The Effects of Bilingual Instruction on the Literacy Skills of Young Learners

AbstractThis research focused on the effects of bilingual instruction on the acquisition of literacy skills of preschoolers. An experimental design was used, with language of instruction as the independent variable and the different literacy skills as dependent variables. The sample consisted of preschool children belonging to an urban poor community in the Philippines. They were given

pretests and were divided into three groups: Monolingual Filipino, Monolingual English, and Bilingual. They were taught different literacy skills for eight weeks and were then administered the posttests. Data was analyzed and evaluated in the light of the central processing and script-dependent hypotheses. Based on the data, it can be inferred that monolingual instruction in either Filipino or English had a stronger effect on the children’s literacy skills compared to bilingual instruction. Moreover, mother tongue-based instruction, as compared to second-language instruction, had stronger effect on the preschoolers’ literacy skills. Such results have implications not only for mother tongue-based (MTB) but also for English as a second language (ESL) instruction in the country.

A descriptive investigation of the different components of preschool education in the Philippines

found that majority (76.68%) of the 631 preschools included in the survey used a mixture of

English, Filipino, and the local vernacular (Santos, 1990). It was thus recommended that studies

be undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of developing literacy skills in two or more languages

among preschool children.

The present study took its cue from that recommendation and aimed to investigate the effects of

language of instruction on preschoolers’ acquisition of literacy skills. Particularly, it aimed to

investigate the following:

1. the effects of monolingual Filipino instruction on preschool

children’s acquisition of literacy skills in English

2. the effects of  monolingual English instruction on preschool

children’s acquisition of literacy skills in Filipino

3. the effects of bilingual instruction, i.e., the use of both

Filipino and English, on preschool children’s acquisition

of literacy skills in Filipino and in English

Moreover, this study also aimed to compare the effects of monolingual instruction in either

Filipino or English to those of bilingual instruction, and to determine which of the literacy skills

would be strongly affected by a particular language of instruction. The findings based on such a

comparison may have implications for policies regarding the medium of instruction—

particularly the use of a second language like English in early literacy instruction.

Bilingualism and biliteracyThere have been several studies on bilingualism and biliteracy that address different concerns. Some studies, for instance, have taken into account the effects of first language (L1) on second language (L2) oral language development. The old notion was that L1 “interferes” with L2, but this has not been supported by research evidence; instead, research clearly shows that L1 serves a supportive rather than a negative role as far as L2 oral development is concerned (Ovando &

Collier, 1998). Children’s proficiency in L1 appears to predict their success at learning L2 (Hoff, 2001). This is particularly true of language proficiency required by academic settings: proficiency in decontextualized language use, i.e., children’s academic language skills in L1, predicted their academic language skills in L2 (Cummins, 1991 in Hoff, 2001). Studies clearly show that a learner’s L1 influences the acquisition of L2—children acquiring English, for example, make different errors depending on what their L1 is (Hoff, 2001).

Another important issue in biliteracy research is the role of L1 literacy in L2 literacy–whether

transfer happens from L1 to L2. Koda (1994 in Wade-Woolley, 1999) asserts that certain

conditions distinguish L2 literacy from L1 literacy: the influence of prior literacy, limited

linguistic knowledge, and cross-linguistic effects. These conditions definitely have their effects

on L2 literacy because many studies have shown that cognitive and academic development in L1

has a strong, positive effect on L2 development for academic purposes. Academic skills, literacy

development, subject knowledge, and learning strategies all transfer from L1 to L2 as the

vocabulary and communicative patterns are developed in L2 to express that academic

knowledge. This is why L1 literacy is considered a crucial base for L2 literacy development.

Many studies (Comeau, Cormier, Grandmaison, & Lacroix, 1999; Durgunoğlu, Nagy, and

Hacin-Bhatt, 1993 in Garcia, 2000; Fashola, et al.,1996 in Garcia, 2000; Ocampo, 2002) have

found that a wide variety of skills and learning strategies developed in L1 reading and writing

can positively transfer to L2 reading and writing. In another light, research also shows that the

influence of orthography (e.g. Filipino has a more transparent orthography compared to English)

“cannot be dismissed, although its importance may be diminished in contexts where the two

languages/scripts are experienced by, and taught to, children concurrently” (in the case of

Filipino children who study under the Filipino-English bilingual program) (Ocampo, 2005).

