they make, the conventions they utilize, and the practices

they adopt." The key words in this definition being, 'the conventions they utilize, and

the practices they adopt.'

As culture, Confucianism, and an arguably different attitude on education exist in

Korea, then a survey employing the caveat of Saville-Troike (1989:110), viz, "the

need for an extensive background study of the community is critical, and a variety of

field methods must be employed..." formed the basis of the underpinning research

methodology. It is clear that the research needed close attention to issues of validity,

as opposed to reliability, for the applicability of this to other scenarios is restricted

given the uniqueness and unrepeatability of such a survey. That is not to deny

reliability per se, but that the same set of circumstances will be rare to find again, but

micro situations could be assessed for similar results. Thus only general conclusions

going to reliability can be drawn from this survey research, for it is Korean and

Confucian specific. However, this research, being in a field of intense debate, will be

attacked over issues of validity, hence the attempt to limit the attack and to argue that

any attack must be seen in light of ethnographically considered features the subject of

this fieldwork.

B1. Critique of Abstract.

Whilst the abstract discussed the issues surrounding the critical period hypothesis

debate, and the research at hand, one issue overlooked that may have been addressed

was the differences, if any, between an EFL and ESL country. Kroll (2001) addresses

the differences that result in different style of teachings, as does Matsuda (1998),

however, it seems a deeper consideration of 'culture' and 'EFL' needed elaboration.

B2. Critique of Literature Review.

The question at hand is one that generates much debate, research criticism, and

voluminous journal and book writings. As well, the area is developing in a different

direction as proponents of MRI scans produce new data from their research. The

literature review states all positions from a definite existence to there being no such

thing as a critical period for language learning, to the mid point that that says both yes

and no. However, once the topic was decided upon, namely do Korean students

perceptions align with the proponents of the debate, then it became necessary to

"…become familiar with the information available on the topic..." (Christensen,

2001:109). However, it seems that a simplified review would have sufficed, for the

debate is well known.

B3. Questionnaire. Given that the research question centered on perceptions of English learning, and to

"…provide an answer to the research question…" (Christensen, 1997:64) then

question 6 and question 16, which being general in nature, should have been removed

from the survey.



The questionnaire used closed questions with a proscribed range of answers from

which the respondents could choose. This was decided upon as an open question

requiring writing would have produced high level of stress in students whose L2

written level was low. This could have been altered for the adult teacher respondents,

however, again it was feared the response would be muted, as the teachers may have

perceived the answers as testing their English skills.

As Cohen, Manion and Morison, (201:249) note, "…ambiguity in words is

intractable: at best it can be minimized rather than eliminated." This presented a

critical problem with the survey, namely, the skills of the Korean English teachers in

explaining the questions, and secondly, whether the questionnaire should have been in

Korean or English. At the time, it was decided to use English only, as it immediately

sensitized the students to the questions at hand. Had the survey been done again, I

would have opted to write the question in English, followed by a Korean translation,

with the responses being in English only but orally explained by a bi-lingual teacher.

C. Critique of - Validity and Reliability of the Research

i. Descriptive validity

Descriptive validity refers to accuracy in the reporting of descriptive information.

(Burke-Johnson, 1997:283). It is suggested this definition extends to the explaining of

certain things, in this case, the questionnaire. 5 Korean English teachers and myself

attended at 6 schools and collected the data. Whilst it is clear field investigators need

training, this survey involved the explanation via bi-lingual speakers of the questions

the subject of the questionnaire. It is submitted that each field worker was a form of

corroboration for the others, except in the case of my field work, for my bi-lingual

explanations did not reach the same level as fluent bi-lingual speakers, nevertheless,

corroboration comes from a variety of field methods, (Saville-Troike, 1989:11).

ii) Interpretive validity

Interpretive validity is defined as "…the degree to which the research participants'

viewpoints, thoughts, feelings, intentions, and experiences are accurately understood

by the qualitative researcher." (Burke-Johnson, 1997:284). Only in the case of adult

participants (Korean teachers) was feedback sought. Their views were obtained

pursuant to ethnographical criteria (a long time within the community and using pre-

testing samplings and feedback) (Saville-Troike, 1989), and such that critical cultural

norms would not be breached. Pre testing member checking ensured the questions

posed were non-offensive and did not breach the standards of a Confucionist society.

iii) Theoretical validity

One of the precepts of the survey involved 4 years in-situ in Korea learning and

observing Confucian customs. The questions thus considered issues locale' specific

and were peer reviewed prior to the survey commencement. However, peer review

during data collection may have highlighted issues needing corroboration or

clarification.

iv) Internal validity



"Internal validity refers to the degree to which a researcher is justified in concluding

that an observed relationship is causal" (Cook and Campbell, 1979). Whilst Burke-

Johnson (1997:288) notes the importance of listing questions that show rival

explanations or rival hypothesis, having identified a causal relationship, Fox

(2000:22) notes the critical importance of asking the right questions to obtain the best

data possible. The relationship has long been shown as the younger the L2 learner, the

greater the L2 output proficiency. Rival causal explanations form the basis of the

debate. In this survey, a variety of external influences were noted and built into the

testing. If the survey were to be repeated then clearly researchers would be needed to

consider a variety of issues that would take time and money to research, arguably

centering upon the effect of Confucianism as an internal or external factor influencing

the causal connection.

v) External validity - reliability

Could the results of this research be applied to other groups? As results confirmed the

literature review that pronunciation programs are best initiated with the young L2

learner, then the results, considering the issues raised in this 'perceptions study' could

definitely be applied, however, as mentioned above, issues of EFL/ESL/Confucianism

need further consideration, which was not done in this survey, however would have

provided greater reliability.

vi) Reflexivity

Biases that go to the validity of the research are "…the characteristics of the

interviewers, the characteristic of the respondent, and the substantive content of the

questions", Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2001:121). Not only do the words of the

questions asked orally become important but also so do the words of written

questionnaires, (discussed above).

Clearly the research required greater transparency about the author's background

(substantiating ethnographic considerations) and greater transparency about the

Korean English teachers who assisted in the research. However, as observation did

not play a part of this research, but was substantially questionnaire based, then issues

pertaining to culture in society needed further elicitation, for it was a contention of

this research that hitherto research had done too little when considering the beliefs

and feelings of the research subjects, as opposed to the research that had simply

looked at differences between a young learner and an old learner. Thus biases about

culture are definitely a possibility and need careful elicitation.

D 1. Other General Issues if the Research Were to be Repeated.

(a) One of the dilemmas associated with the research related to ethical issues. There

were three levels of dilemma. First involved carrying out the research in a government

school. School principles unanimously agreed to the research. The second level of

dilemma was involving the senior Korean English teacher in each school to

participate. All teachers agreed to participate, however the sheer size of the survey

meant that that teacher lost the majority of one lesson.

The final level dilemma was the students themselves. Students were presented with



the questionnaire as a fait accompli, and were simply asked to complete the questions.

No parental permission was sought. However, anonymity was guaranteed;

"...information provided by the students should in no way reveal their identity",

(Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2001:61). Whilst the students undoubtedly found the

break from the monotonous lesson routine to be enjoyable, and arguably ethnographic

considerations were carefully covered, the sheer amount of questions probably

angered some teachers immediate post survey who assisted in data collection. One

thing not done, that should have been done, was feed back to the teachers who

assisted in the research as to the results, plus a small thank you note.

As opposed to the students who had no information supplied before the questionnaire

was filled in, Korean teacher respondents to the survey were free to undertake or not

undertake the survey, and were fully informed pre-survey as to the reasons and uses

the data would be put to. It was noted that some teachers did not proceed with the

survey.

