Mengajar dan Belajar Bahasa Inggris

Mengajar dan Belajar Bahasa Inggris

Bahasa Inggris merupakan suatu bahasa yang makin dirasakan sebagai suatu keharusan. Apalagi di era globalisasi sekarang ini, dimana bahasa Inggris sudah merupakan bahasa yang digunakan sehari hari. Itulah mengapa, sekolah-sekolah khususnya sekolah yang berlabel international atau national plus makin menggalakkan penggunaan bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa sehari yang tujuannya mempersiapkan kemampuan siswa dalam berbicara dalam Bahasa Inggris. Jam pelajaran bahasa Inggris disekolah makin ditambah agar siswa lebih dapat mengekspresikan dirinya dalama bahasa Inggris. Selain itu, ada beberapa alasan lainnya, yaitu;

• Makin banyak waktu yang dialokasikan untuk belajar bahasa Inggris, makin popular pula sekolah tersebut di masyarakat
• Bahasa Inggris digunakan sebagai alat pemasaran bagi sekolah-sekolah swasta khususnya yang berlabel national plus
• Orang tua murid kerap kali terlalu berambisi menginginkan anaknya untuk bisa berbahasa inggris

Bagaimana belajar bahasa Inggris yang efektif?

7 kriteria yang mendukung pembelajaran bahasa Inggris pada siswa sekolah

1. Kolaborasi

Biasakan siswa untuk bekerja sama dalam satu tim. Membiasakan mereka untuk bekerja dalam satu tim akan sangat membantu mereka dalam meningkatkan rasa kepercayaan diri mereka dalam berkomunikasi dalam bahasa Inggris

2. Tujuan

Menetapkan tujuan sebelum pembelajaran dimulai merupakan salah satu hal yang dapat mendukung pembelajaran bahasa Inggris siwa sekolah. Tanpa tujuan yang jelas, seorang guru seperti layaknya tidaknya mempunyai pegangan yang tetap dalam pengajaran. Oleh karena itulah, sebelum pembelajaran dimulai, maka seorang guru harus menetapkan tujuan pembelajaran yang jelas

3. Minat Siswa

Seorang guru harus mampu membangun minat siswa dalam belajar bahasa Inggris. Karena tidak semua siswa mempunyai minat dan keinginan yang sama dalam belajar bahasa Inggris. Untuk itulah seorang guru harus mampu membangun minat siswa entah dengan memodifikasi metode pembelajaran atau dengan pendekatan kepada siswa.

4. Dukungan

Ciptakan suasana yang positive yang dapat mendukung siswa dalam belajar bahasa Inggris. Karena siswa dapat kehilangan minatnya untuk belajar jika kita tidak dapat menciptakan suasana yang positive dalam pembelajaran

5. Variasi

Variasi dalam pengajaran merupakan salah satu hal penting dalam mendukung pembelajaran siswa. Jika kita tidak dapat menciptakan variasi dalam pengajaran, maka siswa dapat merasa bosan dengan materi ajar yang dapat juga menghilangkan minat siswa dalam belajar bahasa Inggris

6. Integrasi

Cobalah untuk mengintegrasikan beberapa keterampilan sebisa mungkin. Contohnya, integrasikan ketermapilan dalam membaca dengan menulis atau keterampilan mendengarkan dengan berbicara atau bahkan ke 4 keterampilan yang ada dalam pembelajaran bahasa Inggris. Dengan demikian, siswa akan dapat menjadi lebih aktif dan pembelajaran menjadi lebih efektif

7. Recycle

Selalu mendaur ulang materi ajar. Materi ajar yang sama akan lebih menarik jika di presentasikan dengan cara yang berbeda. Dengan demikian siswa tidak akan merasa bosan belajar bahasa Inggris.

Mempersiapkan guru guru bahasa Inggris yang berkompeten



Idealnya, seorang guru bahasa Inggris harus:

1. Mempunyai kemampuan bahasa Inggris yang memadai
2. Memahami perkembangan psikology siswa
3. Memahami cara belajar siswa
4. Mengerti dan memahami karakteristik siswa
5. Mengerti dan memahami bagaimana memilih dan mengembangkan materi ajar termasuk juga media bantu pengajaran
6. Mempunyai pengetahuan yang memadai tentang methodology pengajaran

Guru bahasa Inggris yang ada saat ini adalah yang :

1. Guru yang mempunyai kemampuan berbahasa Inggris yang baik dan mengerti cara mentransfer ilmunya kepada siswanya juga memahami perkembangan psikologi anak. Guru bahasa Inggris yang seperti ini masih sedikit jumlahnya
2. Guru bahasa Inggris yang kemampuan bahasa Inggrisnya memadai namun mempunyai kemampuan yang minim tentang cara mentransfer ilmu kepada siwa atau psikologi siswa
3. Guru bahasa Inggris yang berpengalaman namun masih minim kemampuan dalam berbahasa Inggrisnya. (kadang bahkan mereka masih tidak mempunyai pengetahuan yang memadai tentang psikologi siswa)
4. Guru bahasa Inggris penutur asli

Ada beberapa metode yang dapat digunakan dalam pengajaran bahasa Inggris atau bahasa asing lainnya. Berikut adalah deskripsi dari prinsip-prinsip dan prosedur dasar dan yang paling dikenal dalam pengajaran bahasa Inggris

Metode Terjemahan Tata Bahasa
Dalam metode ini,
• Siswa diajarkan dengan menggunakan bahasa ibu dan sedikit bahasa target.
• Kosa kata diberikan dalam bentuk form yang terpisah.
• Pengajaran terfokus pada bentuk dan infleksi kata-kata.
• Membaca teks yang sedikit susah diajarkan sedini mungkin dan tidak terlalu memberikan perhatian pada isi teks.
• Pengajaran biasanya dilakukan dengan menterjemahkan kalimat kalimat dalam bahasa ibu ke bahasa target.

Metode Direct

Metode ini ini dikembangkan sebagai suatu reaksi atau terusan dari metode terjemahan tata bahasa. Metode ini lebih mencoba untuk menggunakan bahasa target dalam pengajaran

• Pengajaran dimulai dengan dialog yang menggunakan gaya percakapan yang lebih modern dalam bahasa traget.
• Materi biasanya disajikan secara lisan dengan menggunakan gerakan atau gambar
• Dalam metode ini, bahasa ibu sama seklai tidak pernah digunakan dan tidak ada terjemahan
• Pertanyaan pertanyaan yang diberikan harus dijawab dalam bahasa target

Metode Bacaan

Metode ini di pilih lebih kepada alasan alasan akademis karena biasanya metode ini digunakan untuk tujuan tertentu. Metode ini juga lebih ditujukan bukan untuk mereka yang ingin bepergian keluarnegeri tapi lebih ditujukan untuk mereka yang menggunakan bacaan dalam bahasa target.

Prioritas dalam pengajaran ini adalah pertama,membaca dalam bahasa target, kedua sejarah atau kejadian historic negara dimana bahasa target digunakan. metode ini tidak begitu memberikan perhatian kepada pronunciation. Sejak awal. siswa sudah dibiasakan untuk banyak membaca dalam bahasa target. Metode ini lebih mementingkan kosa kata dimana kosa kata diberikan sejak awal dan terus berkembang sesuai dengan tiingkat kesulitan teks.

Metode Audiolingual

Metode ini didasari pada prinsip prinsip psikologi tingkah laku. Metode ini mengadaptasi prinsip prinsip dari metode langsung, dan juga metode bacaan yang tidak begitu mementingkan keterampilan berbicara siswa.