One of the more controversial issues in bilingual literacy is the initial medium of instruction to

use. Dutcher’s (1994 in Tucker, 1999) comprehensive review of research in the use of L1 and L2

in education yielded the conclusion that children most easily develop literacy skills and cognitive

skills and likewise master content material in a familiar language. For instance, among

language minority students in the United States, research indicates that the most successful long-

term academic achievement occurs where students’ primary language is the initial language of

literacy; in contrast, language majority students who are taught to read initially in L2 show no

negative consequences (Genesee, 1987; Thomas & Collier, 1997 in Ovando & Collier, 1998).

There are several theories that try to explain how young children learn to be biliterate. One such

theory is the central processing or universalist theory,which claims that a central linguistic-

cognitive executive controls the development of literacy skills (Geva & Wade-Woolley, 1998);

thus, the theory highlights the role of underlying cognitive processes (e.g., short term verbal

memory, efficient serial naming) and linguistic components (e.g., phonological skills) in the

emergence of reading skills in L1 or L2 (Geva & Siegel, 2000). The central processing theory

posits that individuals with deficient cognitive and linguistic skills will experience difficulty in

acquiring basic reading skills, regardless of the language and script involved, and regardless of

whether it is their L1 or L2. What was deemed as a view opposed to this is the  script dependent

hypothesis, which asserts that the acquisition of literacy skills is driven by the specific

processing requirements of the orthography; in this analysis, underlying cognitive resources are

tapped differentially, to the degree demanded by the orthographic characteristics of L1 and L2

writing systems (Geva & Wade-Woolley, 1998).

More recent studies on biliteracy support the view that the central processing and script-

dependent theories are not contradictory but rather complementary views. Neither of these

hypotheses can single-handedly account for the complex interaction of processes entailed in the

acquisition of biliteracy skills. In a study involving English-Hebrew biliterates, Geva and Wade-

Woolley (1998) found this to be so. In the same light, Gholamain and Geva (1999) found that

among Persian-English biliterates in Canada, basic reading skills in L1 and L2 correlate

positively and significantly and that variability in performance can be understood to some extent

in terms of development and individual differences in underlying cognitive-linguistic factors

such as working memory and speed of letter naming—these findings support the central

processing hypothesis. Yet, there is also some evidence that once children have learned the

grapheme-phoneme correspondence rules in Persian (which has a relatively transparent

orthography), they can read accurately and decode unfamiliar Persian words regardless of

general proficiency in Persian. To a certain extent, then, script characteristics might also play an

important role in understanding developmental trajectories associated with reading skills

development in various languages.

Ocampo (2002) likewise found that the central processing and script dependent hypotheses are

complementary explanations of concurrent literacy development. The study that investigated the

literacy development and literacy difficulties of Filipino-English biliterates found, among other

things, that common underlying skills predict performance in word reading skills in both

languages, correlations between cognitive skills assessed in two languages are significant, and

difficulties in one language may be caused by difficulties in a cognitive skill in the other

language.

Research design

This study aimed to investigate the effects of bilingual instruction on preschool children’s

acquisition of literacy skills. To meet this goal, an experimental design was used. Three groups

consisting of four- to six-year-old children were formed: the Monolingual Filipino (MF), the

Monolingual English (ME), and the Bilingual (BL). The independent variable was the language

of instruction used: Filipino for MF, English for ME, and both Filipino and English for BL. MF

and ME served as control groups and had monolingual instruction while BL served as the

experimental group and had bilingual instruction.

The dependent variables were the literacy skills tested before and after instruction: (a) book and

print knowledge, (b) alphabet knowledge, (c) syllable tapping, (d) identifying onsets and rimes,

(e) phoneme tapping, (f) decoding, (g) spelling, (h) vocabulary, and (i) listening comprehension.

The first two literacy tests (book and print knowledge, alphabet knowledge) were conducted in

Filipino while the rest of the literacy tests were conducted in two languages (Filipino and

English). It is important to note that the literacy tests in English were NOT just a translation of

the tests in Filipino. A unique set of tests was constructed and validated for each language.

The sample consisted of four- to six-year-old children who belonged to urban poor families, had

Filipino as their first language, and had not yet gone to school. All of them were also nonreaders

(based on the results of the pretests). Table 1 shows the final composition of the three groups

who completed the eight-week instruction and took the posttests.

MF consisted of 3 children—1 girl and 2 boys. The girl was five years old while the boys were

six years old. The mean age for this group when they took the pretests was five years and seven

months. The pretest mean raw score was 47. (This mean raw score became higher than the ME

and BL groups after five of the eight children in the original group dropped out.)