(b) The amount of questions, whilst raising some interesting issues, were clearly too

many. Despite peer review pre-survey, which suggested about 8 questions should be

asked, a total of 16 were asked. However, according to Cohen, Manion and Morrison

(2001:259), what should have been done was to have broken the question sequencing

down, to give the appearance of simplicity and manageability.

(c) Data analysis.

Data was collected from 6 schools across the metropolitan area. It was assimilated

into one batch and results were aggregated. If the research were to be repeated, I

would change this process so as to (i) analyze individual school results (ii) compare

the schools to each other for consistency or inconsistency (iii) then aggregate the data

to compare an aggregate against the individual school data.

However, it should be noted that this was in a manner similar to the post-survey

survey of 50 students, some 3 months later, with students chosen for one school (not

one of the original) whereby the results were significantly similar to the original

survey.

(d) School selection.

Whereas the schools chosen for the Yates (1999) research survey were split between

metropolitan and rural zones, the schools the subject of my research were all

metropolitan schools based in a city of nearly five million people. The locations of the

schools did represent different socioeconomic zones and were schools that were

classified as A, B, or C class schools. However, the addition of a rural school would

have been a useful comparison.

(e) Statistical comment

After each question percentage data comes an analysis. The views need further in

depth analysis, and more analytical consideration in light of the ethnographic

concerns expressed above.

(f) Statistical analysis



Whilst data was presented in simple %s, as no appropriate software was available, a

further consideration could present the data somewhat differently, as bar graphs to

highlight similarities and or differences.

E. Conclusion:

The size and expectations of the survey were quite both large yet realistic. The results

were not meant to add to the debate that considers traditional views versus the neuro-

linguistic developments, rather than present data that may assist the debate by

considering ethnographic, psychological and place specific cultural criteria. Indeed,

the results, taken at a humanistic level, did show a different perspective on the critical

period hypothesis from an individual's view. The survey also statistically showed that

the widely held view that pronunciation is one area that should be taught to young L2

learners is arguably correct and with sound basis.

The initial questions asked what could have been differently done had the research

been repeated. Some issues were presented above, each having its own weight of

importance. Given that the uniqueness of the situation that occurred will never happen

in this country again, it waits to be seen if something similar occurs in another ESL

country. Finally, to reinforce the caveat of Saville-Troike, (1989:110), a greater

variety of field methods would have been a tool going to greater survey validity.

Appendix 1.

Abstract: Korean classrooms, until the beginning of the 7th Curriculum, 2002, had traditionally

taught English via rote learning contrary to Confucionist principles that dominate

Korean education. Little or no attempt was made to place the element of English

speaking pronunciation in any perspective. The literature and previous research on

pronunciation programs is conflicting, and depending upon which approach or

methodology the curriculum follows, either ignores it per se, or leaves it to implicit

assumptions about how to teach an acceptable level of pronunciation to Korean school

students.

One thousand six hundred Korean students and one hundred and two Korean teachers

of English were surveyed on their perceptions and beliefs about the English language

and learning good pronunciation in Korean schools, this being an EFL country.

Secondly, a rare global opportunity existed for testing the critical age hypothesis in

that Korean learners' of English started at two different ages. The lower age fell

within the limits of the lower end of the critical age hypothesis (8) and the second

group of new English language learners fell within the upper limits (14) of age for

that hypothesis.

This research suggests that, in the case of the Korean government school classroom

learner, that students' perceptions about learning a good English speaking

pronunciation fall well within the critical age hypothesis debate on the side of the

proponents affirming its existence, yet does suggests that the time frame for learning

good English pronunciation, as opposed to supporting directly the debate, suggests

that a window of opportunity exists within which to compile successful

pronunciations programs for the Korea learner.



The research also suggests that as Korea is an ESL country, a new Approach or

Methodology specifically for an Asian country practicing Confucionist principles is

needed, and that traditional methods and approaches are not applicable for specific

EFL countries with specific cultural differences. English pronunciation programs for

Korean students need specific tailoring, taking into account the window of

opportunity for learning good English pronunciation, and teachers who can teach

English pronunciation.

Appendix 2.

Literature Review: Critical period hypothesis.

The critical period hypotheses propounded by Lenneberg (1967) suggests that primary

language acquisition occurs during a critical period which ends at about the age of

puberty and must occur before cerebral lateralization is complete, and the follow up

implication being that second language acquisition will be relatively fast, successful

and qualitatively similar to first language only if it occurs before the age of puberty.

The classic argument for this proposition is that there is a critical point for second

language acquisition and that this point is around puberty. "… beyond which people

seem relatively incapable of acquiring a native like accent of the second language." (H

Douglas Brown, 1994, 93) This theory has led some people to assume that once past

the age of 12 or 13 you are incapable of successful second language learning. Brown

(1994, 56) goes on to say, "Some adults have been known to acquire an authentic

accent in a second language after the age of puberty, but individuals are few and far

between."

However he fails to explain what is an "authentic accent" in this multi-cultural

English-speaking world. Bickerton (1967) and Lennenberg (1981, 53) argue for the

critical age hypothesis. O'Grady and Dobrovolsky (1996, 464) say in relation to first

language acquisition based on research studies, "It is now widely believed that the

ability to acquire a first language in an effortless and ultimately successful way begins

to decline from age six and is severely compromised by the onset of puberty." They

go on to conclude that the answer to whether there is a critical age period is answered

by both 'yes' and 'no.' (O'Grady & Dobrovolsky, 1996, 491) Their conclusion also

indicates that there is nothing biological that prevents adults from acquiring

proficiency in a second language, whereas H. Douglas Brown (1994) indicates that

research on the critical age theory, shows brain lateralization affects second language

acquisition, thus opposing the view of O'Grady and Dobrovolsky (1996). Scovel

(1988) in his research suggests that "…plasticity of the brain prior to puberty enables

children to acquire not only their first language but also a second language and that

possibly it is the very accomplishment of lateralization that makes it difficult for

people to ever again easily acquire fluent control of a second language…"

Walsh and Diller (1981:18) found that different aspects of language are learnt at

different ages. "Lower order processes such as pronunciation are dependant on early

maturing and less macro neural circuits which make foreign accents difficult to

overcome after childhood…" Thus this research gives support for the critical age

thesis in so far as certain areas of language (pronunciation) come inside its parameters.

However they left open the conclusion that obtaining a fluent foreign accent is not



possible after puberty. Klein (1995:24) seems to temper the argument by saying,

"…cases of adults acquiring a second language without any accent are very rare. This

alone does not provide sufficient evidence that second language learners are in

principle unable (for biological reasons for example) to attain a native pronunciation."

This supports the Walsh and Diller line of argument. Neufield (1978) suggests that it

is possible for adults to obtain native like levels of language proficiency. Ellis (1996)

makes a broad proposition by saying most L2 learners fail to achieve native speaker

level ability. Later he appears to contradict himself by saying only "…child learners

are capable of acquiring a native accent…" but qualifies this to informal settings.

Singleton (1989) concludes that massive amounts of exposure are necessary for a

child to achieve native like proficiency, yet Ellis (1996) concludes even massive

amounts of exposure still results in children failing to achieve a good level of

proficiency. The reason, he concludes, is their desire to maintain an active use of their

mother tongue. However this seems to overlook the issues of inhibitors.