• Materi di berikan dalam bentuk dialog. Metode ini juga menekankanpada mimikri dan memorisasi pada saat pengajaran
• Tata bahasa diajarkan secara sequensial dengan menggunakan metode pengulangan
• Penjelasan tentang tata bahasa hanya diberikan sedikit atau bahkan terkadang tidak sama sekali.
• Pengajaran ditentukan oleh analisis perbedaan antara bahasa ibu dengan bahasa target.
• Metode ini sangant sering menggunakan lab bahasa, kaset dan visual aids lainnya karena metode ini lebih menekankan pada pentingnya pengucapan yang mirip dengan penutur asli.
• Siswa disarankan untuk menggunakan bahasa ibu semiminim mungkin untuk meningkatkan keterampilan berbicara mereka dalam bahasa target.

Metode Komunitas Pembelajaran Bahasa

Metode ini tidak didasari pada ,metode metode yang digunakan dalam pengajaran bahasa inggris lainnya tetapi lebih kepada pendekatan yang menggunakan tehnik tehnik konseling. Metode ini lebih menekankan pada masalah masalah yang sifatnya psikologi pada siswa dalam belajar bahasa target. Akibatnya, siswa tiidak dipandang sebagai pembelajar tetapi lebih sebagai klien. Guru penutur asli tidak dianggap seperti guru tetapi lebih dianggap sebagai penasehat dalam mengembangkan 4 skills pengajaran dan pembelajaran bahasa target.

Setiap orang memiliki gaya belajar yang berbeda. Gaya belajar ini terbentuk dari lingkungan dan kebiasaan kita sehari-hari. Jika kita mengenal gaya belajar kita, maka kita bisa memilih strategi belajar yang efektif, yang disesuaikan dengan gaya belajar kita masing-masing.

1. ”Auditory learners”. Jika kita termasuk orang yang lebih mudah belajar dengan mendengarkan, maka kita memiliki gaya belajar ”auditory.” Jika ini gaya belajar kita, maka kita bisa memperbanyak porsi belajar dengan mendengarkan, misalnya mendengarkan kaset-kaset pelajaran bahasa Inggris, lagu-lagu favorit kita, ataupun berita, pidato dalam bahasa Inggris. Kita juga bisa mendengarkan percakapan-percakapan dalam bahasa Inggris di film-film favorit yang kita tonton di bioskop, televisi, ataupun VCD. Dengarkan ucapan, ungkapan yang digunakan, perhatikan konteks ataupun situasi di mana kata-kata ataupun ungkapan tersebut digunakan. Lakukan hal ini berulang-ulang maka kita akan bertemu dengan ungkapan serupa yang dapat kita latih secara berkala, sehingga kita bisa makin mahir mengucapkan dan menggunakannya.

2. ”Visual learners”. Jika kita termasuk orang yang lebih mudah belajar melalui input visual (gambar, tulisan), maka kita memiliki gaya belajar ”visual”. Banyak sekali strategi yang bisa kita lakukan. Kita bisa membaca artikel-artikel dalam bahasa Inggris yang kita anggap penting, dan menarik di surat kabar, majalah, ataupun internet, untuk kemudian kita coba ceritakan kembali dengan kata-kata yang kita susun sendiri, baik dalam bentuk tulisan ataupun dalam bentuk ucapan. Kita bisa juga membaca dan mempelajari contoh surat, proposal, brosur yang sering kita temui dalam melakukan pekerjaan kita. Untuk mencoba memahami suatu konsep abstrak, kita bisa menggambarkannya dalam bentuk visual: ”flow chart”, tabel, ataupun bentuk-bentuk visual lainnya.

3. ”Kinesthetic learners”. Jika kita lebih suka belajar dengan melakukan sesuatu atau bergerak, maka kita bisa belajar dengan menggunakan komputer (di mana kita harus menekan tombol di keyboard, atau mouse), sehingga kita tidak cepat bosan. Kita bisa juga bergabung dengan perkumpulan-perkumpulan bahasa Inggris (English Club) yang memiliki banyak kegiatan dan permainan yang melibatkan gerakan. Yang juga bisa kita lakukan adalah belajar dengan menulis (menggerakkan tangan untuk menulis), atau mencoba memahami sebuah kata atau ungkapan dengan membayangkan gerakan yang bisa diasosiasikan dengan arti kata-kata tersebut. Setiap orang bisa memiliki lebih dari satu gaya belajar (misalnya auditory dan visual, atau visual dan kinesthetic). Apa pun gaya belajar kita, jika kita sudah mengenalnya, bisa kita cari dan terapkan strategi belajar yang disesuaikan dengan gaya belajar tersebut agar hasilnya bisa lebih efektif.

Tujuan Penelitian Bahasa

Tujuan Penelitian Bahasa (Syamsuddin dan Vismaia, 2007:3)

1. Menemukan dan mengembangkan teori, model, atau strategi baru dalam pendidikan bahasa;
2. Menerapkan, menguji dan mengevaluasi kemampuan teori, model, strategi pendidikan bahasa dalam memecahkan masalah pendidikan bahasa;
3. Mendeskripsikan dan menjelaskan keadaan atau hubungan berbagai isu atau pikiran yang terkait dengan masalah bahasa;
4. Memecahkan masalah pendidikan bahasa;
5. Menemukan factor-faktor yang mempengaruhi masalah pendidikan bahasa;
6. Membuat keputusan atau kebijakan.

Pentingnya Penelitian Pendidikan Bahasa
1. Pendidik
2. Masyarakat umum
3. Penentu Kebijakan

Sifat-sifat Penelitian Pendidikan Bahasa

1. Bertujuan
2. Sistematis
3. Objektif
4. Logis: Deduktif; Dari pernyataan umum ke kesimpulan khusus. Induktif; mengamati kasus-kasus tertentu kemudian membentuk generalisasi.
5. Empiris
6. Reduktif; mereduksi berbagai kebingungan
7. Replicable dan Transmitable; Replicable; dapat diulangi oleh peneliti lain dan Transmitable; penelitian harus dapat memecahkan masalah
8. Penjelasan singkat; membuat yang komplek menjadi sederhana
9. Simpulan bersyarat; penelitian adalah merupakan simpulan bersyarat atau tidak mutlak

Penelitian berdasarkan tujuan

1. Penelitian Dasar: Peneliti bertujuan perluasan ilmu tanpa memikirkan pemanfaatan hasil penelitian tersebut untuk masyarakat dengan kata lain penelitian untuk mengembangkan teori dan tidak langsung memperhatikan kegunaan praktis.
2. Penelitian terapan: Penelitian yang bertujuan menerapkan, menguji, dan mengevaluasi kemampuan suatu teori yang diterapkan dalam memecahkan masalah praktis baik secara individual maupun kelompok.

Penelitian Berdasarkan Jenis data
1. Penelitian Kuantitatif adalah penelitian yang menyajikan hasil-hasil statistic yang diwakili oleh angka-angka;
2. Penelitian Kualitatif adalah penelitian yang menyajikan data yang dinarasikan dengan kata-kata, skema dan gambar.

Penelitian Berdasrkan Aspek Metode

Eksperimental

1. Penelitian Eksperimen, The Influence of Using Audio Visual Toward Speaking Ability of English Department of STAIN Parepare, The Effect of EGRA Technique in Teaching English Structure on the Students Achievement at the Third Year Class of SLTP Negeri 3 Bumiayu, Pengaruh model pembelajaran interaktif dalam membaca terhadap kemampuan membaca siswa dalam kondisi dikontrol secara ketat; Pengaruh tanda baca terhadap pemahaman bacaan (Nunan) (sampel dengan cara acak)
2. Penelitian Eksperimen Kuasi (sampel tidak dengan acak)
3. Penelitian Subjek tunggal

Noneksperimental

1. Penelitian Deskriptif, contoh: Berapa besar nilai rata-rata kemampuan efektif membaca siswa sekolah dasar? Berapa banyak siswa yang dating ke perpustakaan setiap minggunnya? Berapa banayak waktu yang digunakan siswa untuk kegiatan membaca setiap harinya? Berapa pada tingkat berapa kemampuan membaca siswa?

