current perspectives on teaching the four skills (eli hinkel)

7/21/2019 Current Perspectives on Teaching the Four Skills (Eli Hinkel)

1/23

continues to be a dynamic field , one in which new venues an d

perspectives

are

still un f

old

ing.

Th

e

growth

of new

knowledg

e ab

out

the how

and

the

what of L2 teaching and learning is certain to continue

and will probably r

emain

the hallm

ark ofTESOL s

disciplinary maturation.

T

oday, it is a truism

to

say t

ha

t each

era

in

the

history of s

eco

nd

language L2) teaching has been marked by expansions of knowl

edge and pivotal

ad

vancemen ts in disciplinary theory and practice. One

unf

ortunate side effec t of

ongoing

dis ciplinary innovation and a sea rch

f

or the

best tea

ching

m

ethod

is

what

Ri

chard

s 2005)

referred

to as the

theoretical flavor of th e m

onth

n .p.), alluding to recurrently fashion

able theories

of language learning an d use that claim to be bas

ed

on th e

findings of

current research . However, implicit in a view

of th

e o

ngo

i

ng

development of L2 teaching is an expectation that what is cu rren t,

innovative, and central in L2 pedagogy today is likely to become a

stepping-stone

in the ex

pa

nsion and refinement of disciplinary knowl

edge. This overview of th e curren t perspectives

in

L2 teaching highligh ts

the trends that began

in th e 1990s and

the

2000s

and are

likely to

continue to affect instruction in L2 skills at least in the immediate

futur

e .

In

the

current

d

ynami

c perspectives

on found

ational

L2 skills, f

ou

r

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol 40 No I March 2006

109


2/23

R ecognition of the essential roles of the teacher

n

the learner

n

of the need

for situ ation ally releva

nt

langu ge pedagogy has brought about the decline

of

methods with theirspecific philosophies n prescribed sets

of

classroomproce ures

As early as th e mid-1980s, a small

number

of

researcher

s and

method-

ologists

began

to voice

growing

apprehension

about the

worldwide

applicability

of

any

particular

method

to

the enormou

s diversity

of

le

arners and learning

needs. Since th at tim e,

many

L2

profes

si

onals

have

come to

see

specific tea

ching methods

as overly

prescripti

ve and inappli

cable in

divergent

le

arning

contexts e.g., Brown, 2001;

Kum

ar

avadi velu ,

2003, 2005). For example, although

communi

cative skills can occupy a

high priority

for

ESL s

tudents

who

n

eed

to

interact

in th

eir

L2,

fo r

EFL

le

arners

communicatin

g in English may have a

reduced

valu e relative to

preparing for

entra

nce exams

or tests for securing

empl

oym

ent. The

past two

decades

have seen a shift in

the

responsibility

for

curricular

and

1Th

e 25 th ann iversary issues of

TESOL Quarterly

re flec ted the gene ra l tr

en

d of tre

atin

g th e

founda t ional language skills sepa rately. A broad overview such as this o ne may well re present an

innovation in its

el f

to evince the m

atu

ration of L2 tea ch in g as a discipline as well th e infl

uen

tial

expansion

of integrated instru ctional models disc ussed in the section In teg

ra t

ed an d Multiple

Skills T

aught

in Con text).

110 TES

OL QU

AR

TE

RLY


3/23

Based on recent research on the role

of

cognition in learning, pedagogy

in practically all skills has come to recognize the importance

of

both accuracy

and

fluency and both bottom-up and top-down language skills discussed in the

sections on teaching speaking, listening, reading,

and

writing .

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a number of studies were carried ou t

to determine wheth

er

exposure to and communicative

int

eraction in th e

L2 enables

learn

ers to a ttai n L2 s

peaki

ng fac ilities

that

add ress fluency

and accuracy in language production e .g., Lightbown

Spad

a, 1990;

Schmid t, 1993; Sw

ain

, 1991). Research findings demon

str

at e th at , with

ou t explicit

and

form-focu

sed

in

stru

cti

on

, e

xten

sive e

xposur

e to mean

ing

-based

input

does not lead to th e development of syntactic and lexical

accu racy in an L2. Curr

entl

y, in th e tea

ching

of

the

four skills, curricula

and instruction strive to achieve a bala

nce between the

linguistic and th e

schematic aspects of

learn

er lan

gua

ge

development.

At present, practi

cally all

teacher education

textbooks on

the

essentials

of

language

instruction include

mat

eri

al on how to

address

both

bottom-up

and top

down abilities e.g., Adger, Snow, Ch ristian , 2002; Brown, 2001;

Ca

rter

Nunan,

2001; Celce-Murcia, 2001; L

arsen-Freeman,

2000; Nunan,

1999, 2003).

CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING THE FOUR SKILLS


4/23

to obtain detailed descriptions of its properties

that

can be app lied to th e

r

efinem

en t of language th eories. So

me

prominent ex

perts

in L2 teach

i

ng and

lin gui stics have ques tioned

the

value

of

a

pp

lying co rpus

findin

gs

to L2 teaching. For insta

nce

, according to Widdowson 1990, 2000,

2003 and Cook 1997, 1998

learners

in EFL se ttings, who in effect

have few

opp

ortu nities to interactwith native s

pea

kers ofEnglish, do

not

need to be parti cul arly concerned with the

frequenc

ies of linguistic

features in native s

peaker

corpora.

Th

ese au

thors

also

arg

ue that, in

many cases, co rpus find ings are too cultu rebound and n

arr

owly specific

to a particul

ar

variety

of

E

ng

lish to be useful

for

le

arn

e rs w

ho

have no

access to th a t cult

ure

or var iety.

Furth

e

rm

ore, the issues

of

di fficul ty,

le

arn

ability, use

fuln

ess, releva

nce an

d pedagogical

sequencing

have to

be taken in to accoun t in co rpus-based L2 tea

ch

ing and ins truc tional

materials e .g., Aston, 1995; fo r a discussi

on

,

see

also Conrad , 2005 .

Many L2 meth odologists believe,

how

ever, that corpus findings can make

L2 teaching far more effective and effi

cien

t by identifying

the

language

features th at le

arn

ers mu st know to

achi

eve th

ei r

lea

rn

ing goals e.g.,

Byrd, 2005; Byrd Reid, 1998; Conrad 2000.

112

TES

OL QUA

RTERLY


5/23

n

pr

omo

t ng

co

mmun cat

ve

an

guage

use . t

pres

en

t, t e

mo

e s

or

inte

grated

teachi

ng with a co

mm

unicative focus include an extens ive

a rray of curricula and ty

pes of

instructi

on

al m

od

els, suc h as

conte

n t

based (in clu

ding

th e

me

based ) , task based, tex t based (also ca lled ge

nre

based ) , discourse based , project

ba

sed,

pr

ob

lem ba

sed , literature

base

d,

litera

cy

ba

se d, com

munity

based ,

comp

e t

en

cy

based

, o r standards based

(an d th is is n

ot

a complete list by any mea

sure

). In fact, Richards and

R

od

g

er

s (200 1)

note

that , as lo ng as instru ction e

ngages

learn ers in

me

an ingful

com

muni

cation

and

enables t

he

m to attain

the

curr icu lar

objectives, the range of model s and

tea

ching materials comp atible with

int

egrated

langu

age

tea

ch i

ng

is unlimited (p . 165 ) .

It is safe to say, howev

er

, th at few movements in fo reign l

an

guage (FL)

and L2 teaching take place wi

tho

u t

contes

t, and in t

egra

ted language

instru

cti

on

is c

er

tainly

no except

ion . Cu rrently, task-based

and con

tent

based

in s

truction

are

proba

bly among t

he

most

widely adop

ted

inte

grated models . Howev

er

,

some

le

adin

g

spec

ialists in L2 teaching and

applied linguistics have m

ain

tained th a t th e s

upe

rio rity

of

, f

or examp

le,

task-based

instru

cti

on

ov

er trad

itional

teac

hing has

no

t

been

dem

on-

strat

ed empirically and

that

to

da

te

resea

rch has

had

li ttle to say ab

out

its

effe ctiveness (e .g., Ri

chard

s

Rodgers, 2001; Seedhouse, 1999; Swan,

2005; Widdowson, 1990, 1993, 2003) .

r

itics also

con

ten

d tha t in many

CURRENT PERSPECT IVES ON TEACHING THE FOUR SKILLS

3


6/23

speaking

,

listening

,

reading

,

and

writing.

This traditional

division has

th e

sole

purpos

e

of

easing

th e reader

s

navigation

through the

articl

e s

contents,

a nd

som

e g

enerally accepted

ways to

integrate

th e

te a

ching

of

L2 skills will be

addr

essed as a

matter of

course.

TE HING SPE KING SKILLS

The complexity of learning

to

speak

in

another language

is refl

ected

in

the

range and

type

of

subskills

t ha t a re e nt ai le d

in L2

oral

production

.

Learners

must simultaneously

attend

to

content,

morphosyntax

and

lexis, discourse and

information

structuring,

and th e

sound system

and

prosody, as well as

appropriate register and pragmalinguistic features

Tarone,

2005) . In an

i nt er ac ti on t ha t

typically involves

speaking and

comprehending at

th e

sam e time, L2

speakers

need to

self-monitor

so

that

th ey

ca n

identify

and correct production problems at the

fast

pace of

a

real conversational

ex ch an ge. Re

search

on

th e

characteristic

s

and

development of

L2

oral

skills

ha

s

shown

conclusively

that

communicat

in g

in an L2 is a cognitively demanding

undertaking

,

not

to

mention

that

th e

success

of

an interaction often depends

on

production

quality e.g.,

McCarthy

O Keeffe

, 2004).