According to Seliger (1978) there may be both 'critical periods' and 'sensitive periods'

for language acquisition. Generally the view favored is that pronunciation and native

like proficiency precedes the period for grammar acquisition. But according to

Thompson (1991) starting early is not a guarantee of achieving native like proficiency,

no matter how favorable the teaching system is. McLaughlan (1992) argues that the

younger the learner the more skilled he becomes in that language is a myth and

disputes the findings of Krashen, Long & Scarcella, (1992), yet concedes that,

"Pronunciation is one aspect of language learning where the younger is better

hypothesis may have validity;" Asher & Garcia (1969) concluded that the younger the

learner the more native like accent that student develops. McLaughlan (1992)

suggests (following the line of Scovel 1982) this is because "…pronunciation involves

motor patterns that have been fossilized in the first language and are difficult to alter

after a certain age because of the nature of the neurophysiological mechanisms

involved."

To further his theory over the uncertainty of the whole debate, he suggests that it may

be that educators simply do not know how to teach phonology in a second language,

impliedly suggesting that teachers of a second language need further and updated

specific skills. This 'radical' proposition may in fact be closer to the 'ugly' truth that

would see the critical period debate thrown out wholus bolus on the basis that the true

answer lays in the professionalism of the educators and nothing more! Should this

theory gain hold, the EFL profession would see a radical change in its criteria for

teaching methodologies and teacher credentials.

What McLaughlan (1992) also suggests is that because children have to learn shorter

and simpler structures in their early acquisition days, there is an 'illusion' that children

learn a second language more easily and quickly than adults, yet testings have shown

the exact opposite to be the case.

Studies of age differences in the acquisition of second language pronunciation have

produced conflicting results. Snow and Hoefnagel-Hohle (1977) found better

pronunciation in older students, whereas Fatham (1975) found a negative effect

occurred with age. Seliger however makes reference to scattered cases of adult

learners acquiring accent less pronunciation in their second language, and conversely

some children who had maintained foreign accents. Professor Stapp of the University



of Tsukuba, Japan provides further valuable insight with research of 28 monolingual

Japanese students repeating lists containing the letters /r/ and /l./

Her research noted, "The ability of young children to achieve native like proficiency

in a foreign language in a rather short time is a reflection of a type of neural plasticity,

and it appears to be related to the distinct characteristics of the young brain."

Her research sets out to establish whether young learners are better at 'mimicry' than

the adult learner based on neural plasticity properties. Early studies by Tahta, Wood

and Lowenthal (1981) suggested that superior performance of children's mimicry was

due to neural plasticity that "…promotes native like L2 pronunciation in early

acquisition." Long (1990: 266) supported this line of argument, viz; "The sharp drop

in imitation abilities …after age 6 can be accounted for by positing that maturation

constraints begin to set in as early as 6 for supra-segmental phonology in some

learners and soon after that for segmental phonology…Phonological attainment is

strongly conditioned by learner age."

But as Stapp notes; "An assumed relationship between neural plasticity and the ability

to mimic raises two important problems. First, not all young children are good

mimics: but statistically, young children do outperform older children and adults in

L2 production over the long run. Second, some adolescents and adults are good

mimics. However, since the type of neural plasticity that accounts for superior L2

pronunciation in early childhood actually declines with age, it is unlikely that such

plasticity is responsible for the outstanding mimicry skill exhibited by relatively few

mature individuals."

Medical research has shown that first language, including simultaneous bilingualism,

is densely represented in the language areas of the left-brain hemisphere, a second

language acquired later is typically more distributed in the brain. (Ojeman and

Whitaker 1978) Further investigations by Kim, Relkin, Lee and Hirsch (1997)

confirm that second languages acquired in very early childhood are spatially close to

first language in the frontal lobe, while languages acquired later are well separated in

this region. This research is still in its infancy as to definitive conclusions.

Flege (1987) rejects the notion of critical periods, and argues that neural plasticity

affecting second language acquisition is not subject to time constraints, but full L2

acquisition is possible at any time. Jacobs (1988) furthers this line of argument with

more persuasive arguments.

Neufeld (1978:1979) agrees. His research demonstrated the permanence of neural

plasticity, thus eliminating the critical age. He says that a 'sensitive period' is a false

notion. Klein (1986:10) takes the issue into the social sphere; "The biological

explanation for difficulty in L2 acquisition after puberty can be replaced or

supplemented, by arguments of a social nature. …ideal second language acquisition is

biologically feasible even after the age of puberty." This is furthered by Lowenthal

and Bull (1984) who suggest that language proficiency is boosted significantly by an

encouraging environment.

Stapp concludes her research by noting that mimicry skills appear to be a distinct

talent distributed across the age population, thus eliminating the connection to neural

plasticity. Her corollary states that; "If mimicry skill is not related to neural plasticity



in children, it is probably not possible to invoke neural plasticity as a basis for

superior performance by adolescents and or adults.

However, "the evidence clearly indicates that the typical child has the advantage over

the typical older learner in the ultimate acquisition of L2 pronunciation, with or

without good mimicry skills at the outset." Nevertheless, the mid point position

suggesting a critical age period as opposed to sound contradictory evidence, is of

great importance to elementary school teachers in Korea who are responsible for the

'critical age children.'

Of interest and concern and encompassing the critical age theory are two letters of the

English alphabet that the Koreans have the perceived greatest difficulty with, namely

the letter "L" and the letter "R". Douglas Brown (1994:57) notes that an infant with

developing speech muscles advances from simple cries to articulated vowels and

consonants by the age of 5, however, "…complex sounds …r and l…sometimes are

not achieved until after the age of 5, though virtually complete phonemic control is

present in most 5 year old children."

This has serious implications for Korean students trying to master the pronunciation

of the letters "l" and "r". This will be returned to later. According to Yamada and

Tohkura, (1992) it is especially difficult for Japanese children to pronounce the letter

'R' after the age of 14. However, learners vary in multiple other ways apart from age,

and it is these differences, associated with Terrell's Natural Approach (Krashen),

which will subsequently be looked at and linked together in returning to our central

research questions.

However, the Korean teacher at this level (elementary) has studied and received

his/her qualification mostly from a University of Education where broad stroke

training is applied, namely all topics are learnt with not one specifically, hence

Korean elementary teachers do not have specific language training skills in the

English language, for it is but one of 12 or more topics they must teach. The Korean

Middle school system is for 3 years. English is taught in all grades. The difference

here is that the teachers have majored at a University in English and their knowledge

and spoken level of English is supposed to be better than the Elementary school

teachers. The teachers also only teach one subject, namely English.

High school is for 3 years, with teachers possessing the same educational ability as

the Middle school teachers, however, as spoken English is not an major part of the

High school English system, some Korean High school teachers can't speak English

and if they do it is of a sub-standard level on the whole, such that if 'understandable

English' is the criterion, they fail the test. However as the High school exam system is

not geared towards spoken English but only grammar and rote memory, the High

school teacher needs rarely speak a word of English in his class. This is undergoing

change however as University entrance exams will now place emphasis on spoken

English, thus one can foresee a demand for competent English language teachers in

High schools. Hence, in Korea, if we accept the critical age theory, then an urgent

reassessment of just who teaches English and what are the qualifications, is vitally

important, for logically, by age 12-14, the student who now has a qualified teacher, is

in the situation where it is too late to benefit from that teacher's skills. (also see

Conclusion chapter)



Recent research by scientists at the University of Alabama into this vexed question

have broadly determined that in all skills, the maxim the 'younger is better' is

applicable. They further conclude that the more words a child hears before the age of

2, the better vocabulary he or she will be able to develop later in life. (Matire. J. 1999,

95)

In conclusion with other factors traversed in this book, it is suggested the term,

"windows of opportunity" is more apt than 'critical period.' If one accepts the word

'critical' then one impliedly accepts that teaching a second language learner after age

of 14 is a lost cause. This presents psychological factors on both the teacher and

student side, which could affect the training. It is submitted that if we consider this

time frame (2 - 14) merely as an excellent window of opportunity to teach our

pronunciation program and teach according to principles applicable to that age range,

we will succeed more often than not in our teaching program. However, merely

because we have missed that window of opportunity, doesn't mean categorically we

can't teach pronunciation successfully. What it means is that the teacher will have

other factors to consider and employ in his teaching program, and that success in

teaching what we can term as acceptable pronunciation is still highly probable, and

that we should also make the student aware that our goal is such and is attainable.