2. Penelitian komparatif, Contoh; Apakah terdapat perbedaan jenis karangan antara siswa laki-laki dan perempuan? Perbandingan tingkat pemahaman wacana antara anak yang membaca dengan menggunakan music dan anak yang membaca tanpa mendengarkan music? The Difference of Students Achievement before and After Using Competence Based Curriculum of The Second Year Student Of SMPN 1 Parepare in Speaking Subject

3. Penelitian Korelational; contoh: hubungan tingkat keterbacaan wacana dengan pemahaman wacana; hubungan antara penggunaan bahasa ibu dan prestasi bahsa inggris; hubungan anatara pola suh orang tua dan motivasi siswa dalam belajar bahasa Inggris. The correlation between Illustrated Textbook and Student Motivation in Learning English of The first year students of SMAN 1

4. Penelitian survey; Contoh: bagaimana gambaran sikap dan motif siswa terhadap pembelajaran bahasa kedua; bagaimana gambaran hubungan antara kemampuan berbicara dan proses mengingat; Bagaimana pengaruh usia siswa terhadap kemampuan berbahasa?; Bagaimana pengaruh situasi, interaksi dan keadaan siswa terhadap pembelajaran bahasa Inggris?

5. Penelitian Eks post facto; Contoh: Pengaruh kebiasan membaca orang tua terhadap minat baca siswa. (Kebiasaan membaca orang tua tidak bias dimanipulasi sehingga peneliti melihat pengaruhnya setelah kondisi tersebut terjadi)

Penelitian Interaktif (Kualitatif)

1. Ethnografik; Etnografi adalah penelitian untuk menjelaskan dan menafsirkan budaya atau kelompok atau sistem sosial. Sebagai sebuah proses, etnografi melibatkan kerja lapangan yang membutuhkan banyak waktu, melakukan pengamatan secara khusus dan wawancara dengan para peserta, dan mengumpulkan berbagai artifak. Terdapat kegiatan dokumenter melalui observasi. Hasilnya berupa uraian komprehensif, naratif, yang bersifat holistik dan interpretatif.

2. Fenomenologi adalah filsafat ilmu dan metode penelitian. Penelitian ini menjelaskan makna/pengertian tentang pengalaman hidup.
3. Studi Kasus
4. Grounded Theory
5. Studi Kritis

Penelitian Noninteraktif (Kualitatif)
1. Analisi Konsep
2. Analisis Historis


Melalui analisis dokumen

The Role of Syllabus/Curriculum

The Role of Syllabus/Curriculum

"Syllabus" is a word customarily used in the The United Kingdom, identical to the concept of a "curriculum" in the United States. A syllabus outlines the sequence and content of a language program, and how language learning is to be "carried out". Syllabus and Curriculum are also referred to as "designs" within a teaching methodology - not a method unto themselves but a kind of map of how the material is to be delivered to the learners. They are seen as embodying the general and specific objectives of language learning course. A syllabus/curriculum can be as simple as a sequential order of textbooks to be studied, or it can be more elaborate and include types of testing, learning objectives according to level, accompanying Phonics materials, teaching aids, homework schedule and assignments. Unfortunately, syllabus/curriculum is all too often seen as a "progress indicator" unto itself - that is, the ability and progress of students are dictated by what "stage" in the syllabus/curriculum they have reached or about to advance to.

Syllabus/Curriculum Orientated Around Linguistic Features

A syllabus of this nature focuses on grammatical features as the "organisers" of a language learning program. The linguistic elements that are construed as being simpler/easier come first, and are followed by a sequence of language items that become progressively harder/more complex. Methods that typically have a high emphasis on form (note the Grammar Translation Method and the Audiolingual Method) more than likely sequence their language items according to this model. A curriculum of this type may be quite stringent, and its designers/advocates are likely to resent any perceived "jumping ahead" to more complex structures, even if it "fits in" with the communicative needs/desires of the students. As an example, a teacher instructing students in the present simple tense would be discouraged from teaching them past tense forms (even if the students are attempting to communicate about things they did yesterday/last week), as this represents a "jump" to a kind of linguistic structure the students are not "ready" for.

Notional-Functional Syllabuses

These syllabuses began appearing in the 1970s, and are also known as NFS. This kind of syllabus moves away from grammatical form and concentrates instead on "functions" and the pragmatic purposes to which we apply language. This might include such functions as indentification, asking permission, advice, offers, invitations, apologies, etc as the "organizing" elements of the syllabus. Textbooks that advocate "communicative" language learning are usually organized according to a Notional-Functional Syllabus.

Teaching Strategies:
Techniques and Philosophy
________________________________________
I. Introduction:
The information on this site deals with basic teaching strategies. Please visit the pages for Teaching Fiction and Teaching Non-Fiction to see techniques to implement specific strategies.
AS AN OVERALL TEACHING STRATEGY: YOU SHOULD CREATE THE CONDITIONS THAT WILL *ELICIT THE BEHAVIOR THAT YOU WANT FROM YOUR CLASS OR AN INDIVIDUAL STUDENT.
________________________________________
*If you have questions or ideas about classroom teaching strategies that you would like to discuss, please subscribe to TEACH-ENG-L, the English teachers list.
To subscribe to TEACH-ENG-L, click here
________________________________________
Other English Teaching Pages
________________________________________
[]

Designing Lessons and Units Viewpoints to Strengthen
Strategies
Working with Groups Effective Discussions
Using Transition Time
Activities Time Filling Up Activities
Ending Class Teaching with Stories and
Sayings
Extra Credit Work A Peer Tutor Program
Oral Quizzes Controlling Excessive
Talking
Student Listening
Characteristics The Introductory Speech
Parent Teacher Conferences Teaching Values
Teaching Vocabulary Third Level Why
Enhancing Discussions
Planning Breaks
for Longer Classes Constructing Multiple
Choice Tests
Listening to Students
and Hearing them Motivating Learners in Negative
Learning Environments
© Leif Danielson

NOTE: Please check your email address before sending.
Some replies have bounced.

The PPP Approach to Communicative Language Teaching

The PPP Approach to Communicative Language Teaching


"PPP" (or the "3Ps") stands for Presentation, Practice and Production - a common approach to communicative language teaching that works through the progression of three sequential stages.

Presentation represents the introduction to a lesson, and necessarily requires the creation of a realistic (or realistic-feeling) "situation" requiring the target language to be learned. This can be achieved through using pictures, dialogs, imagination or actual "classroom situations". The teacher checks to see that the students understand the nature of the situation, then builds the "concept" underlying the language to be learned using small chunks of language that the students already know. Having understood the concept, students are then given the language "model" and angage in choral drills to learn statement, answer and question forms for the target language. This is a very teacher-orientated stage where error correction is important.

Practice usually begins with what is termed "mechanical practice" - open and closed pairwork. Students gradually move into more "communicative practice" involving procedures like information gap activities, dialog creation and controlled roleplays. Practice is seen as the frequency device to create familiarity and confidence with the new language, and a measuring stick for accuracy. The teacher still directs and corrects at this stage, but the classroom is beginning to become more learner-centered.

Production is seen as the culmination of the language learning process, whereby the learners have started to become independent users of the language rather than students of the language. The teacher's role here is to somehow facilitate a realistic situation or activity where the students instinctively feel the need to actively apply the language they have been practicing. The teacher does not correct or become involved unless students directly appeal to him/her to do so.

The PPP approach is relatively straight forward, and structured enough to be easily understood by both students and new or emerging teachers. It is a good place to start in terms of applying good communicative language teaching in the classroom. It has also been criticized considerably for the very characteristic that makes it the easiest method for 'beginner' teachers, that is, that it is far too teacher-orientated and over controlled. A nice alternative to 'PPP' is Harmer's 'ESA' (Engage/Study/Activate) - click here to find out more.