Thus

,

speaking

in

an

L2

require

s fluency,

114 TESOL Q UARTERLY


7/23

fl

ue

ncy, acc

ur

acy,

an

d

lingui

stic co mplexity. Fo r

exam

p le , ad v

an

ce

plan-

ning and

re hearsals of conte

nt

an d

formul

ation, th at is, what to say and

how to say it, l

ead

to su bsta

nt

ial

impro

vements in th e a

mo

u

nt of

s

po

ke n

d iscourse a

nd

in

gram

m a tical, le xical , an d

art

iculatory

accu

racy.

In

con

tent-based

and

tas k-based i

nstruction

, co ntextualized use s of specific

gra

m m a r

stru

ctures an d vocabulary

can

be em p h as ize d to

conne

ct th e

su bject ma tt e r an d language learning ac tivities fo r a th o rou

gh

overview,

see

Snow, 2005).

Speaking Integrated

it Other

Language

Skills

peaking

n

ronunciation

The

r

apid

pac

e

of

th e in

ternat

io

na

lization

of Eng

lish has l

ed

to

changing per

spe

ctives

on

th e teach

ing

of p ronunciati

on.

In ge neral

terms as

Taro

n e 2005)

poin

ts o u t, th e

goa

l

of

pr

on unciation te

achin

g

h as shifte d fro m targe

ting

a nativelike

accen

t to targ

eting

in telligibility,

t

ha

t is, the d egree to wh ich th e listen

er

u n

derstan

ds th e s

peake

r s

utt

er

an

ce . In

an age

when

En glish has bec

om

e a p rimary m ed iu m fo r

in t

ernatio

n al com m

un

ication, most cross-cul tural

inter

actions take

place

CURRENT PERSPECT IVES ON TEACH ING T HE

FOUR

SKILLS 5


8/23

effec tively and to nego tia te cross-cultural

in t

eracti onal no

rm

s success

full y Kas

per

Roever, 2005 ; McKay, 2002) . The tea

chin

g

of

L2

soc io p

ragma

tic skills

elu

cid ates

the

is

sue

s of power in co mmunication,

suc h as th e im pact of soc ial status, social di st

an

ce , a n d lin guistic register

on L2 s

peec

h.

At presen t, pe d ag ogy o n L2 sociopragmatic norms of speaking typi

cally in corporates effective communication strategies; di sc

ou

rse o rgani

zation an d str

uc t

u r ing; conversational routines e.g.,

sma

ll talk);

con

ver

sation

al fo rmulae e.g., fo r m s of

address ; and

sp eech acts, suc h as

reques

ts,

ref

usa

ls, c

omplim

ents

or

clarification

question

s e.g., McKay,

2002; Yule Ta

rone

, 1997) .

According

to Kas per s 2001 ) overview

of

sev

er

al empirical studies on teaching L2 pragmatics ex p licit teaching

and di r ec t explanations of th e L2

form-function

connections re present a

highly

p r

odu

ctive m eans

of helping

learners imp rove th e ir L2

sociopragma tic skills. Fo r example, tu the radio down an d could you please

turn the radio down

have th e sam e function re ques t) bu t differ

ent

pr

agmalinguistic forms, an d , depending

on

th e co ntext, one is likel y to

be mo re effec tive th

an

the other. Implici t in struction in var ious co m m u

ni cation tac tics and appro pria te l

angu

ag e uses i.e. , w

he

n p ra

gm

atic

fe

atu

res are p ractic

ed

in co n

tex

t wit

ho

u t d es

cripti

on

s a nd ex p la

na

tions)

6

T ESOL Q UARTE RLY


9/23

, ,

,

,

tom-up linguistic processing.

The

1980s saw a shift from th e view of L2

listening as predominantly linguistic to a schema-ba

se d

view, and list

en

in g pedagogy moved away from its focus

on

the linguist ic aspects of

comp rehension

to th e ac tivation of le

arners

top-down kn owledge. In

top-down

proce

ssing, aural comprehension

hinge

s on listeners abilities

to activat e

their

kn owledge-based sc hemata, such as cultural co nstructs,

topic familiar ity, discourse clues, and pragm atic co nventions e.g., Celce

Mur

cia, 1995;

Mendelsohn

, 1994; Rost Ross, 1991 . In th e

practice of

teaching L2 listening, ho wever, neither approach focus on bottom-up

or

t

op-down

pro

ce

s s i n g - p r

oved to be a

resoundin

g success:

Learn

er

s

w

ho

rely on

lingui

stic processi

ng

ofte n fail to activ

ate highe

r o rd e r L2

schema ta, and th ose wh o co rrectly apply sch ema-based

kn

owl

edge

tend

to neglect the linguistic input e.g., Tsui Fullilove, 1998; V

andergri

ft ,

2004

) .