This is the sign of a good language teacher.

Appendix 3.

Survey overview:

Much debate exists over the likelihood- existence of Critical Age period for SLA.

(noted in depth herein.) Much of the debate is hypothetical or based on small survey

samplings. In 1998 the Korean Education system offered a totally unique existence to

make some comparisons. Prior to 1999 Korean students only began to study English

in Middle Schools (age 14) for the first time. Those students who had received any

English education prior to their first year in Middle school were omitted from the

survey.

Thus at the beginning of the survey we had the rare situation of children beginning

English language lessons at Middle School for the first time, and children at

Elementary school (aged 9) also learning English for the first time. The starting point

was to obtain as large a sampling as was possible. To this end, Korean elementary

students from 3 schools were surveyed. Children in third grade elementary were

sampled. A total of 602 children from elementary school grades were sampled. Also

students from 3 Middle schools were sampled; one boys school in what is considered

a low socio/economic district where one parent families are not unusual, and a second

girls only Middle school in an average socio/economic suburb. The Middle schools

are single sex schools whereas Elementary are co-educational. 800 students were

sampled at these schools.

A further small sampling was obtained from a private school, where students are of

adult years and pay to attend to receive their education. Thus the sampling came from

government and private schools. Finally a survey of 102 Korean English teachers was

taken.

The age range was from third grade elementary 9 years old and upward. Of course it

must be pointed out that Korean age is two years older than western age for the same



age, i.e., when a Korean child is born he is already one, and come January first he

turns two, hence a child born in December 1999 becomes 2 in January 2000.

The survey was presented in the written English language, with guidance from a bi-

lingual Korean English teacher to assist the students with unknown words. The

reasons for presenting in the target language were; a) responders immediately

associated with the language they were being asked about; b) responders were then

required to respond with their acquired second language, thus, though not identifiable,

arguably increasing the coefficient of reliability and affective factors towards genuine

responses.

The following factors were considered present at the time of survey that could

influence any result.

a) Elementary schools.

a) time of day survey taken. Elementary students become progressively more tired

after lunch than in the first period. It is anticipated a tired mind negates motivation

and could affect the response.

b) Weather. The survey taken was conducted in the autumn, when daily temperatures

were reaching the mid to upper 20s Celsius, with high humidity present. Some days

the weather provided oppressive conditions in the classroom. This may negatively

affect enthusiasm of either doing the survey or motivation to the target language.

c) Interpretation. The survey, in English language, was translated by a Korean English

teacher to the class. Obviously a key factor is the interpretation of the words and the

understanding of the question by the students. A further factor was the closeness of

the translation to the question framed.

d) Class atmosphere. Some classrooms showed visible signs of 'color and friendship'

towards the English language. Others remained bleak. Thus class motivation and

mood towards English must be present.

e) Socio economic regions. The survey was taken over 6 schools covering what was

considered to be a fair range of living standards.

f) Affective factors. At the time of survey students had been at school for a second

term period of some four months, with still almost 2 months of study remaining.

Student's motivation, it can be presumed with no need for analysis, would be less than

say in the final week before a long summer or winter break.

g) Classrooms in which the survey was carried out were; either in new modern

luxurious schools, or in old and 'dirty' schools.

h) Elementary schools are well equipped in each room with the latest multi media

facilities, computer, dvp, etc, thus given an overt look of high quality training.

Middle schools.



Some factors that could affect the response are.

a) Middle school students are generally stressed and tired at all times owing to large

amounts of study. English may be seen as a 'burden rather than something 'living' and

enjoyable.

b) Single sex schools. Unlike elementary schools, middle schools are single sex. The

survey covered one girl's school from a middle class district to a boy's school in a

lower class factory zone.

c) Second language learning in middle schools is more book and drill oriented than in

elementary schools, where teachers are generally more inventive and less restricted in

terms of curriculum schedules, thus students are more likely to be 'tired' and

physically exhausted than elementary students.

d) Classrooms were generally devoid of any affective materials and gave a cold

inhospitable feel and look.

e) Classrooms were also devoid of multi-media equipment, adding to the negative

atmosphere.

Korean Teachers. A sampling of (102) was taken.

Some factors that could affect any objective result noted were;

a) the survey was taken on day two of their teacher training courses. The course began

at 3.00 p.m. after the teachers had completed a long working day. Tiredness was a

factor here.

b) Korean teachers have suffered a substantial pay cut following the IMF crisis and it

is expected this will in some 'negative' way affect their answers.

c) Teacher's level of comprehension. Despite the fact they were teachers, it does not

follow their English was at a level that could understand and respond to the questions

correctly in some circumstances.

d) Teachers surveyed at teacher training classes were compulsorily conscripted to

attend.

Thus, in an attempt to spread the 'negative and positive factors around, surveys were

carried out during the first and last lesson times, in classrooms where the temperature

was either ideal or slightly uncomfortable.

Further, in the case of the student survey, only classes surveyed were those where the

teacher interpreting the survey was a senior English teacher at that school, so as to

reduce misinterpretations as much as possible. However, a caveat exists; (see Gieve

(1991) in relation to a survey conducted in Japan that noted that differences in

responses were discovered depending upon whether the questions were presented by a

Japanese teacher or native English-speaking teacher.

As Ellis (1996) says, doubts must exist as to whether such survey results can be valid

and reliable. However, little short of responders answering on a computer-generated



survey, the element of non-native or native presenter cannot be overcome.

In this Korean survey, a range of socio economic zones was surveyed, ranging from

affluent to poor. A further point common to all groups is the countries overall view of

the English language. At the time of survey, and unlike during the IMF crisis when

anti western literature was appearing daily in the media accusing the 'west' of

manipulating the crisis, at the time of survey, only one negative press release accusing

western nations of manipulating the current economic situation appeared, although

some sentiment was expressed against the US involvement in Serbia, not to mention

an anti American attitude running through society in relation to U.S. troops on Korean

soil.

How does one build in a factor to take into account all these issues? Maybe all that

can be said is that the test had general face validity. (Hughes. A. 1991, 27) Whilst

suggested analysis's for a 'second testing' were not considered feasible, for in such a

survey, certain factors present in one survey may well be removed in the next, or

complemented by corollary issues not hitherto accounted for, nevertheless, small

random second samplings provided similar results fitting within the + or - 3% variable.

It can only be said that by surveying a wide range of students and adults in a variety

of Affective conditions, can one somewhat equate the results to a medium point.

In the following questions, both question 14 and question 15 leave themselves open to

the Social Desirability Effect phenomena. An example in this survey can be seen in

question 14, where respondents may answer "yes" despite the fact that their local

Korean teacher speaks excellent English without a foreign accent, and produces just

as good a pronunciation model as the native speaker. One way considered to reduce

this possible survey defect was by using forced choice question such as, "Whom do

you think it is better to learn pronunciation from?

(i) a native English speaker

(ii) one of your Korean English teachers who speaks very good English."

However, even this question is not likely to produce perfect data because the phrase

"…to learn pronunciation…" is too imprecise.