Types of Learning Associated with the CLT Approach


Interactive Learning:
This concept goes right to the heart of communication itself, stressing the dual roles of "receiver" and "sender" in any communicative situation. Interaction creates the "negotiation between interlocutors" which in turn produces meaning (semantics). The concept of interactive learning necessarily entails that there will be a lot of pair and group work in the classroom, as well as genuine language input from the "real world" for meaningful communication.

Learner-centered Learning:
This kind of instruction involves the giving over of some "power" in the language learning process to the learners themselves. It also strives to allow for personal creativity and input from the students, as well as taking into account their learning needs and objectives.

Cooperative Learning:
This concept stresses the "team" like nature of the classroom and emphasizes cooperation as opposed to competition. Students share information and help, and achieve their learning goals as a group.

Content-based Learning:
This kind of learning joins language learning to content/subject matter and engages them both concurrently. Language is seen as a tool or medium for aquiring knowledge about other things, instantly proving its usefulness. An important factor in this kind of learning is that the content itself determines what language items need to be mastered, not the other way around. When students study math or science using English as the medium, they are more intrinsically motivated to learn more of the language.

Task-based Learning:
This concept equates the idea of a "learning task" to a language learning technique in itself. This could be a problem solving activity or a project, but the task has a clear objective, appropriate content, a working/application procedure, and a set range of outcomes.

Second Language Writing and Research: The Writing Process and Error Analysis in Student Texts

Second Language Writing and Research: The Writing Process and Error Analysis in Student Texts
Johanne Myles
Queen's University