Table 1

Composition of the Sample

Group Age Gender Pretest Mean

Raw Score

  4 5 6   Girls Boys  

MF 0 1 2   1 2 47

ME 0 2 4   4 2 41

BL 1 3 1   3 2 42

To gather information about the sample, establish the participants’ baseline literacy skills, and

evaluate the effects of the language of instruction, several instruments were used in this study:

Child’s Information Sheet; tests on Book and Print Knowledge, Alphabet Knowledge, Syllable

Tapping, Identifying Onsets and Rimes, Phoneme Tapping, Decoding, Spelling, Vocabulary,

Listening Comprehension; list of Oral Language Samples, Literacy Behavior Checklist,

Teacher’s Journal, and Activity Sheets. Some of these instruments were adapted from Catch

Them Early (1995) and Ocampo’s dissertation (2002), while the others were constructed and

validated by the researcher. 

Data collection and analysis

Data collection was divided into these phases: pretest/posttest preparation and validation,

sampling selection, pre-teaching, implementation of the eight-week literacy programs, and post-

teaching. After tests were prepared and validated and the participants were selected, 28 preschool

children were given the pretests and divided into the three groups based on gender (each group

had boys and girls) and pretest scores (each group had children belonging to the high, middle,

and low score groups).

The three groups were taught different literacy skills for eight weeks using theFour-Pronged

Approach, but using either monolingual or bilingual instruction.  The Four-Pronged Approach

to beginning literacy consists of these four prongs: genuine love for reading (GLR), critical

thinking (CT), grammar and oral language development (GOLD), and decoding/writing skills or

transfer stage (TS). It is a literature-based instruction that develops all four macro skills:

speaking, listening, reading, and writing.

At the end of the eight-week literacy program, only 14 of the 28 children remained and these

children were administered the posttests. Due to sample size limitations (n=14), group profiles

and single case profiles were used to analyze and evaluate the data derived from the pretests and

posttests results. Raw scores, percentage scores, and means were presented whenever relevant.

The children’s oral language samples and portfolios consisting of penmanship samples, art

samples, and activity sheets were also analyzed and evaluated. The observation checklist and

teacher’s journal gave additional information on each child’s progress.

Figures 1 and 2 show the mean percentage gains of the three groups in the Filipino and English

measures respectively. These figures show that the MF group had the highest gains in four

literacy tests in Filipino and in three literacy tests in English.

Figure 1. Mean Percentage Gains of MF, ME, and BL Groups in the Filipino Measures (click to

enlarge)

Figure 2. Mean Percentage Gains of MF, ME, and BL Groups in the English Measures (click to

enlarge)

Data was analyzed and evaluated in the light of the central processing and script-dependent

hypotheses. It was predicted that regardless of the language used in instruction, the children

would perform better in Filipino, which is a more transparent language compared to English, and

that monolingual instruction in either Filipino or English would have a positive effect on the

children’s literacy skills in the language not used for instruction.  For instance, the monolingual

Filipino group would also show some gains in the English literacy tests though they were not

instructed in English.

Analysis and evaluation of the data (please see Figures 1 and 2) derived from the pretests and

posttests, oral language samples, and the portfolio assessment yielded some interesting results.

All three treatments—monolingual Filipino, monolingual English, and bilingual (Filipino and

English) instruction—had generally positive effects on the children’s literacy skills in both

Filipino and English. Stronger effects were noted on alphabet knowledge skills and phonological

awareness skills (except for phoneme tapping). The weakest effects were noted on phoneme

segmentation, decoding, and spelling in either language. Moderate effects were noted on book

and print knowledge, vocabulary, and listening comprehension. Comparing the performance of

the three groups, the Monolingual Filipino children had the most number of highest gains in the

different measures in either Filipino or English; this was followed by the Monolingual English

children, then the Bilingual children—in that order. Thus, though the results have confirmed the

hypotheses regarding the positive effect of monolingual Filipino, monolingual English, and

bilingual instruction on the literacy skills of the preschoolers, as well as the stronger effect on

alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness skills, the same results did not support the

hypothesis regarding the stronger effects of bilingual instruction on the children’s literacy skills

compared to the effects of either monolingual Filipino or monolingual English instruction. Based

on the data, it can be inferred that monolingual instruction in either Filipino or English had a

stronger effect on the children’s literacy skills compared to bilingual instruction. Moreover,

monolingual Filipino instruction (mother-tongue instruction), as compared to monolingual

English (ESL) instruction, apparently had stronger effect on preschool children’s literacy skills.