Some respondents will address the fact that a native speaker will, all other things

being equal, tend to provide a more accurate model of correct pronunciation, and

therefore will choose (i). However, others may be more mindful of the fact that the

Korean teacher is able to explain the niceties of English pronunciation to them in their

own language, something most native speakers are unlikely to be able to do, and

therefore will choose (ii).

In other words, different respondents may interpret the question in different ways, and

the data gained from their response will therefore not represent the true views of the

group surveyed. Having noted this, it was felt, nevertheless, to leave question 14 and

15 in their raw form.

Question 6 also uses the word 'pronounce' and does not make any distinction between

spontaneous learning, that is free from any language tutoring or second language

schooling and the second type, namely systematic learning. Nor does it impose any



time limit living in the target country. However, the base question is free of issues that

could confuse the responder, and is in response to recent media, television and print

media that has strongly suggested that Koreans need not travel to another country to

learn fluent English. (Korean Herald)

Question 17 was added following suggestions from many Korean teaching staff.

Appendix 4.

SURVEY:

16 questions were asked. The first four are purely statistical:

1. Age.

2. Sex.

3. Number of children in the class.

4. Years study.

5. Have you lived in an English speaking country?

6. Do you think living in an English speaking country would help you pronounce

English;

much better

a little better

I can learn in my own country

7. Which letters of the alphabet do you find difficult to pronounce?

8. Do you like speaking English?

9. Do you speak English at school, home, both?

10. How do you learn English pronunciation?

- teacher

- watching t.v.

- listening to music

- other

11. Why are you learning English?

-school rule

-parents want me

-I want to

-my friends are

-for future or work

-other

-it's fun

12 Which 3 foreign languages (after Korean) are the most important to you learn?

- English

- Japanese

- Chinese

- German

- Spanish

- French

- other

14. Can you learn good English pronunciation from a native English speaker?

15. Can you learn good English pronunciation from your home country (Korean

English) teacher?

16. Omit from report.

17. Do you think it is

a) very important



b) important

c) useful

d) no good

in learning body language movements as part of a pronunciation and communicating

course?

RESULTS.

The survey was broken down into three components.

Component A. Elementary school students in their 2nd and 3rd year of English

language study. The age was 11 and 12 years old.

Component B. Middle school students in their 2nd and 3rd year of middle school. The

age is 14-15-16 years old.

Component C. Korean teachers and adult learners of English. The age range is from

the mid 20s to the upper 50s. The average age was 29.

By breaking the survey down to 3 specific life zones, with an interval of four years

minimum between Elementary and Middle school students, and a minimum of ten

years interval from middle school to the youngest teacher, it was hoped that changes

would be observed in the time spans.

**There is also one considerable advantage and benefit through this method. The

Korean education system is in flux. We have the rare situation of Elementary school

students beginning to learn English (Korean age 10-11-12) western age (8-9-10).

Similarly we have Middle School students who have only begun learning English at

Middle school, and have had two to three years study. Their Korean ages are (14-15-

16) Western ages 12-13-14, thus we have rare insight into the Critical Age theory,

from the early days in the critical age, to the later days. The survey reflects a unique

window of opportunity to examine students at two ends of the spectrum both doing

the same thing.**

Appendix 5.

ELEMENTARY RESULTS. Survey group = 880 students. E

MIDDLE SCHOOL RESULTS. Survey group = 820 students. M

TEACHERS. Survey group = 102 T

Question 5. Any student who responded affirmatively was not counted in the survey.

Question 6

Do you think living in an English speaking country would help you pronounce

English;

E. MS. T.

Much better 63% 62% 51%

A little better 24% 26% 26%

I can learn good pronunciation



In Korea. 11% 11% 22%

Comment.

There is a small falling off (much better) in belief as the age increases, yet still a

substantial proportion believe in the virtues of going to study overseas. Business

operators can take heart in this and should consider their advertising campaigns! It

also shows the Korean authorities have failed in their attempts to convince the

students that they can receive a good level of pronunciation training in their own

country. In January 1997 there were 133,249 Koreans studying abroad in 69 countries.

The IMF era has seen this 'exodus' (Korean Herald October 29, 1998) decrease

substantially, although according to Matire. J. (1999, 29) that will only be temporary,

especially with countries such as the U.S.A. easing regulations and allowing Korean

students to hold part time jobs whilst studying. Note the editorial, Chosun Ilbo

Newspaper, 11th June 2000, strongly advocating Korean students save their money

and study English in Korea as opposed to Canada. This may have changed post

September 11.

Question 7.

Which alphabet letters in English do you find difficult to pronounce?

E MS T

l (light -dark/approx) 11% 12% 50%

r 10% 34% 92%

f 9% 27% 70%

p 18% 10% 27%

z 34% 60% 89%

T / D 34% 76% 91%

Comment.

N.b. Phonetic symbols were provided on the blackboard by the Korean English

teacher for all sounds.

A significant difference is noted in Elementary 'r' and Middle school 'r' with the

difficulty factor increasing. Given that there is no continuity of education, we cannot

say the student's perceived an increase in language difficulty. However, we can say

that at the end of the 'critical age' students with no formal training show markedly

higher rates of perceived difficulty as they are entering second language acquisition at

the end of the critical age time frame. This consequently must have serious

implications for all teachers at elementary level, who must initiate pronunciation

programs into their training.

A second significant perceived difficulty arises with the letters 'r,f,z, and /T/ D/

sounds. This has serious implications for teaching pronunciation, such as minimal

pairs, sound glides, etc, at Elementary level.

Also it must be noted that with the exception of the letter 'p' all letters showed (for

elementary and middle schools) an increase in perceived difficulty. This in itself is

worthy of further investigation, namely given the critical age period has elapsed, why

has the letter 'p' gone in the opposite direction to the others.



What seems to be stunning is the percentage rate of perceived difficulty with adult

Korean teachers. The significant figure is the rate between /l/ and /r/. It is consistent in

elementary schools. But both Middle school students and adults show a marked

difference in perceived difficulty with the letters.

This indicates strong support for the proponents of the critical age hypothesis. It is

known these adult teachers did not receive formal pronunciation or communication

training at school or teachers college. It is also known their ability has been largely

self-attained well after leaving school, indeed after leaving Teachers Training college.

If anything, it shows the urgent need to formulate a clear and decisive training course

including the fundamentals of speech and pronunciation given that they themselves

are responsible for Elementary school English training. Conversely however, it may

just show an adult's desire to master perfection in the target language.

Question 8.

Do you like speaking English?

E MS T

Yes 68% 33% 34%

No 7% 47% 43%

Not sure 22% 19% 22%

Comment.

It seems as the Elementary student proceeds to Middle school, the inhibitive factors

increase, resulting in an increase in those who don't like studying English. This result

should be considered next to point 7 above, with the increase in perceived

pronunciation difficulty. Of significance is the high percentage of those who remain

undecided about their beliefs on learning English.

Also over the age range it can be seen that those who like speaking English decrease

with years, those who don't enjoy speaking English similarly increases. The reasons

need further elaboration to determine if inhibitive factors have 'selective' periods and

are more common to one group than another. It was noted ((not listed in the above

analysis)) that a greater percentage (62%) of boys showed a positive preference to

speaking English than girls at the Middle school level. This point may need further in-

depth analysis.

Question 10.

How do you learn pronunciation?

(Only one category is included)

E MS

From schoolteacher. 67% 75%

This result, although open to arguments of being too narrow in scope, merely

indicates that the teacher plays a perceived significant role in the teaching of

pronunciation.

Question 11.

Why are you learning English?



E MS

i. school rule - -

ii. my parents want me to 10% 10%

iii. I want to 37% 21%

iv. my friends are 37% 10%

v. for my future 5% 50%

vi. other 89% 10%

vii. it's interesting and fun 54% 10%

Comment.