Abstract
Academic writing requires conscious effort and much practice in composing, developing, and analyzing ideas. Students writing in a second language are also faced with social and cognitive challenges related to second language acquisition. L1 models of writing instruction and research on composing processes have been the theoretical basis for using the process approach in L2 writing pedagogy. However, language proficiency and competence underlies the ability to write in the L2 in a fundamental way. Therefore, L2 writing instructors should take into account both strategy development and language skill development when working with students. This paper explores error in writing in relation to particular aspects of second language acquisition and theories of the writing process in L1 and L2. It can be argued that a focus on the writing process as a pedagogical tool is only appropriate for second language learners if attention is given to linguistic development, and if learners are able to get sufficient and effective feedback with regard to their errors in writing.
Introduction
The ability to write well is not a naturally acquired skill; it is usually learned or culturally transmitted as a set of practices in formal instructional settings or other environments. Writing skills must be practiced and learned through experience. Writing also involves composing, which implies the ability either to tell or retell pieces of information in the form of narratives or description, or to transform information into new texts, as in expository or argumentative writing. Perhaps it is best viewed as a continuum of activities that range from the more mechanical or formal aspects of "writing down" on the one end, to the more complex act of composing on the other end (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). It is undoubtedly the act of composing, though, which can create problems for students, especially for those writing in a second language (L2) in academic contexts. Formulating new ideas can be difficult because it involves transforming or reworking information, which is much more complex than writing as telling. By putting together concepts and solving problems, the writer engages in "a two-way interaction between continuously developing knowledge and continuously developing text" (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987, p. 12). Indeed, academic writing requires conscious effort and practice in composing, developing, and analyzing ideas. Compared to students writing in their native language (L1), however, students writing in their L2 have to also acquire proficiency in the use of the language as well as writing strategies, techniques and skills. They might also have to deal with instructors and later, faculty members, who may or may not get beyond their language problems when evaluating their work. Although a certain amount of consciousness-raising on the part of the readers may be warranted, students want to write close to error-free texts and they enter language courses with the expectations of becoming more proficient writers in the L2. [-1-]
This paper explores error in writing in relation to particular aspects of second language acquisition and theories of the writing process in L1 and L2. I argue that the process approach to instruction, with its emphasis on the writing process, meaning making, invention and multiple drafts (Raimes, 1991), is only appropriate for second language learners if they are both able to get sufficient feedback with regard to their errors in writing, and are proficient enough in the language to implement revision strategies.
A brief survey of the nature of L2 writing and L1 models of the writing process illustrates why it is difficult to apply L1 research to a model for second language writing. Further, certain social and cognitive factors related to second language acquisition show that strategies involved in the language learning process also affect L2 writing. With a discussion of these factors, fundamental questions about error in writing and L2 proficiency are raised. It should then become apparent that the process approach to writing instruction can only be effective if these two components are taken into consideration.
Models of L1 and L2 Writing
Most ESL students studying in post-secondary institutions have writing skills. However, their purposes for writing are sometimes not the kind valued by Western academic communities. The nature of academic literacy often confuses and disorients students, "particularly those who bring with them a set of conventions that are at odds with those of the academic world they are entering" (Kutz, Groden & Zamel, 1993, p. 30). In addition, the culture-specific nature of schemata--abstract mental structures representing our knowledge of things, events, and situations--can lead to difficulties when students write texts in L2. Knowing how to write a "summary" or "analysis" in Mandarin or Spanish does not necessarily mean that students will be able to do these things in English (Kern, 2000). As a result, any appropriate instruction must take into consideration the influence from various educational, social, and cultural experiences that students have in their native language. These include textual issues, such as rhetorical and cultural preferences for organizing information and structuring arguments, commonly referred to as contrastive rhetoric (Cai, 1999; Connor, 1997; Kaplan, 1987; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 1996; Leki, 1993; 1997; Matalene, 1985), knowledge of appropriate genres (Johns, 1995; Swales, 1990), familiarity with writing topics (Shen, 1989), and distinct cultural and instructional socialization (Coleman, 1996; Holliday, 1997; Valdes, 1995). In addition to instructional and cultural factors, L2 writers have varying commands of the target language, which affect the way structural errors are treated from both social and cognitive points of view.
Much of the research on L2 writing has been closely dependent on L1 research. Although L2 writing is strategically, rhetorically, and linguistically different in many ways from L1 writing (Silva, 1993), L1 models have had a significant influence on L2 writing instruction and the development of a theory of L2 writing. However, a look at two popular L1 models will give us some insight into the problem of developing a distinct construct of L2 writing. [-2-]
The Flower and Hayes (1980, 1981) model focuses on what writers do when they compose. It examines the rhetorical problem in order to determine the potential difficulties a writer could experience during the composing process. The "problem-solving activity" is divided into two major components: the rhetorical situation (audience, topic, assignment), and the writer's own goals (involving the reader, the writer's persona, the construction of meaning, and the production of the formal text). By comparing skilled and less-skilled writers, the emphasis here is placed on "students' strategic knowledge and the ability of students to transform information . . . to meet rhetorically constrained purposes" (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996, p. 116). However, the social dimension is important too. Indeed, writing "should not be viewed solely as an individually-oriented, inner-directed cognitive process, but as much as an acquired response to the discourse conventions . . . within particular communities" (Swales, 1990, p. 4).
In more recent studies that examine the goals students set for themselves, the strategies they use to develop their organizing of ideas and the metacognitive awareness they bring to both these acts, Flower and her colleagues (1990) analyze the academic task of reading-to-write to establish the interaction of context and cognition in performing a particular writing task.
One of the problems they note is the transition students are required to make when entering the academic discourse community (a peculiar, socially constructed convention in itself), where students need to learn how to operate successfully in an academic conversation that implies knowledge of the textual conventions, expectations, and formulaic expressions particular to the discourse. According to the researchers, "conceptualizing this transition as a social/cognitive act of entering a discourse emphasizes both the problem-solving effort of a student learning to negotiate a new situation and the role the situation will play in what is learned" (p. 222). The view that writing is typically a socially situated, communicative act is later incorporated into Flower's (1994) socio-cognitive theory of writing. In the social cognitive curriculum students are taught as apprentices in negotiating an academic community, and in the process develop strategic knowledge. Writing skills are acquired and used through negotiated interaction with real audience expectations, such as in peer group responses. Instruction should, then, afford students the opportunity to participate in transactions with their own texts and the texts of others (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996). By guiding students toward a conscious awareness of how an audience will interpret their work, learners then learn to write with a "readerly" sensitivity (Kern, 2000).
Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) also propose a model that suggests reasons for differences in writing ability between skilled and less-skilled writers. The basic difference is revealed in their two models of writing: the knowledge-telling model, whose basic structure depends on the processes of retrieving content from memory with regard to topical and genre cues, and the knowledge-transforming model, which involves more reflective problem-solving analysis and goal-setting. The latter model is important because it opens up the idea of multiple processing, which is revealed through writing tasks that vary in processing complexity. The authors discuss the notion of mental representation as a writing strategy. From their research with graduate students, they observe that the students "generated goals for their compositions and engaged in problem solving involving structure and gist as well as verbatim representations" (p. 354). The knowledge-transforming or intentional writing model is different from knowledge telling in that it involves setting of goals that are to be achieved through the composing process, and the purposeful achievement of those goals. The composing process does not depend on memories and emotions and on external (teacher) assistance for its direction. In fact, Bereiter and Scardamalia criticize formal schooling that encourages the more passive kind of cognition by "continually telling students what to do," rather than encouraging them "to follow their spontaneous interests and impulses . . . and assume responsibility for what becomes of their minds" (p. 361). They also argue that the ability to wrestle with and resolve both content and rhetorical problems calls upon a dialectical process for reflection. If students rarely practice the kinds of writing tasks that develop knowledge-transforming skills, they are not likely to be able to perform those skills easily. [-3-]
Both the Flower and Hayes, and the Bereiter and Scardamalia writing process models have served as the theoretical basis for using the process approach in both L1 and L2 writing instruction. By incorporating pre-writing activities such as collaborative brainstorming, choice of personally meaningful topics, strategy instruction in the stages of composing, drafting, revising, and editing, multiple drafts and peer-group editing, the instruction takes into consideration what writers do as they write. Attention to the writing process stresses more of a workshop approach to instruction, which fosters classroom interaction, and engages students in analyzing and commenting on a variety of texts. The L1 theories also seem to support less teacher intervention and less attention to form.
Despite their implications for classroom instruction, not all the components of these models are appropriate in an L2 context. The Flower model, in particular, does not recognize cross-cultural differences and issues related to sociocultural variation in the functions of the written language (Kern, 2000). Additionally, with native speakers, "writing ability is more closely linked to fluency in and familiarity with the conventions of expository discourse" (Kogen 1986, p. 25). L2 writers, however, are in the process of acquiring these conventions and so they often need more instruction about the language itself. Limited knowledge of vocabulary, language structure, and content can inhibit a L2 writer's performance. In addition, the models do not account for growing language proficiency, which is a vital element of L2 writing development.