Some of these results can be explained in the light of the central processing and script-dependent

theories. The positive effects of monolingual Filipino instruction on English literacy skills and

those of monolingual English instruction on Filipino literacy skills lend support to the existence

of cognitive and linguistic processes such as phonological abilities that underlie literacy learning

in any language; such results, therefore, lend support to the central processing theory. On the

other hand, the children’s relatively more remarkable performance in the Filipino measures show

that for these preschool children, it is relatively easier to learn literacy skills in a language which

has a more transparent orthography, like in the case of Filipino. The results, therefore, cannot be

solely explained by just one of the two theories; instead, both central processing and script-

dependent theories can be used as complementary explanations for the children’s biliteracy

learning. This is consistent with previous research findings (Geva, 2000; Geva & Siegel, 2000;

Geva & Wade-Woolley, 1998; Gholamain & Geva, 1999; Ocampo, 2002) that biliteracy learning

cannot be explained solely by either central processing or script dependent theory for these

theories are not contradictory but complementary.

From the results of the portfolio assessment and from the notes in the teacher’s journal it can

likewise be inferred that aside from the language used in instruction or the language in which the

children learn to be literate, there are other factors that affect the speed and quality of literacy

learning, such as the learner’s mental and psychomotor maturity, cognitive ability, personality,

and motivation. For instance, in the BL group (which obtained the lowest percentage gains

among the three groups), only one child attended the classes consistently and diligently but this

particular child also did not perform that well in the posttests because she was better at

memorizing answers than understanding the concepts and applying her knowledge on new

learning situations. Another child in the same group was more perceptive and easily learned the

lessons but lacked self-confidence and therefore also did not perform that well in the posttests.

Some results of this study confirm previous research findings such as the difficulty of children to

learn phoneme segmentation or the hierarchical relationship among the phonological

awareness abilities in English. Yet, some results are rather difficult to explain in terms of

available theories on bilingual literacy or previous research findings; for instance, the two

monolingual groups obtaining the lowest gains in listening comprehension in the language that

was used to instruct them is rather difficult to explain.

Conclusions

Several conclusions may be derived from the results of this study:

The facility by which children learn some literacy tasks in a particular language is also

dependent on the characteristic of that language. For instance, the children obtained

higher syllable tapping gains in Filipino, a language known for its syllabic words, while

they obtained higher rime identification gains in English, which has many words that

lend themselves to onset-rime segmentation and to rhyming as well.

Children learn literacy skills more easily not only in a language with a transparent

orthography but also in a language they are more familiar with. This is an argument for

the use of mother tongue-based instruction at least in the preschool and the early grades.

Because the results also strongly suggest evidence for cross-linguistic transfer, the

literacy skills and knowledge that the children gain in L1 can be easily transferred to L2

if and when they are taught in this second language.

Implications

The results of the study have several implications not only for literacy instruction but for ESL

teaching as well:

The bilingual literacy program used in this study is only one of the many ways by which

such a program can be implemented. The two-day a week exposure to each language

(i.e., Filipino on Monday and Tuesday, English on Wednesday and Thursday) apparently

is not an effective way to implement a bilingual program judging by the relatively

unremarkable performance of the BL group compared to that of the two monolingual

groups. Results suggest a need to provide students daily instruction in both languages for

bilingual instruction to be effective. There is also a need to develop program models for

bilingual education (Villanueva & Almario, 2009).

The results suggest that the kind of language used in beginning literacy instruction does

have an effect on the preschoolers’ literacy skills and that instruction is more effective in

a language that the children are more familiar with. Beginning literacy instruction

(preschool to the early grades), therefore, is better done in the children’s L1. Once the

children have learned literacy skills in this language, the results of this study suggest that

it is easier for them to transfer such learning to their L2 if and when they are taught in

this language.

The results likewise suggest that for English Language Teaching (ELT) to be effective,

policy makers and educators have to invest in mother tongue-based instruction.

References

Basco, E.G.S. (1993). The effect of parent-child interaction: A prosumer approach to parent

education on the cognitive skills and concepts of selected preschool children. Unpublished

master’s thesis, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.

Comeau, L., Cormier, P., Grandmaison, E., & Lacroix, D. (1999). A longitudinal study of

phonological processing skills in children learning to read in a second language. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 91(1), 29-43.