Students were allowed multiple answers hence the mathematical anomaly.

School rule was answered almost 100%.

Of note is the relatively small percentage where parental influence applies, despite

earlier discussions on this point herein.

Sadly the self-desire to learn falls heavily from Elementary school to Middle school

reflecting factors of concern, namely what has caused the fall off in interest? Similarly

peer pressure falls away markedly in the Middle schools, yet the concern for the

future soars from Elementary to Middle school. This does not sit comfortably with the

small percentage of parents who want their middle school child to study English. It

would be assumed that parents would discuss the future employability of their child

with their child. The alternative is that schoolteachers have installed this belief (fear)

in the students whilst they are at Middle school. And despite H. Douglas Brown's

argument (1996) that peer pressure from friends to learn English exists, this seems

resoundly refuted by these results. The final point of concern shows the massive

decline from Elementary school where children enjoy English to Middle schools

where they do not. This must reflect on Middle school curriculum and or teaching and

practices and needs serious attention.

Question 14.

Can you learn good English pronunciation and good spoken English from a native

English teacher?

YES E = 79% MS = 56% T = 86%

NO E = 20% MS = 43% T = 13%

Comment.

It seems surprising that a large percentage of all categories think it possible to learn

good pronunciation from a native English teacher, especially as it is noted elsewhere

teachers have few qualifications, (something private schools could exploit) yet only

about 50-60% believed (in point 6) that they could significantly improve their

pronunciation by living in an English speaking country. The discrepancy, it is

submitted, is possibly (probably) due to the fact that Koreans believe they have a

'platform' of proficiency in pronunciation above which they cannot go. That platform,

it is submitted, can be achieved in Korea from a qualified native English teacher with

a clear pronunciation program.Although the figures for those who do not believe a

native English speaker can teach pronunciation well are 13% -43%, it is submitted

this figure is consistent with those who indicated in (point 8) above, that they do not

like speaking English. It is submitted that that category has a negative factor built in



about liking and learning English. This may be consistent with Porter & Garvin

(1989) who warn that pronunciation programs may do more harm than good and

should be further researched.

Question 15.

Can you learn good English pronunciation and good spoken English from a Korean

English teacher?

YES. E = 55% MS = 37% T = 53%

NO. E = 9% MS = 15% T = 17%

Not Sure E = 35% MS = 47% T = 29%

The figures for Elementary students and teachers on the 'yes' vote is consistent, whilst

the figures for the Middle schools is also consistent with the fact that they have only

had two or three years English study, and fall on the outer limit of the critical age

period, thus making learning that much harder and their perceptions more negative

and although those teaching them have majors in English from a University, the

spoken English of Korean Middle school teachers often leaves much to be desired,

thus the added perception by the students that English is all the more difficult because

their teacher either does not speak English (as happens in an English class, or the level

is sub-standard, thus making learning that much harder.)

Similarly, many Middle school students have had tuition at private schools thus

exposing them to native English teachers, and allowing a comparison to be made.

Interestingly, less than one quarter of all categories believe that Korean teachers can't

teach good English pronunciation, although the undecided factor is high. Clearly,

however, the Korean education system has a lot of work to do in the field of training

Korean English teachers if it is to meet the student's demands and expectations.

Question 16.

Do you think it is

a) very important

b) important

c) useful

d) no good

in learning body language?

a) E = 25% MS = 23% T = 19%

b) E = 44% MS = 23% T = 25%

c) E = 25% MS = 34% T = 53%

d) E = 0% MS = 6% T = 2%

Comment. As argued above, non-verbal gestures (body language) falls within the broadened

definition of what is pronunciation. The figures in all categories provide a good

positive spread indicating that 'non verbal communication' should be taught. Of note

is the tiny percentage that does not believe that body language is important at all. If

anything, this stresses the need for curriculum writers to consider inserting sections

and exercises relating to body language. This undoubtedly, if well done, would

provide a fun and interesting way for students to learn about another aspect of this

area of English, and indeed give them something tangible to compare to their Korean

(native) language.



Survey Error analysis. A sample survey of 50 elementary students, 50 middle school students and 20

teachers was conducted 3 months later outside of the survey time frame. The results

fell within a + or - 3% difference in all categories, suggesting the figures obtained

from the initial applicants were fairly indicative.

Appendix 5.

Survey conclusion.

Applicants from a broad spectrum were surveyed and surveyed under a variety of

conditions and from a variety of socio-economic areas.

The results tend to give weight to the hypothesis of the critical age period, not as an

absolute irrefutable time frame which beyond all is impossible, but as a time frame in

which it is highly ideal to professionally and correctly teach students English and

pronunciation. This time frame I prefer to label, "The window of Opportunity.” Also,

the results give weight to the theory that affective conditions are very significant.

Further, the results show that there is far more work to be done, firstly in the teaching

of pronunciation to students, secondly, in determining why such a large fall in those

'who like English' occurs after elementary school, thirdly, that English as a language

seems to fail when it comes to public relations, in so far as a great percentage of

applicants showed results suggesting a negativity towards the language. The survey

does show, however, that more questions and more research needs to be done in

relation to affective conditions.

Index: Amtmann, J. & Evans, R. 2001, 'Interview Protocols', Corrections Compendium, vol.

6. pp1-11.

Asher. J. & Garcia. R, 1969, 'The Optimal Age to Learn a Foreign Language', Modern

Language Journal, vol. 53, pp.334-341.

Bickerton, L. 1967, Roots of Language, Ann Arbour, Karoma Publishers. NY.

Brown, H. Douglas, 1994, Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 3rd edn,

Prentice Hall, NY.

Burke-Johnson, R. 1997, 'Examining the Validity Structure of Qualitative Research',

Education, vol. 118. pp.282-286.

Caporaso, J.A. 1995, 'Research Design, Falsification and the Qualitative -

Quantitative Divide', American Political Science Review, vol. 89. pp.457-461.

Carr, W. & Kemmis, W. 1985, Becoming Critical. Education, Knowledge and Action

Research, The Falmer Press, London.

Cheon, H. 2001, The viability of computer mediated communication in the Korean

secondary EFL classroom. Ma Thesis, Pukyong National University, Korea.

Christensen, L.B. 1997, Experimental Methodology, 7th edn, Allyn and Bacon,



Boston.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. 2001, Research Methods in Education, 5th edn,

Routledge, NY.

Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. 1979, Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis

Issues for Field Settings, Rand McNally, Chicago.

Creswell, J.W. 1994, Research Design; Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches,

Sage, CA.

Cross, G., David, C., Graham, M. & Thralls, C. 1996, 'Thinking and Re-Thinking

Research Methodology', Business Communication Quarterly, vol. 59. pp.105-115.

Crozet, C. & Liddicoat, A.J. 1997, 'Teaching Culture as an Integrated Part of

Language Teaching: An Introduction,' ARAL Series S, no. 14, pp.1-22.

Dooley, D. 2001, Social Research Methods, 4th edn, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Ellis, R. OUP, 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition, O.U.P., Oxford.

Flege. J, 1995, 'A Critical Period For Learning to Pronounce Foreign Languages',

Applied Linguistics, vol.8., pp.162-177

Fox, D. 2000, 'Classroom Assessment Data: Asking the Right Questions', Leadership,

vol. 30. pp.22.

Glesne, C. & Peshkin, A.1992, Becoming Qualitative Researchers, Longman, NY.

Hara, K. 1995, 'Quantitative and Qualitative Research Approaches in Education',

Education, vol. 115. pp. 351-356.

Heydon, J.D. 1996, Cross on Evidence, 5th edn., Butterworths, Sydney.