Similarly, composing, especially in the revision stage, challenges L2 writers. In his research on how L2 writers revise their work, Silva (1993) observes that learners revise at a superficial level. They re-read and reflect less on their written text, revise less, and when they do, the revision is primarily focused on grammatical correction. On the other hand, L1 writing ability may also transfer to L2. As a result, students who are skilled writers in their native languages and have surpassed a certain L2 proficiency level can adequately transfer those skills. Of course, those who have difficulty writing in their native language may not have a repertoire of strategies to help them in their L2 writing development (Sasaki & Hirose, 1996). These observations warrant consideration for L2 instruction and course design, especially for those courses in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) writing that include less-skilled writers or those who have never had the opportunity to engage in more knowledge-transforming tasks in their native languages.
In sum, social-cognitive theories of writing show us how social contexts for writing operate together with the cognitive efforts of the writer, just as they do when a person is acquiring a new language. However, the problem with applying L1 theories and subsequent models of instruction (such as the process approach) to L2 instruction is that L2 writing also involves the cognitively demanding task of generating meaningful text in a second language. As a result, L2 students generally want more teacher involvement and guidance, especially at the revision stage. Consequently, in order to provide effective pedagogy, L2 writing instructors need to understand the social and cognitive factors involved in the process of second language acquisition and error in writing because these factors have a salient effect on L2 writing development. [-4-]
The Sources of Error in L2 Writing: Social and Cognitive Factors
Social Factors
Both social and cognitive factors affect language learning. Exploration of social factors gives us some idea of why learners differ in rate of L2 learning, in proficiency type (for instance, conversational ability versus writing ability), and in ultimate proficiency (Ellis, 1994). Research based on direct (self-report questionnaires) and indirect measures generally shows that learners with positive attitudes, motivation, and concrete goals will have these attitudes reinforced if they experience success. Likewise, learners' negative attitudes may be strengthened by lack of success or by failure (McGroarty, 1996). Needless to say, although ESL learners may have negative attitudes toward writing for academic purposes, many of them are financially and professionally committed to graduating from English-speaking universities, and as a result, have strong reasons for learning and improving their skills.
There is a direct relationship between learner attitudes and learner motivation. Gardner's (1985) socio-educational model is designed to account for the role of social factors in language acquisition. It interrelates four aspects of L2 learning: the social and cultural milieu (which determines beliefs about language and culture), individual learner differences (related to motivation and language aptitude), the setting (formal and/or informal learning contexts), and learning outcomes. Integrative motivation involves a desire to learn an L2 because individuals need to learn the target language to integrate into the community. In addition to this interest, the people or the culture represented by the other language group may also inspire them. On the other hand, instrumental motivation acknowledges the role that external influences and incentives play in strengthening the learners' desire to achieve. Learners who are instrumentally motivated are interested in learning the language for a particular purpose, such as writing a dissertation or getting a job. According to the theory, if second language learning takes place in isolation from a community of target language speakers, then it benefits more from integrative motivation, whereas if it takes place among a community of speakers, then instrumental orientation becomes the more effective motivational factor. Despite problems in Gardner's research design, it can be concluded that motivational factors "probably do not make much difference on their own, but they can create a more positive context in which language learning is likely to flourish" (Bialystok & Hakuta, 1994, p. 140). (See Lambert, 1975; Schumann, 1978; Giles, Robinson & Smith, 1980; Giles & Byrne, 1982; and Hamers & Blanc, 1982 for examples of other models that focus on the social circumstances of learning in relation to second language acquisition).
Learners' attitudes, motivations, and goals can explain why some L2 writers perform better than others. For example, at the beginning of each of my ESL writing classes, I often ask students to fill out a personal information form to determine their needs and interests when planning my course. The answers to questions such as, "Do you enjoy writing in English?" and "What are your strengths and weaknesses in writing?" are revealing. Most students will answer that they hate writing in English (and in their native language, for that matter), and are only taking the course for educational and/or career purposes. In fact, it seems that many of the students would prefer to be practicing conversation. Students may enjoy writing e-mail messages to friends around the world, but challenges, such as difficulties getting started, finding the right words, and developing topics, abound. However, if students show an overall interest in the target language (integrative motivation), perceive that there is parental and social support, and have a desire to achieve their professional goals (instrumental motivation), they can become more proficient in their ability to write in English, despite the initial lack of self-motivation. [-5-]
Writing teachers should be aware of how the instrumental motivation of their L2 students will influence the effectiveness of their lessons. Common purposes for learners writing in an EAP context include writing a research paper for publication in an English-speaking journal or writing a business report for a multinational company. These learners may be less motivated to write stories or poetry, because they perceive that these tasks are not related to their needs. Even writing a standard research essay may seem like a waste of time for those who will need to write project reports and memos. If learners perceive writing tasks to be useless, they may approach them in a careless manner. Consequently, it is likely that they will be inattentive to errors, monitoring, and rhetorical concerns (Carson, 2001). However, if students are highly motivated, then any sort of writing task, expressive or otherwise, are welcomed.
Social factors also influence the quality of contact that learners will experience. Indeed, we cannot assume that "more contact" with the target language will result in more acquisition of the L2. Certainly, instructors recommend that students studying English for academic purposes should read academic texts, attend academic lectures, and even work with students who are native speakers in order to become more acquainted with the discourse. However, if they do not engage in the texts, understand the talks, or actively contribute to the study sessions, these activities will have little effect on student progress. Interaction is key. A common complaint among ESL students at university is that they have difficulty meeting native speakers and getting to know them. Students are often disappointed that they do not have as much interaction with native speakers as they had expected. In addition, they often associate with other students from their L1 and speak their native language. Unfortunately, this pattern can slow down L2 development in all skill areas. The instructor is often responsible for providing incentives or opportunities for interactions with native speakers. Generally speaking, if L2 learners are motivated to integrate into the L2, they will develop a higher level of proficiency and positive attitudes, which can have a positive effect on their writing.
In short, learners may continue to exhibit errors in their writing for the following social reasons:
1. negative attitudes toward the target language
2. continued lack of progress in the L2
3. a wide social and psychological distance between them and the target culture, and,
4. a lack of integrative and instrumental motivation for learning.
Cognitive Factors
Academic writing is believed to be cognitively complex. Acquisition of academic vocabulary and discourse style is particularly difficult. According to cognitive theory, communicating orally or in writing is an active process of skill development and gradual elimination of errors as the learner internalizes the language. Indeed, acquisition is a product of the complex interaction of the linguistic environment and the learner's internal mechanisms. With practice, there is continual restructuring as learners shift these internal representations in order to achieve increasing degrees of mastery in L2 (McLaughlin, 1988). [-6-]
One model that applies to both speaking and writing in a second language is Anderson's (1985) model of language production, which can be divided into three stages: construction, in which the writer plans what he/she is going to write by brainstorming, using a mind-map or outline; transformation, in which language rules are applied to transform intended meanings into the form of the message when the writer is composing or revising; and execution, which corresponds to the physical process of producing the text. The first two stages have been described as "setting goals and searching memory for information, then using production systems to generate language in phrases or constituents" (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990, p. 42). Writers vascillate between these processes as they actively develop the meaning they wish to express in writing. Anderson's learning theory supports teaching approaches that combine the development of language and content knowledge, practice in using this knowledge, and strategy training to encourage independent learning (Snow, 2001).
In structuring information, the writer uses various types of knowledge, including discourse knowledge, understanding of audience, and sociolinguistic rules (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990). Organization at both the sentence and the text level is also important for effective communication of meaning, and ultimately, for the quality of the written product (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1987). For instance, coherence problems may be due to not knowing how to organize text or how to store the relevant information. The transformation stage involves converting information into meaningful sentences. At this point, the writer translates or changes his/her plans into a mental representation of the goals, ideas, and organization developed in the construction stage. Revision is also part of this stage. As previously mentioned, revision is a cognitively demanding task for L2 learners because it not only involves task definition, evaluation, strategy selection, and modification of text in the writing plan (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996), but also the ability of students to analyze and evaluate the feedback they receive on their writing.
Due to the complex process of writing in a second language, learners often find it difficult to develop all aspects of the stages simultaneously. As a result, they selectively use only those aspects that are automatic or have already been proceduralized (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990). In order to enhance or facilitate language production, students can develop particular learning strategies that isolate component mental processes. O'Malley and Chamot have differentiated strategies into three categories: metacognitive, such as planning the organization of written discourse or monitoring (that is, being aware of what one is doing and responding appropriately to the demands of a task); cognitive, such as transferring or using known linguistic information to facilitate a new learning task or using imagery for recalling and using new vocabulary, and social/affective strategies, which involve cooperating with peers, for example, in peer revision classes.
Learner strategies can be effective, but they need to be internalized so that they can be utilized in adverse learning situations. For example, if an environment is perceived to be stressful or threatening, for example, writing as part of a job interview process, or performing under timed test conditions, learners' affective states can influence cognition. Emotional influences along with cognitive factors can account for achievement and performance in L2, to a certain extent. Schumann (1998) argues that affect may influence cognition through its role in framing a problem and in adopting processing strategies. He states that we very often use feelings as information: "When faced with a situation about which we have to make a judgment we often ask ourselves how we feel about it . . . we may also employ feelings when time constraints and competing tasks limit our cognitive capacities" (p. 247). This outcome may affect the way second language students perform when they are under stress. [-7-]