Cox, C., & Zarillo, J. (1993). Teaching reading with children’s literature. New York:

MacMillan.

Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory, research, and

practice. London: Longman.

DECS Order No. 107, s. 1989. Standards for the Organization and Operation of Preschools

(Kindergarten Level).

Department of Education, Culture and Sports (Bureau of Elementary Education) (2001). Early

Childhood Experiences in Grade One (8-Week Curriculum).

Dominguez, S.P. (1986). Nutritional and non-nutritional factors affecting learning achievement

of primary school pupils: Implications for educational policy and administration. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.

Dugenia, M.E. (1987). Home factors affecting pupil performance: Implications for educational

policy and practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of the Philippines, Diliman,

Quezon City.

Fitzgerald, J. (2000). How will bilingual/ESL programs in literacy change in the next

millennium? Reading Research Quarterly, 35(3), 520-523.

Garcia, G.E. (2000). Bilingual children’s reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson,

& R. Barr (Eds.). Handbook of reading research volume 3 (pp. 813-834). Mahwah, New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Geva, E., & Siegel, L. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development

of basic reading skills in two languages. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary

Journal, 12, 1-30.

Geva, E., & Wade-Woolley, L. (1998). Component processes in becoming English-Hebrew

biliterate. In A.Y. Durgunoglu and L. Verhoeven (Eds.). Literacy Development in a Multilingual

Context: Cross Cultural Perspectives (pp.85-110). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gholamain, M., & Geva, E. (1999). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the development of

basic reading skills in English and Persian. Language Learning, 49(2), 183-217.

Glazer, S.M., & Burke, E.M. (1994). An integrated approach to early literacy.Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.

Hoff, E. (2001). Language development (2nd ed.). California: Wadsworth.

Jordan, G.E., Snow, C.E., & Porche, M.V. (2000). Project EASE: The effect of a family literacy

project on kindergarten students’ early literacy skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4), 524-

546.

Krashen, S. (1997). Why bilingual education? ERIC Digests (ED403101). Retrieved 27 March

2003, fromhttp://www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed403101.html

Licmo, M.A.A. (1994). The four-pronged approach: Its effects on the reading performance of

grade one pupils. Unpublished master’s thesis, Philippine Normal University, Manila.

Morrow, L.M. (1990). Assessing children’s understanding of story through their construction

and reconstruction of narrative. In L.M. Morrow & J.K. Smith (Eds.),Assessment for instruction

in early literacy (pp.110-134). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Ocampo. D. (2002). Effects of bilingualism on literacy development. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Surrey, England.

Ocampo, D. (2005).  Predictors of word reading performance in Filipino and in English among

grade school children. The RAP Journal,28,12-23.

Ovando, C.J., & Collier, V.P. (1998). Bilingual and ESL classrooms. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Pado, F. (1990). Home environment as literacy behaviors of preschool-age children.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.

Ruddell, R.B. (1999). Teaching children to read and write: Becoming an influential

teacher (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Santos, N.A. (1995). Catch them early: A handbook on early reading intervention.Pasay City:

Little Big Books, Inc.

Santos, N. (1990). State of the art in preschool education in the Philippines: Implications for

teacher education (UP-ORC Project No. 08806). Diliman, Quezon City: College of Education,

University of the Philippines.

Tucker, G.R. (1999). A global perspective on bilingualism and bilingual education. ERIC

Digests (ED435168). Retrieved 27 March 2003,

fromhttp://www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed435168.html

Verhoeven, L., & Aarts, R. (1998). Attaining functional biliteracy in the Netherlands. In A.Y.

Durgunoglu & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Literacy development in a multilingual context: Cross-

cultural perspectives. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Villanueva, J.A.R. & Almario-David, A.R. (2009). Dual language program models in Philippine

progressive schools. The RAP Journal,32,78-86.

Wade-Woolley, L. (1999). First language influence on second-language word reading: All roads

lead to Rome. Language Learning, 49(3), 447-471.

Yasay, A. (1991). A parenting program in early reading for mothers of preschool children.

Unpublished master’s thesis, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.