Advances in th e studies of spoken co r

po

ra and conve rsatio n analysis

ha

ve illuminat

ed the

complexity of

ora

l discourse and l

an guage

. Th e

findings of th ese analyses have made it evident that, in many cases,

empl

oying authentic language in liste ning instruction can be of limited

ben efit

be

cause of

a variety

of

co nstraints, suc h as

th e

fas t

pa

ce

of

sp

ee

ch,

s

pe c

ific c

ha

racteristics

of

sp

oken

gram

ma

r

and

lexic

on

e.g., in c

omplet

e

CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING TH E FOU R SKILLS 117


10/23

st r

ategies ca n be useful in a

b ro ad r an ge of

teaching

contexts and can

m

eet

diverse le

arning need

s.

For instan

ce ,

prelistenin

g ac tivities ca n be

emplo

yed in tea

chin

g le

arners

to

n ot ic e t he c ul tu ra l

sc

he

ma and to raise

their

awareness of

th e ef

fect

of culture on

discourse

or

g

an i

zati

on

,

information

st

ru c

turing, and pragmatics see, e.g., Rost , 2005; Vande rgrift,

2004 . In addition, le

arnin

g to listen to

conversations provid

es a fruitful

v en ue f or

focusing on

morphosyntax,

lexical

parsing, a nd p ho no lo

gical

variables, thus ad ding new

dimensions

to

th e teaching

of gr

amm

ar and

vocabular

y. Analyses of L2 conversations

ca n

similarly

emph

asize L2

sociocultural

n

orms

and pragmatics to

expand

learners rep

ertoir

e

of

common speech ac ts and dis

course structuring. As

has b een m ent io ned,

t he t ea chi n

g of

pr

onunci

ation

skills is also ubiquitously

integrated

with

both

sp

eakin

g and li

stenin

g

instruction.

The lin guistic and sche

ma

-driven staples of

teaching

listening have

found appli

cati

on

s in curren t

integrated

approaches, such

as task-based

or content-b

ased in

stru

cti

on

see

Sn o

w, 2005,

fo r

overviews .

Th

e design

oflistenin

g

pr

actice can incorpor

at e

a

number of featur

es

that

make

th e

de

velopm

ent

of

L2 list

en

in g abilities

relevant

and

realistic. List

en -

and-d

o

tasks, for in stan ce, repres

ent

a flexible

source

of li

stenin

g input fo r

beginnin

g

or interm edi at e

le

arn er

s. A

ccording

to Ellis 2003 ,

th e

TESOL QUARTERLY


11/23

tant

eren

ce etween s s

an

strate

g es s

t at

strateg es

are

un

er

learners cons

cious control,

and

li

steners

can be tau gh t to co mpensate

for

in

compl

ete

understanding,

missed lin guistic

or

schematic

input

, o r

mi sid

entified

c lu es see Rost, 2005,

for

a d iscussion).

Thus,

curr

ent

L2 li

stening

pedagogy

includ

es

the modeling

of

meta

cognitive

strategie

s a nd str

ate

gy

training

in tandem with

teaching

L2 li

stening

. A consisten t use

of

metaco

gnitive strategi es is m

ore

eff

ective

in

improvin

g learners L2

listening

compr

ehension than work on

list

en

ing

skills

alon

e e.g., V

andergrift

, 2004) .

The

key

metacognitive

strat

e

gies widely ad o p ted in L2 li

stening

instruction

include

planning

for

list

en

ing,

self-monitor

in g

the

co mprehension

pro

cesses, ev

aluating

co m

pr

ehension, and identifying comprehension

diffi culties e.g.,

see

Rost ,

2005, for a discussion) . Learners at

beginning and intermedi

at e levels of

profi ciency may

benefit from instruction that con

c

entrates on bottom-up

and

top-down

listenin

g

proces

ses,

togeth

er

with selective

str

ategy train

ing

.

For mor

e

advanc

ed

learn

ers, an

addition

of cognitive strategies,

su ch as dis c

our

se

organization

,

inferen

cing,

elaboration

,

and summ

a

tion

, also r

epr

esent

an

effective

appro

ach to tea

ching

list

ening

Rost,

2001; Rost Ross, 1991).