Hoover, K.R. 1984, 'Measuring Variables and Relationships', The Elements of Social

Scientific Thinking, 3rd edn, pp. 100-135, St Martin's Press.

Jakobson, R. 1968, Child Language, Aphasia, and Phonological Universals, Mouton,

The Hague.

Kim, K,. Relkin, N,. Lee, K.M. and Hirsch. J. 1997, 'Distinct Cortical Areas

Associated with Native and Second Languages', Nature, July, vol.388, pp.171-174

Klein, W. 1996, Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge University Press.

Cambridge.

Krashen, S., Long, M. & Scarcella, R. 1979, 'Age, Rate and Eventual Attainment in

Second Language Acquisition', TESOL Quarterly, vol. 13, pp. 573-582.

Kroll, B. 2001, 'Considerations for Teaching an ESL/EFL Writing Course', 219232 in

Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 3rd edn, ed M. Celce-Murcia,



Heinle and Heinle, USA.

Kumar, R. 1996, Research Methodology, London, Longman.

Lather, P. 1986, 'Issues of Validity in Openly Ideological Research', Interchange, vol.

17. pp.63-84.

Lennenberg, E. 1967, Biological Foundations of Language, Wiley, New York.

Liebscher, P. 1996, 'Quantity with Quality', Library Trends, vol. 46. pp.668-681.

Long, M. 1997, The Role of Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition,

in W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia, eds, Handbook of Research on Second Language

Acquisition, pp. 413-468., Academic, New York:

McDonough, J. & McDonough, S. 1997, Research Methods for English Language

Teachers, Arnold, London.

McLaughlan, B. 1992, (accessed March 30, 2002) 'Myths and Misconceptions about

Second Language Learning. What Every Teacher Needs to Unlearn.', University

Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second

Language Learning, http://128.48.120.7/mw/mwcgi.mb#LB

Malterud, K. 2001, 'Qualitative Research; Standards, Challenges and Guidelines,' The

Lancet, vol. 358, pp. 483-499.

Matire, J. 1999, Small Group Discussion Topics for Korean Students, PNU Press,

Korea.

Matsuda, P. 'Situating ESL Writing in a Cross-Disciplinary Context' Written

Communication, vol. 15(1), pp.99-121.

Neufield, G. 1980, On the Adult's Ability to Acquire Phonology, TESOL Quarterly,

vol. xiv3, pp.285-298.

O'Grady, W. & Dobrovolsky, M. 1996. Contemporary Linguistic Analysis, Copp

Clark Ltd. Toronto.

Poggenpoel, M., Myburgh, C. & van der Linde, C. 2001, 'Qualitative Research

Strategies as Prerequisites for Quantitative Strategies,' Education, vol. 122. pp. 408-

414.

Popkewitz, T. 1994, Paradigm and Ideology in Educational Research, Falmer Press,

Mass.

Punch, K.F. 1998, 'Mixed Methods and Evaluative', Introduction to Social Research,

Sage Publications, London.

Repp, A.C., Nieminen, G.S., Olinger, E. & Brusca, R. 1988, 'Direct Observation

Factors Affecting the Accuracy of Observers, Exceptional Children, vol. 55, pp.29-37.



Saville-Troike, M. 1989, 'The Analysis of Communicative Events', in The

Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction, 2nd edn, Basil Blackwell, Oxford,

pp. 107-180.

Scovel, T. 1981, 'The recognition of foreign accents in English and its implications to

psycholinguistic theories of language acquisition,' in eds, J, Savord and L, LaForge,

Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of AILA. Laval. University of Laval Press.

Seliger, H. 1978, Implications of Multiple Critical Period Hypotheses for Second

Language Learning. In Ritchie. W., Second Language Acquisition Research, New

York, Academic Press,. pp.11-20.

Singleton, D. 1989, Language Acquisition. The Age Factor, Clevedon,

Avon.Multilingual Matters.

Somekh, B. 1993, 'Flies On the Walls of Their Classrooms', Times Educational

Supplement, no. 4021, pp.11.

Smith, J.K. 1984, 'The Problem of Criteria for Judging Interpretive Inquiry',

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 6. pp.379-391.

Stapp, Y. 1999, 'Neural Plasticity and the Issue of Mimicry Tasks in L2 Pronunciation

Studies', University of Tsukuba, Japan., TESL-EJ vol. 3 January, No. 4

Thompson, I. 1991 Foreign Accents Revisited. Language Learning, vol. 41, pp.177-

204

Wash, M. & Diller. A,. 1981, Neuro-linguistic Considerations of the Optimum Age

for Second Language Learning. In Diller, A. ed, 1981, Second Language Learning

and Neurolinguistics, Copp Clark, N.Y.

Wolcott, H.F. 1990, Writing Up Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, California.

Yates, L. 1999, 'Transitions and the Year 7 Experience: A Report From the 12 to 18

Project', Australian Journal of Education, vol. 42, no. 1, pp.24-41.

Wright, P. 1999, 'The Thought of Doing Drama Scares Me to Death', Research in

Drama Education, vol. 4, no.2., pp.227-237.

Zelditch, M. 1962, 'Some Methodological Problems of Field Studies', American

Journal of Psychology, vol. 67. pp. 56-576.



TESOL Course:-

Questions for Consideration:-

(1) How do you asses your student’s spoken level of English?

(2) How do you answer questions you are not sure about?

(3) What do you say if the student says you made a mistake?

(4) How do you motivate the student?

(5) What do you do if the student says the material is boring?

(6) How do you respond if the student says your pronunciation is not good?

(7) What is the best way to ensure your teacher student relationship begins well?

(8) Some students have studies Second Language Acquisition theories. They may

well know much more than you. What do you say to them?

(9) What do you say (how do you teach) to students who are so shy and have such

low level English skills that they do not want to talk?

(10) How much praise should you give to students on their language progress?



TESOL Teaching.

(1) A sample chapter – A very useful way for:-

a) promoting conversation

b) vocabulary acquisition

c) gives students confidence

d) promotes reading skill

e) promotes fluency

Weather:-

(a) Picture description. In this picture (beach scene from Pusan, Korea, you can see

many things. There are over 200 words that can be described from this picture.

Discuss the picture then go on to the topic and read that and answer the questions in

free flow discussion style.

Key description words:- In the foreground

In the background

In the middle

In the top left (right) corner

Student says: - This looks like a picture taken at the beach. It is summer time. I can

see…..”



(2) A sample chapter

Sample text: - “Words in blue may need describing/translation”

Weather

On Earth, common weather phenomena include such things as wind, cloud, rain, snow,

fog and dust storms. Less common events include natural disasters such as tornadoes,

hurricanes and ice storms. Almost all familiar weather phenomena occur in the

troposphere (the lower part of the atmosphere). Weather does occur in the

stratosphere and can affect weather lower down in the troposphere, but the exact

mechanisms are poorly understood.[1]

The atmosphere is a chaotic system, so small changes to one part of the system can

grow to have large effects on the system as a whole. This makes it difficult to

accurately predict weather more than a few days in advance, though weather

forecasters are continually working to extend this limit through the scientific study of

weather, meteorology.

It is theoretically impossible to make useful day-to-day predictions more than about

two weeks ahead, imposing an upper limit to potential for improved prediction skill.

Chaos theory says that the slightest variation in the motion of the ground can grow

with time.

This idea is sometimes called the butterfly effect, from the idea that the motions

caused by the flapping wings of a butterfly eventually could produce marked changes

in the state of the atmosphere. Because of this sensitivity to small changes it will

never be possible to make perfect forecasts, although there still is much potential for

improvement.