Language transfer is another important cognitive factor related to writing error. Transfer is defined as the influence resulting from similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that has been previously acquired (Odlin, 1989). The study of transfer involves the study of errors (negative transfer), facilitation (positive transfer), avoidance of target language forms, and their over-use (Ellis, 1994). Behaviorist accounts claim that transfer is the cause of errors, whereas from a cognitive perspective, transfer is seen as a resource that the learner actively draws upon in interlanguage development (Selinker, 1972). In other words, "the L1 can have a direct effect on interlanguage development by influencing the hypotheses that learners construct" (Ellis, 1994, p. 342). According to McLaughlin, transfer errors can occur because:
[L]earners lack the necessary information in the second language or the attentional capacity to activate the appropriate second-language routine. But such an account says little about why certain linguistic forms transfer and others do not. (1988, p. 50)
Despite the fact that L1 transfer is no longer viewed as the only predictor or cause of error at the structural level (since it is difficult to distinguish empirically between instances of communication and language transfer in research studies), a writer's first language plays a complex and significant role in L2 acquisition. For example, when learners write under pressure, they may call upon systematic resources from their native language for the achievement and synthesis of meaning (Widdowson, 1990). Research has also shown that language learners sometimes use their native language when generating ideas and attending to details (Friedlander, 1990). In addition, contrastive studies, which have focused on characteristics of L1 languages and cultures, have helped us predict rhetorical error in writing. These studies have been valuable in our understanding of L2 writing development. However, many feel that these studies have also led to reductive, essentializing generalizations about ways of writing and cultural stereotypes about students from certain linguistic backgrounds (Fox, 1994; Leki, 1997; Spack, 1997). As a result, erroneous predictions about students' learning based on their L1 language and culture have occurred regardless of social factors, such as "the contexts, and purpose of their learning to write, or their age, race, class, gender, education, and prior experience" (Raimes, 1998, p. 143). In addition, learners are influenced by many global phenomena and are themselves continually changing with new experiences. In spite of these criticisms, though, an understanding of "difference among epistemological rhetorical, and pedagogical traditions" (Kern, 2000, p. 176) and the impact of language transfer can be illuminating for an understanding of why learners make certain structural and organizational errors. [-8-]
Input and interaction also play important roles in the writing process, especially in classroom settings. Some studies have indicated that input, along with L1 transfer and communicative need may work together to shape interlanguage (Ellis, 1994; Selinker, 1972). Research has focused on four broad areas: input frequency, the nature of comprehensible input, learner output in interaction, and the processes of collaborative discourse construction. Writers need to receive adequate L2 input in order to form new hypotheses about syntactic and rhetorical forms in the target language. If students are not exposed to native-like models of written texts, their errors in writing are more likely to persist. Errors abound in peer review classes or in computer-mediated exchanges where learners read and respond to each other's compositions. Indeed, in many of my own classes, interlanguage talk or discourse is often the primary source of input for many learners. However, if the interaction, oral or written, allows for adequate negotiation of meaning, peer responses can be very useful. (See Pellettieri (2000) for what happens when learners respond to each other on the computer and read texts containing spelling and grammar errors).
We can see that writing in a second language is a complex process involving the ability to communicate in L2 (learner output) and the ability to construct a text in order to express one's ideas effectively in writing. Social and cognitive factors and learner strategies help us in assessing the underlying reasons why L2 learners exhibit particular writing errors. For instance, the writing problems experienced by Spanish speakers living in the United States may be due to a multiplicity of factors, including the effects of transfer and interference from the Spanish language, and cultural norms (Plata, 1995). Spanish-speaking writers must undergo the task of cognitively exchanging the style of the Spanish language for that of English. For this transformation to happen, some students find that creating another persona, such as replacing their birth name with an English one, can help them to become more immersed in the target language and culture. In short, because learners are less familiar and less confident with structural elements of a new language, rhetorical and cultural conventions and even new uses of writing, writing in an L2 can have errors and be less effective than writing in L1 (Kern, 2000).
The Sources of Error in L2 Writing
There are several ways to think about error in writing in light of what we know about second language acquisition and what we know about how texts, context and the writing process interact with one another. As mentioned, students writing in a second language generally produce texts that contain varying degrees of grammatical and rhetorical errors. In fact, depending on proficiency level, the more content-rich and creative the text, the greater the possibility there is for errors at the morphosyntactic level. These kinds of errors are especially common among L2 writers who have a lot of ideas, but not enough language to express what they want to say in a comprehensible way. What we classify as an error, which is associated with learner competence, may actually be a mistake, or more specifically in an EAP context, a "derailment" related to learner performance (Shaughnessy, 1977). These "derailments" occur when students attempt to use the academic voice and make their sentences more intricate, especially when the task requires more complex ideas.
From behaviorist and mentalist perspectives of error, which have emphasized the product (the error itself) to more constructivist views, which focus on underlying process (why the error is made), researchers have attempted to understand the errors in writers' texts by hypothesizing their possible sources (Bartholomae, 1980; Hull, 1985). Although reading an error-filled text can be tiring and disconcerting, errors can help us identify the cognitive strategies that the learner is using to process information. According to Ellis (1985), it is through analyzing learner errors that we elevate "the status of errors from undesirability to that of a guide to the inner working of the language learning process" (p. 53). [-9-]
Whether an error, mistake, or "derailment," awkward discourse can occur for a variety of reasons, some of which have already been mentioned. First of all, learners may translate from L1, or they may try out what they assume is a legitimate structure of the target language, although hindered by insufficient knowledge of correct usage. In the learning process, they often experience native language interference from developmental stages of interlanguage or from nonstandard elements in spoken dialects (a common occurrence in students writing in their native language as well). They also tend to over-generalize the rules for stylistic features when acquiring new discourse structures. In addition, learners are often unsure of what they want to express,which would cause them to make mistakes in any language. Finally, writers in L2 might lack familiarity with new rhetorical structures and the organization of ideas (Carson, 2001; Connor & Kaplan, 1987; Kutz, Groden, & Zamel, 1993; Raimes, 1987). L2 writing relates closely to native-language literacy and particular instructional contexts. Students may not be acquainted with English rhetoric, which can lead to writing that appears off topic or incoherent to many native English speakers. Rhetoric and writing are direct outcomes of sociocultural and political contexts; in other words, they are schematic representations of the writer's unique experiences within a particular social milieu. For example, Chinese or Indonesian students may write in accordance with a set of rhetorical norms (such as the "eight-legged" essay) that differ from those of English (Cai, 1999; Matalene, 1985; Williams, 1989).
Repeating a previous mistake, or backsliding, is a common occurrence in L2 writing. More important, though, is the issue of fossilization--when "learner interlanguage competence diverges in more or less permanent ways from the target language grammar" (Odlin, 1994, p. 13). Fossilized errors can be problematic in writing because the errors become ingrained, like bad habits, in a learner's repertoire, and they reappear despite remediation and correction. They can be common among immigrants who have learned much of the L2 "on the street," where the emphasis is on fluency and not linguistic correctness. Errors in writing, fossilized or otherwise, can be glaring, especially to the reader who has had little experience interacting with L2 speakers and texts.
Implications for Teaching: Proficiency, Instruction and Response to Error
Although instructors may think of errors as part of a language learning process related to linguistic, situational, and psycholinguistic contexts (Carson, 2001), and writing as a skill developed over time, most L2 learners' writing is judged according to criteria that are static and product-based. That teachers draw conclusions about intellectual ability on the basis of structural and grammatical problems has also been well documented (Sternglass, 1997; Zamel, 1998). Variability in writing, which is typical of a learner's interlanguage, is a concern when addressing proficiency issues. The definition of proficiency has consequences for L2 students; it affects their ability to complete writing tasks across the disciplines, cope with the demands of academic English, and receive recognition as well-informed, critical thinkers. [-10-]
One problem in assessing language performance is that it must address the many factors related to the contexts in which language is used. According to Bialystok (1998), any definition of language proficiency is deeply entangled in theoretical attitude. On the one hand, there is the formalist approach, which attempts to explain language as code. According to this perspective, "language proficiency is an ultimately unknowable abstraction that reflects the universal competence of native speakers" (p. 502). On the other hand, there is the functionalist approach, which explains proficiency in its relationship to communication in specific contexts. In this respect, it is "the outcome of social interaction with a linguistic environment" (p. 502). In conversation, often both parties assume some common knowledge and take advantage of verbal and nonverbal communication; however, in written discourse, common knowledge cannot be assumed; therefore, the writer may need to provide more background information in order to communicate clearly.
Language requires a combination of formal structure, that is, a clear set of standards, and communicative application, which includes recognition of variations from the rules. Consequently, a proper definition of language proficiency would "present identifiable standards against which to describe language skills of users in different contexts" (Bialystok, 1998, p. 504). A more complete conceptualization of language performance, then, acknowledges personal characteristics, topical or real-world knowledge, and affective schemata, among other factors related to the social and cultural context (Brown, 2000).