About the author

Lalaine F. Yanilla Aquino is an associate professor at the University of the

Philippines where she finished her doctorate in Reading Education and where she teaches

undergraduate and graduate courses on English language studies, comparative literature, creative

writing, and reading education. From 2010 to May 2012, she was the president of the Kuwentista

ng mga Tsikiting (KUTING), an organization of writers for children.

category: Features, Volume IV (2012)

tags: bilingual education, biliteracy, cross-linguistic transfer of literacy skills, mother-tongue based instruction, preschool education

Email to friend

Blog it

Stay updated

3 Comments Already

1. Dallas Phommatheth says:

October 24, 2012 at 10:29 am

I wanted to let you know I appreciate your blog and the information you provide. There is some

excellent information here.Reply

o Jaime David says:

March 20, 2014 at 9:45 am

Some information here can be used by language policy makers.Reply

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Anti-spam*

To prove you are a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.

 Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Submit Comment

« Does ‘Self-Access’ Still Have Life in It? : A Response to Reinders (2012)

“Unheard Melodies’’ from Behind the Veil: Male and Female Omani Student Responses to Translated Short Stories by Arab Women Writers »

Search for:

Subscribe to ELTWO

Completely spam free, opt out any time.

E-mail

Sections

o Features

o Innovations

o ELT Forum

o ELT Lives

o Media Reviews

o CELC Symposium 2010

o Special Issue on Bonding 2014

Volumes

o Volume I (2009)

o Volume II (2010)

o Volume III (2011)

Search

Receive Notif ications via Email

o Volume IV (2012)

o Volume V (2013)

o Volume VI (2014)

Keywords

agency blended e-learning blogging collaborative learning communication skills correction critical language awareness critical thinking culture  debate discourse-based teaching diversity  drama feedback graphic organizers homework  independent learning independent research journals learner autonomy literature  online discussions oral presentation skills oral skills peer teaching portfolios pronunciation difficulties  pronunciation teaching program proofreading Readers Theater research projects schema theory second language learning self-directed learning  self-learning social awareness speech production and perception student-centered learning  student motivation task-based learning teaching reading teaching writing text structure wikis worksheets

Features

o Second Language Teacher Contributions to Student Classroom Participation: A Narrative Study

of Indonesian Learners

o When a Facebook Group Makes a Difference: Facebook for Language Learning

o Integrating Blog Writing into the Essay Writing Process

o Specialized Teacher Feedback: Teachers Have Some Say

o The Realities of Practice and Practices in Reality: A Critical Look at the Work Situation of

English Teachers in a Japanese Setting

o Empirical and Attitudinal Effects of Bottom-up Listening Activities in the L2 Classroom

o The Effect of Language Attitudes on Learner Preferences: A Study on South Koreans’

Perceptions of the Philippine English Accent

o Pedagogical Blogging: Promoting Tertiary Level Students’ Critical Thinking by Using Socratic

Questions

o Using Children’s Literature to Explore the Issue of Exclusion: Language Learning Through

Personal Connections, Multiple Perspectives and Critical Reflections

o “Unheard Melodies’’ from Behind the Veil: Male and Female Omani Student Responses to

Translated Short Stories by Arab Women Writers

Innovations

o Incorporating Collocation Teaching in a Reading-Writing Program

o Choosing the Right International Journal in TESOL and Applied Linguistics

o Get the Picture: Teaching with Multimodal Texts

o Making Lit a Hit: Using the BRAIN when Teaching Literature in an ESL or EFL Context

o Personalising Input to Address Khmer Speakers’ Pronunciation Issues

o From Course Book to Source Book: Maintaining Teacher Autonomy

o A Suggested Writing Process for In-House Materials Development

o Putting a Humanistic Approach to Grammatical Input into Practice: A Sample Lesson

o Using Facebook to Extend Learning into Students’ Digital Lives

o Accelerated Learning In and Out of the Reading Classroom

ELT Forum

o Does ‘Self-Access’ Still Have Life in It? : A Response to Reinders (2012)

o The End of Self-Access?: From Walled Garden to Public Park

o Listening Strategy Instruction (or Extensive Listening?): A Response to Renandya (2012)

o Five Reasons Why Listening Strategy Instruction Might Not Work With Lower Proficiency

Learners

o Rubrics-Based Writing: Liberating Rather Than Restricting in Many Contexts

o Formulaic Writing Advice: A False Panacea

o The Case against Group Grades

o The Case for Group Grades

o The Case against Abstract Grammar: Against Non-Communicative Grammars

o The Case for Abstract Grammar: Formal Grammar and Linguistic Communication

©2015 ELTWorldOnline.comPowered by Edublogs Campus

NUS Centre for English Language Co