CURR ENT PERSPECTIVES ON TEA

CHl

NC TH E FOUR SKILLS

1I

9


12/23

ea ng

n egra e

er

anguage

s

ottom Up

n

Top Down Skills

The bo tto m-up processing

of

read ing involves a bro ad array of dis tinct

cognitive subs kills, such as word re

cog

ni tio n, spelling and pho no

log

ica l

p rocessing,

mo

rphosy

ntac

tic parsing, and lexical re co

gni

ti

on

and access

(e .g., Eskey, 2005). The reader needs to gathe r visual

inf

ormation fro m

the wri

tten

text (e.g., letters and words) , identify

the

meanings

of wor

ds ,

and th en move

forward

to th e proces

sing

of

the

stru

ctu

re and th e

meani ng

of

l

arger

syntactic

uni

ts, suc h as

phrases

or se

nt

e nces . A

num be r

of

studies,

such

as th ose by Kod a (1999),

Chik

ama tsu (1996),

an d S

himron

and Savon (1994), have s

how

n

that

visual processing

of

words and letters

repr

es

ents

a

cogn

itively complex task. Th ese and o ther

researc

hers

fou nd th

at

read e rs w

hos

e L1 ort

hogr

aphies (e .g., Chinese,

J ap anese , or H

ebr

ew) are markedly d istin ct from th e L2

or

thography

may be slowed down in th ei r read ing

pr

ogress by th e need to a ttai n

flu

en

t L2 word r

ecogn ition

bef

or

e th ey can acquire text-processing skills.

Fu rtherm ore, positive L1-to-L2 transfer

of

reading skills

does

not occu r

when th e writing systems in th e two

language

s

are

fu ndamentally

diff

erent

(e .g., Birch, 2002; Koda, 19

99 2005 .

On

th e o t

he

r h

and

L2

120

TESOL

QUARTERLY


13/23

reading. Ba

sed

on

the

co nclusions

of

vari

ous

stu dies, Wallace e

xpl

ains

th at a st rong link ex ists

be

tween

phon

emic awareness, th e ability to

process words aut

omati

cally and rapidly, and reading achievement (p.

23). In her

practi

cal

book

for

tea

chers, Birch (200 2) advocates teac

hing

L2 re

adin

g by be

ginnin

g with processing le tt

er

s, th en moving forw

ard

to

th e English spelling system, morphophonemics, and vocabulary le

arn

ing. According to Birch, although

both

b

ottom-up

and t

op

-down pro

cessing skills

are

necessary to lea

rn

to read in an L2, th e r

eading

fundam entals

mu

st be in place before top-down in

struction

can b

enefit

learners.

e ding

nd Vocabulary

In o t

her

ve nues, th e found ations-first p

ersp

ec tive on L2 reading

p

edago

gy also extends to t

oday

s views on teaching an d learning vocabu

l

ary Eno rmous

am

ounts of resea

rch carri

ed out

in the past two dec

ades

have be

en

dev

oted

to th e r

ole of

v

oca

bulary in L2 r

eadin

g as well as to

vocabulary l

earni

ng and acquisition . Although in the 1970s and 1980s

th e

teaching

and learning

of

voc

abulary

was

considered

to be largely

seco

ndary to th e tea

chin

g of ot

he

r L2 skills, at

pr

es

ent

a

grea

t deal m

ore

CURR

ENT

PERSPECTIVES ON TEAC

HIN

G

TH

E FOU R SKILLS

121


14/23

of

vocabulary

teaching.

Rese

archers

have also voiced

caution

that

incidental

learning

leads to significantly low

er

rates of voc

abulary

r

etention and

th at a

word need

s to

be

encount

ered

12-20 times to be

learned

from

context (e.g

., Coady,

1997). Accord ing

to

Nation

(2005)

and

Hulstijn

(2001),

research has

not

supported

the contention that

meaning-focused

use

and encounters

with new words in

context

are

the

best

way to

learn

vocabulary.

These authors

underscore that the

converse

approach is

prob

ably true,

that

is,

deliberate attention

to

decontextu

alized

words is

far more

likely to

lead

to

learning,

although

new vocabulary

can

c

ertainl

y be

reinforced

in

the

cont

ext

ofother

L2

skills .

In

general

terms,

to

result

in le

arning,

activities with new

word

s,

such

as re

ading or

listening, have to

meet the

following

conditions:

interest,

repetition,

deliberate att

ention,

and gen

er

ative use

(the

use of a

word

in a

new

context) (Nation, 2005,

p.

585). Teaching word

families

rather than

individual

words can

dramatic

ally

increase

the

rate

of learning

.

xtensive Reading and Reading luency

v lopm nt

A

pedagogical

approach

usu

ally

referred

to as

extensive reading (o r

sustained silent reading

has

been

very

popular among

reading

te

achers

122

TESOL QUARTERLY


15/23

Althou

gh in th e 1980s

much

in t

he

tea

ching of

L2 writi

ng

was bas

ed

on L1 writing re sear

ch ,

in

th e pa

st two decad es, a number of

publi

c

ations

have emerg

ed

to address

th e important differenc

es

that

exist betw

een

l

earning

to wr ite in one s

Ll and

in on

e s

L2 (e.g.,

Hinkel

, 2002 ; McKay

Wong

, 1996; Silva, 1993). Based

on

his syn t

he s

is

of

72 studies, Silva

(1993)

concludes

that

significant

differen

ces exist between

practic

ally all

aspects of L1

and

L2 writing.