Questions:-

1. What is your favorite season

2. Describe the four seasons in Korea

3. What do you do in summer (winter, spring, and fall?)

4. What do wear in these seasons

5. Do you play any sports? What season do you play them in?



(2) A sample chapter – A very useful way for:-

f) promoting conversation

g) vocabulary acquisition

h) gives students confidents

i) reading skill

j) fluency

1. Discuss what you see in the picture.

2. Read the article and answer the questions

Smoking ban hits French cafe culture

PARIS - From next week, one of France's most iconic institutions — the smoky cafe

— will be but a hazy memory. The extension of France's smoking ban to bars,

discotheques, restaurants, hotels, casinos and cafes on Jan. 1 marks a momentous

cultural shift.

For smokers, this is the most distressing part of a phased smoking ban that began last

February in workplaces, schools, airports, hospitals and other "closed and covered"

public places like train stations. But many bartenders and restaurant staffers are

looking forward to breathing easier and to clothes that don't stink of seeped-in odors

from the clouds of smoke where they work. Just about anywhere indoors will be off-



limits for smoking, except homes, hotel rooms, and sealed smoking chambers at

establishments that decide to provide them.

"The French culture associated with smoking is a 20th-century thing, but we won't

forget the experience," ex-smoker Lisa Zane, a Chicago-born singer who lives in Paris,

said at Le Fumoir (The Smoking Den) restaurant and bar behind the Louvre.

"Smoking seems insane now — we have to adapt."

The Health Ministry says one in two regular smokers here dies of smoking-related

illness, and about 5,000 nonsmokers die each year of passive smoking. About a

quarter of France's 60 million people are smokers. The ban will likely mean more

unsightly cigarette butts on sidewalks and in gutters. British American Tobacco's

French arm on Wednesday began a pilot program in and near Paris of putting ashtrays

outside bars where tobacco products are sold.

Countries like Italy, Spain, Belgium, Britain and Ireland already have smoking bans.

But it's tough to imagine the style-conscious French bundling up in blankets to smoke

on chilly restaurant terraces, like some Londoners have. Many restaurateurs, cafe

owners and disco operators fear lost business: Smokers who light up with a

countertop morning coffee, on the dance floor or after a meal make up a huge

customer base.

"There will be a drop, certainly. The tobacco-bar is part of the French tradition," said

Christophe Mgo, owner of Le Marigny bar in northwest Paris. "They (customers who

smoke) will surely stay less time and they will only drink one coffee or beer, instead

of two."

A national union of disco owners has said it expects a 5- to 8-percent decline in

business initially, and has urged the government to send pamphlets to police to show

"understanding" in their enforcement of the ban. Some 10,000 protesters, mainly

tobacco vendors, marched across Paris last month in an unsuccessful attempt to

persuade lawmakers to add flexibility to the new prohibitions.

In a minor concession, the government says it won't fully enforce the new ban on New

Year's Day — giving smokers the right to puff away until Jan. 2. The government is

increasingly encouraging smokers to quit. A traveling campaign went to seven cities

in November and December, offering rapid-fire meetings with anti-smoking experts

— a bit like speed-dating sessions. For those who continue to smoke, the bitterness

will take time to fade over what they see as an infringement of their freedoms. "Great

idea," smoker Daniel Marierouyer, 45, said sarcastically at Le Fumoir. "I love it when

things get imposed on us — Buckle your seat beat, don't smoke, you need to be

healthy, you're too fat."



Lesson Plans:-

Successful teachers are invariably good planners and thinkers. They didn't get that

way overnight. The road to success requires commitment and practice, especially of

those skills involved in planning lessons, activities, and managing classroom behavior.

Planning lessons is a fundamental skill all teachers must develop and hone, although

implementation of this skill in actual teaching can, and usually does, take some

time. Being able to develop an effective lesson plan format is a core skill for all who

teach. So let's begin at the beginning.

The purpose of a lesson plan is really quite simple; it is to communicate. But, you

might ask, communicate to whom? The answer to this question, on a practical basis, is

YOU! The lesson plans you develop are to guide you in organizing your material and

yourself for the purpose of helping your students achieve intended learning outcomes.

Whether a lesson plan fits a particular format is not as relevant as whether or not it

actually describes what you want, and what you have determined is the best means to

an end. If you write a lesson plan that can be interpreted or implemented in many

different ways, it is probably not a very good plan. This leads one to conclude that a

key principle in creating a lesson plan is specificity. It is sort of like saying, "almost

any series of connecting roads will take you from Key West Florida to Anchorage

Alaska, eventually." There is however, one any only one set of connecting roads that

represents the shortest and best route. Best means that, for example, getting to

Anchorage by using an unreliable car is a different problem than getting there using a

brand new car. What process one uses to get to a destination depends on available

resources and time.

1. Preliminary Information

The development of a lesson plan begins somewhere, and a good place to start is with

a list or description of general information about the plan. This information sets the

boundaries or limits of the plan. Here is a good list of these information items: (a) the

grade level of the students for whom the plan is intended; (b) the specific subject

matter (mathematics, reading, language arts, science, social studies, etc.); (c) if

appropriate, the name of the unit of which the lesson is a part; and (d) the name of the

teacher.

2. The Parts

Each part of a lesson plan should fulfill some purpose in communicating the specific

content, the objective, the learning prerequisites, what will happen, the sequence of

student and teacher activities, the materials required, and the actual assessment

procedures. Taken together, these parts constitute an end (the objective), the means

(what will happen and the student and teacher activities), and an input (information

about students and necessary resources). At the conclusion of a lesson, the assessment

tells the teacher how well students actually attained the objective.



In a diagram, the process looks something like this:

Input ======>process=====>output

Input: This part refers to the physical materials, other resources, and information that

will be required by the process. What are these inputs? First of all, if you have thought

about what the lesson is supposed to accomplish, the inputs are much easier to

describe. In general categories, inputs consist of:

1. Information about the students for whom the lesson is intended. This information

includes, but is not limited to the age and grade level of the students, and what they

already know about what you want them to learn.

2. Information about the amount of time you estimate it will take to implement the

lesson.

3. Descriptions of the materials that will be required by the lesson, and at some point,

the actual possession of the materials.

4. Information about how you will acquire the physical materials required.

5. Information about how to obtain any special permissions and schedules required.

For example if your lesson plan will require a field trip, you must know how to

organize it. If your lesson will require a guest speaker (fire chief, lawyer, police

officer, etc.) you must know how to make arrangements for having that person be at

the right place at the right time.

Process

This is the actual plan. If you have done the preliminary work (thinking, describing

the inputs), creating the plan is relatively easy. There are a number of questions you

must answer in the creating the plan:

1. What are the inputs? This means you have the information (content description,

student characteristics, list of materials, prerequisites, time estimates, etc.) necessary

to begin the plan.

2. What is the output? This means a description of what the students are supposed to

learn.

3. What do I do? This means a description of the instructional activities you will

use.

4. What do the students do? This means a description of what the students will do

during the lesson.

5. How will the learning be measured? This means a description of the assessment

procedure at the end of the lesson.

*The value of lesson plans has often been overstated, however, they do serve

purposes for both new and experience teacher alike.

new teacher: - experienced teacher:-

1. plan a possible lesson keep track of students progress

2. have back ups when things ‘go wrong’ follow a student’s progress

3. Evaluate yourself re-work and improve the lesson

4. list requirements in advance makes good material to re-use



Your lesson plan.

TESOL Certificate. The MMBS Course. January 2008eflclassroom.com/teachertraining/book1tesol.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of TESOL Certificate. The MMBS Course. January 2008eflclassroom.com/teachertraining/book1tesol.pdf ·...