He

emphasizes

that

th e

learning

ne

ed

s

of

L2 writ

er

s are crucially di

stinct

fro m those of basic or profici

ent

L1

writers

and

that

L2 writing

peda

gogy

requires

sp ecial

and

systematic

approache

s

that

take

into

accou

nt

th e

cultur

al,

rhet

orical, and lin

gui

stic

diff

erences

betw

een Ll and L2 writers. Similarly, H inkel s (2002) large-

scale

empirical

an alysis

of

L1 and L2

text showed

th at even

after

years

of

ESL

and

compos itio n tr

aining

, L2 wri

te r

s

text

con tin ues to

differ

signific

antl

y from that

of

novice L1 wri ters in re gard to most lin guistic

and

rhetori

cal features. Ev

en

advan

ce d

and

trained

L2 writers

continue

to have a severely limited lexical and s

ynta

ctic rep

ertoir

e

that

enables

th

em

to p

rodu

ce

on l

y sim ple t

ex t

re

st r

i

cted

to

th e

most

common

lan

guage

f

eature

s encountered

pr

edomi

nantly in conversational d is-

cour

se

Hinkel,

2003).

CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING

TH E

FOUR SKILLS

23


16/23

To

address

th e shortfalls of th e writing ped agogy widely adopted in

th e 1980s, th e

pr

actice

of

L2 writing

instruction

has

begun

to take a

more

bal

anced

view of l

earning

to writ e in an L2 Silva

Brice, 2004).

For

inst

ance

,

Frod

esen 200 1) states th

at

the wholes

ale

adop ti

on

of L1

composition

theori

es

and

pr

actices

fo r

L2 writing classes

see

ms mis

guided in li

ght

of

the

m

an

y

differences

betw

een

first a

nd

second

language

wri t

er

s, processes, and

products

p . 234).2 Ac

cording

to

Frodesen

th e ne

glect of lan

guage

instruction for

L2 writ

er

s is

most

pr

evalent

in th e United States,

where

many con tinu e to believe that

comprehensible inpu t is suffi ci

ent for

language acquisition. Fr

odesen

and

other

ex

pe

r ts, such as

Bir

ch 2005), Byrd 2005), Byrd an d Reid

1998),

and

McKay 1993) p

oint out

th at c

ur

ric ulum design in L2

wr

iting instru

ction has to

includ

e grammar and vocabulary to e

na

ble L2

writers to

communicate

meanin

gfully

and approp

riately.

With

this objec

tive in

mind pr

ominent curr

ent

positions advoca te the

int

e

gration of

grammar

and

voc

abulary curri

cula with L2 writing

instruction.

2 In the teac hing of rheto ric and writing, the pr ocess roduct debate origina ted in the late

19th and early 20t h

cent

ury, whe n

Eng

lish d

epartmen

ts were formally sep arated from, for

example, philosophy de par tments in

man

y U.K.

an d

U.S. universities.

These

deba tes hav e

conti

nued

unab

ated for

more

than

a

cent

ury now,

bu t

in the 1970s

and

1980s, they aided in

th e

ins titutionalization of composi tion studies in the Uni ted States- but

no t

in other countries.

124

TE

SOL

QU ARTERLY


17/23

diaries. T h e n in structi

on begin

s to adv

ance

to school-based wri ting,

usually i

ntegra

ted with r

ea

d i

ng

as well as with g

ram

m a r and vo c

abula

ry

learning Adger, Sn ow,

Chri

sti

an,

2002; Birch , 2005; Schleppegrell,

2004).

Integrated

n

ContentBased Teaching

of

Writing

Mu ch of th e cu

rr

e

nt

in t

egr

at

ed

inst

ru c

tion

in L2 writin g, gr

ammar

,

a nd voca b u lary takes place in co nj u nc t io n with re

adin

g, co n tent-based,

an d

for

m-focused

instruction

to

impro

ve

the

ov

er

all

qu

ality

of

L2

prose

e.g., Co pe,

Kalan tzis, 199 3; H

edg

cock, 200 5; Williams, 2005).

For

exa m ple , to

pr

om

ote

learn

ers

n oti c in g of h ow parti

cul

a r

gra

mmar and

lexis

are

employed in au then tic w

ritten

text

and

di

scou

rse,

teacher

s

can

sele ct re

adings

fro m a wi

de

array o f

genr

es,

such

as

narr

ative,

exp

osition,

o r argumentatio n. Based o n

rea

di

ng

co n t e n t,

pr

acti ce in text a na lysis

ca n bec

ome

a useful spring

boar

d

fo r

an in

struction

al fo cu s on th e

sp e c ific uses of gram

ma

r stru ctures and contextualized vocabulary.

Similarly, in structi

on can

ad d ress th e features

of

written register by

bringin

g l

earner

s

attent

i

on

to th e situat i

onal

variables

of

lan

guage in

co ntext, su ch as e-mail

messa

ges,

new

s

report

s,

or

wri tt

en

acad

emic

pr

ose, and th e ir a tte n

da

n t lingui sti c a nd di scourse fea tures Celce-

CURRE NT PE RS

PECT

IVES ON T EACH ING TH E FOU R SKILLS 125


18/23

k

now

ledge

about

th e l

earner and

th e English

lan

guage, b) a greater

balance in th e teach ing of both b

ott

om

-up

and top-down L2 skills, and

c) a

proliferation of

integrated ins t

ruc

tional

model

s. Th e

purpos

es

for

whic h

people

learn En glish today have also evo lved fro m a cul

tura

l and

educational enter

pr

ise to that of in te rnational

com

munication. The

growth

of

new knowledge

abou

t t

he how and

th e what

of

L2 tea

chin

g

and learning

are cer

tain to continue and will p robably remain as

hallmarks of TESOLs disciplinary maturation.

KNOWLEDGMENTS

For th eir insightful and helpful comments

on

early

draf

ts

of

thi s a r ticle, I e

xpr

ess my

sincere gratitude to Mari

anne

Celc e-Murcia, University of Californ ia , Los Angel es,

Sandr

a McKay, Stat e Un iversity

of San

Francisco,

Sandra

Fotos, Senshu

Univ

ersity,

an d Ken Benoit , Seattle Un iversity, whose

sugge

stions fo r re visions were instrumental

in fin e-tuning the fin al vers ion. Additionally, Suresh Canagara

ja

h and two ano ny

mous reviewers provided very useful feedback and comments that helped develop

the fina l version .

126

TESOL QUARTERLY


19/23

.

-

. , .

Byrd , P.,

R

eid,].

(1998) . Grammar in the composition classroom. Boston: Heinl e

Heinle.

Canagara

ja

h, S. (2002 ) . Globalization , m

ethod

s, and pract ice in perip

hery

class

roo

ms. In D. Block D. Cam eron (Eds.) , Globalization

and

language teaching (pp .

134-150 ) .

Lon

do n: Routled ge.

Canagara

jah, S. (Ed.) . (2005) . Reclaim

ing

the local in language policy and practice.

M

ahwah

, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cart

er

,

R ,

Nunan , D. (Eds.). (2001 ) . The Cambridge guide to teaching English to

speakersof other languages.

Cambridge : Cambridge Un iversity

Pr

ess.

Ceice-Murcia, M. (1995). Discou rse ana lysis and th e teaching of listen ing. In G.

Coo

k

B. Seidlhofer (Eds .) , Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of

G.

Widdowson

pp ,

36

3-37

7) .

Ox

ford:

Oxf

ord University

Pre

ss.

Ceice-Murcia, M. (Ed .) . (200 1) . Teaching English as a second orforeign language (

3rd

ed .) . Boston: Heinle

Heinle.

Ceice-Murcia, M., Olshtain, E. (2000).Discourse and context in langu age teaching. New

York: Cambrid ge University Press.

Chikama tsu , N. (1996) . The effects

of

Ll orthograph y on L2 word recogni tion .

Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 403-432.

Ch ristie, F. (199 8) . Learning the literacies of primary and secon dary schooling. In

F. Christie

R Misson (Eds.), Literacy and schooling: New directions pp . 47-73) .

London : Rou tled ge.

Chun, D. (2002) . Discourse intonation in L2.

Amst

erdam:

Jo

hn B

enja

mins.

Coady,]. (1997) . L2 vocabulary

acqu

isition through extensive rea ding. In]. Coady

T. Huckin (Eds.) ,

Second

lang

uage vocabulary acquisition

(p p.

225-2

37) . Cam

bridge

:

Cam br

idg

e University Press.

CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON TEAC

HING

THE FOUR SKILLS

127


20/23

, . . . . -

Ed .) , Teaching nglish as a second or fo reign language

3 rd

ed ., pp. 267-284 .

Boston: Heinle Heinle.

Fotos, S. 2002). Struc ture-based in teractive tasks

fo r

th e EFL grammar lea rner.

E. Hinkel S. Fotos Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language

classrooms pp. 135-1 54). Mahwah , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum .

Frodesen, j . 2001) . Gramma r in writ ing. In M. Celce-Murcia Ed .), Teachin

g

ngiish

as a second orf oreign language 3 rd ed ., pp . 233-248) . Boston: H

einle

Heinle.

Haz

enber

g, S., Hulstijn

, j .

199 6) . Defining a minimal recep t ive second l

an

guage

voca bulary for non- native

uni

versity st

ude

nts: An empi rical investigation.

Applied

Linguistics 17, 145-163.

Hedgcock, j. 200 5). T

aking

stock of rese

arch

and pedagogy in L2 writi ng.

E.

Hinkel

Ed .) ,

Handbook

of

research in

s o

nd language teaching

and

learning

pp.

597-614). Mahwah, NJ: Lawr en ce Erlbaum.

H inkel, E. 2001). Building awareness and practical skills fo r cross-cuitural commun i

ca tio n in ESL FL.

M. Celce-M

ur

cia E d .) , Teaching English as a second orf oreign

language 3 rd ed ., pp. 443-458 . Boston : Heinle Heinle.

Hin kel, E. 2002) . Second language writers text. Mahwah , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hi nkel, E. 200 3) . Simp licity

without

elegance : Features of sentenc es in L2 and Ll

academic texts. TESOL Quarterly 37, 275-301.

Hinkel , E. 2004) .

Teaching academic

SL

writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and

grammaT. Mahwah , NJ: Lawrence Erl baum.

Hu , M., Nation , P. 2 000) . Unknown vocabulary density an d reading comprehen

sion. Reading in a ForeignLanguage 13, 403-430.

Hulstijn

, j .

2 001) . Int

enti

onal

an

d i

ncide

ntal second lan guage voca bulary le

arn

ing:

128

TESOL

QUARTERLY


21/23

App lied Linguistics 21, 431- 462.

Ligh tbown, P., Spa da, N. 1990) . Focus-on-form

an d

corrective feed bac k in

communicative language teaching: Effects on

seco

nd language le

arni

ng. Studies in

Second L anguage Acquisi tion

12, 429-4 48.

Liu, D., Master, P. 2003) . Grammar teaching in teacher education. Alexandria, VA:

TESOL.

Martin,]. 1992 ). nglish text: System and stru cture. Philad elphia: Benj ami ns.

Master, P. 2005) . Resea rch in English for specific purposes. In E. Hin kel Ed .),

Handbook ofreseardi in second langu age teaching and learn ing

pp

.

99-

116) . Mahwah,

NJ: Lawr ence Erl baum.

McCarthy, M.,

O Keeffe ,

A.

20 04). Research in

th e

teac

hing of

speaking.

nnu

al

Review of App lied

Lin

guistics

24, 26- 43.

McKay, S. 1993) . Agendasfor second language literacy.

NewYork : Cambridge Un iversity

Press.

McKay, S. 2002).

Teaching nglish as an in ternational language.

Oxford : Oxford

Un i

versity Press.

McKay, S., Wong, S. L. C. 996). M ultiple discourses, multiple identities:

Inve

st m

ent and age ncy in second-lang

uage

le

arnin

g

am o

ng Chinese ad o lescent

immigra nt students .

Haroard Educational Review

66, 577- 608.

Mende

lsohn, D.

].

1994) . Learning to listen: A strategy based

ap

proadi for the second-

language learner. San Diego: Do m in ie Press.

Nation ,

1.

S. P. 1990) . Teaching an d learning vocabulary. New York: Newbu ry

Hous

e.

Nation, 1.S. P. 2001) .

Learning uocabulary in another language.

Cambridg e: Cambridg e

University Press.

CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING THE FOUR SKILLS

129


22/23

, ., ,

.

. .

Linguistics

24, 70-106.

Snow, M. A. 2005) . A model

of

academic literacy for integrated language and

conten t ins truct

ion

.

E.

Hinkel

Ed .) ,

Handbook o research in second language

teaching and learning pp . 693-712 . Mahwah, NJ: Lawr

ence

Erlb

aum.

Swain, M. 1991 ) .

Manipulat

in g

and complementin

g con ten t teaching to maximize

second language learning. E. Kellerman, R. Phillipson, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood

Smith,

M. Swain Eds.) ,

Foreign/second language pedagogical research

p. 2

34-

50).

Clevedon , England: Multilingual Matte rs.

Swan, M. 2005). Legislation by hypothesis:

The

case of task-based instru

ction

.

Applied Linguistics

26, 37

6-401.

Ta ron e,

E.

2005 ) . Speaking in a second language.

E.

Hinkel

Ed.),

Handbook of

research in second -anguage teaching and learning

pp. 485-502) . Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tsui,

A.

B.,

Fullilove ,j . 19 98) . Bottom-up

or

top-down

proc

essing as a discrimina

t

or of

L2 listening performance. Applied Linguistics 19, 432-451.

Ur, P. 1996).

A course in language teaching: Practice

and

theory

Cambridge:

Cambridge

University Press.

Vand

ergrift,

L.

999). Facilitating

second

language li

stening

comprehension : Ac

quiring successful strategies. English Language Teaching journal 53,168-176.

V

and

ergrift,

L.

2004 ) . Listening to le

arn or learnin

g to listen?

Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics 24, 3- 25.

Wallace,

C.

1992) .

Reading.

Oxford: Oxf

ord

University Press.

Wallace, C. 2001). Reading. In R. Carter

D. Nunan Eds.), The Cambridgeguide to

130

T

ESOL

QUARTERLY


23/23

CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING THE FOUR SKILLS 131

current perspectives on teaching the four skills (eli hinkel)

Documents