Alongside the cultural and curricular aspects of standardization, there is variability in the process of L2 learning. Learners vary in the ultimate level of proficiency they achieve, with many failing to reach target-language competence. This variation is often the result of individual learner differences in motivation and aptitude, in addition to the use of an assortment of strategies, such as inferencing and self-monitoring for obtaining input and for learning from it (Ellis, 1994; Krashen, 1982). However, instead of setting the standard as a well-defined, functionally balanced system, and proficiency as the degree of deviation from this norm, with errors "marked, counted and statistically analyzed," Klein (1998) advocates acknowledging learner varieties. According to Klein, these are "systems in their own right, error-free by definition and characterized by particular lexical repertoire and particular interaction of organizational principles" (p. 538). In fact, it may be more useful to think about proficiency as a process, one in which learners alternate in their use of linguistic forms according to the linguistic and situational contexts (Ellis, 1994). From a functionalist perspective, communicative competence in writing should also take into consideration learner variability and error within particular contexts. Nevertheless, for L2 writers, the greater the language proficiency (however defined), the better the writing quality. In fact, both language proficiency and composing abilities can, or perhaps should be, accounted for in evaluating L2 writing performance and instruction (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996).
Valuable insights from research in second language acquisition and writing development can assist in developing instructional techniques linking the two processes--acquiring a second language and developing writing skills, especially for academic purposes. Both Flower (1994) and Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) have stressed the benefits of process approaches to writing instruction and the need for more knowledge-transforming tasks. Taking the concept of "knowledge transformation" further, Wells (2000) argues that writing approached in this way is also an opportunity for knowledge building, "as the writer both tries to anticipate the likely response of the envisaged audience and carries on a dialogue with the text being composed" (p. 77). However, if students have not developed learning strategies to monitor their writing errors, and if they do not receive enough conceptual feedback at the discourse level, then the positive effects of the instruction may backfire. Instructional approaches that can be used effectively with L2 writers show us what is at stake for L2 instructors and students alike. [-11-]
First of all, students may be able to communicate more effectively if they are exposed to models of not only standard paragraphs and essays, but also a variety of genres of writing, including flyers, magazine articles, letters, and so forth. By examining a variety of written texts, students' awareness can be raised with regard to the way words, structures, and genre contribute to purposeful writing. They can also be made aware of different types of textual organization, which can in turn affect L2 students' composing processes (Swales, 1990; Raimes, 1991, 1998). Models can also be used for text analysis, which can help L2 writers see how particular grammatical features are used in authentic discourse contexts. Depending on the learners' levels of proficiency and writing abilities, models can seem fairly formulaic, as in the knowledge-telling model of the five-paragraph essay. However, as the students progress, they need to be aware of a variety of forms that "serve the writer's purpose instead of the other way around" (Atkinson & Ramanathan, 1995, p. 548). Cazden (1992) advocates the practice of scripting and performing texts in order to sensitize students to the many voices in a reading and how they interact. In this way, models of the target language are reinforced.
In addition to the use of written models, Cumming (1995) also points out the benefits of cognitive modeling in writing instruction, which involves explicit demonstration of the strategies experienced writers use when planning, making decisions, and revising texts. He also advocates that ESL instructors make explicit use of thinking or procedural-facilitation prompts and student self-evaluation as the optimal mode of assessment. Both these approaches promote knowledge-transforming models of composing. Self-evaluation can be encouraged in student portfolios, self-review checklists, and teacher and peer responses. In addition, verbalizing the writing process step-by-step can be effective, as it affords both students and teachers the opportunity to consider writing dialogically. However, convincing students to evaluate their own work requires additional instructional tools, and it may not be effective for all learners. Granted, Cummings refers to self-assessment as a component of one-to-one tutoring sessions, which in contrast to the classroom context, are ideally "more conducive environments for the textual, cognitive, and social dimensions of error identification to be integrated with individual students' composing processes and their immediate concerns about language, ideas, and texts" (p. 393). Unfortunately, many teachers have large classes; nonetheless, the use of specific prompts for cognitive modeling in different aspects of composing, including prompts for error identification, has proved to be valuable.
Apprenticeship models of instruction, which developed out of Vygotsky's sociocultural theories of language and literacy, are also becoming more common. Proficient students who are also fairly skilled writers can benefit from this approach. They start with what they already know and can do, but their learning is extended into what Vygotsky termed the "zone of proximal development" through strategic instruction, collaborative construction of opportunities and active participation (Lantolf, 2000; Schinke-Llano, 1995). Apprenticeship models enable learners to utilize the new language as a tool in the process of becoming self-regulatory. Similar to Cumming's suggestions for fostering writing expertise, "students are supported by a scaffold of prompts and explanations, by extensive modeling, by in-process support, and by reflection that connects strategic effort to outcomes" (Flower, 1994, pp. 142-143). Drawing on and revising student knowledge of genres, reflecting on strategies for approaching a variety of literary tasks, and cultivating a metalanguage for discussing texts are important components of socio-literate methods (Johns, 1999). [-12-]
Students come to class both to improve their language proficiency and become more confident in their writing abilities. Writing practice can also present diagnostic feedback that helps learners improve their linguistic accuracy at every level of proficiency. Instruction should provide students with ample amounts of language input and instruction, as well as writing experience (preferably through the interweaving of writing and reading, referred to as "intertextuality" (Blanton, 1999), and feedback to fulfill their goals. Overt classroom instruction through modeling, for instance, is only one part of the teaching process; providing students with feedback on their writing is the other. Essentially, we need to consider factors related to language proficiency, second language acquisition, and writing skill development when giving feedback. Specifically, the effectiveness of feedback may depend on the level of students' motivation, their current language level, their cognitive style, the clarity of the feedback given, the way the feedback is used, and the attitudes of students toward their teacher and the class (Ferris, 1997; Goldstein, 2001; Omaggio Hadley, 1993). Classroom settings, course goals, and grading procedures and standards are also important (Leki, 1990). Systematically encouraging learners to reflect on what they want to write and then helping them to make an appropriate choice of language forms has pedagogic value.
We must be aware of the complexities involved in the revision process and respond to writing so that students can make modifications with confidence and competence. Ideally, learners should be encouraged to analyze and evaluate feedback themselves in order for it to be truly effective. Teacher commentary, student reactions to commentary, and student revisions interact with each other in a formidable way. How teachers intervene in writing instruction, and how L2 writers react to the feedback influences the composing process. Should teachers stress early mastery of the mechanical aspects of writing, or should they urge their students to pay little attention to correctness, at least until after a first draft has been written? Again, process models of writing instruction allow students time to reflect and seek input as they reshape their plans, ideas, and language. In classroom practice, the focus is on idea development, clarity, and coherence before identification and grammar correction. Ideally, instruction and response serve to motivate revisions, encourage learning, induce problem-solving and critical thinking, in addition to further writing practice (Cumming, 1989; White, 1994; Zamel, 1987). Indeed, the process approach may be effective, but if writers' linguistic ability sets limits to what they can do conceptually or affects the writing process itself, then we need a combination of process instruction and attention to language development.
Focused error correction can be highly desirable, but problematic;. In addition, there are many contradictory findings. The initial impulse for many teachers when reading L2 student writing is to edit the work, that is, focus on the structural aspects so that the writing closer resembles target language discourse. Teachers can correct errors; code errors; locate errors, and indicate the number of errors. To its benefit, attention to errors "provides the negative evidence students often need to reject or modify their hypotheses about how the target language is formed or functions" (Larsen-Freeman, 1991, p. 293). [-13-] However, if this focus on error becomes the totality of the response, then language, discourse, and text are equated with structure. It is then assumed that the instructor has the authority to change the student's text and correct it (Rodby, 1992). In addition, some feel it may not be worth the instructor's time and effort to provide detailed feedback on sentence level grammar and syntax, since improvement can be gained by writing practice alone (Robb, Ross, & Shortreed, 1986). Practice alone may improve fluency, but if errors are not pointed out and corrected, they can become ingrained or fossilized in student writing, as mentioned earlier. L1 research may advocate for focusing on conception and organization, and not on mechanical errors, except for a "note reminding the student that the final copy needs to be edited" (White, 1994, p. 109). However, survey reports in L2 have indicated that students both attend to and appreciate their teachers' pointing out of grammar problems (Brice, 1995; Cohen, 1987; Ferris, 1995, 1997; Leki, 1991; Radecki & Swales, 1988). In support of this claim, Fathman and Whalley (1990), from their research on feedback and revision in an ESL context, concluded that grammar and content feedback, whether given separately or together, positively affect rewriting. However, grammatical feedback had more effect on error correction than content feedback had on the improvement of content. Grammatical and rhetorical feedback should be attentive to the writers' level of proficiency and degree of readiness (Ferris, 1995, Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1996; Lee, 1997; Leki, 1991). Overly detailed responses may overwhelm L2 writers and discourage substantive revision, whereas minimal feedback may result in only surface modifications to the text. Furthermore, learners may be uncertain about what to do with various suggestions and how to incorporate them into their own revision processes. More research on the effectiveness of responses on revision should be examined. (See Sengupta (2000) for research on the effects of explicit teaching of revision strategies on L2 learners' writing proficiency and perceptions about writing).
Summary and Conclusion
For English L2 writers, the process of writing in an academic environment is challenging. I used to tell my students that the only way to improve their writing is to keep writing--thinking that with enough practice in writing and revision (involving problem solving and reflection), they would eventually acquire the fundamentals, or at least the standard, required of academic discourse. Although the process approach to instruction, characterized by practice, collaboration, and the opportunity for revision, may be suitable for most English L1 writers, it is apparent that many L2 writers do not have the necessary linguistic ability to reap the benefits of the approach. As Yau (1991) points out:
[A]lthough we should not cripple our students' interest in writing through undue stress or grammatical correctness, the influence of second language factors on writing performance is something we have to reckon with and not pretend that concentrating on the process would automatically resolve the difficulty caused by these factors. (p. 268)
Kern (2000) also mentions that process-oriented teaching does not acknowledge the influence of sociocultural context on individual processes. He has characterized it as inattentive to "learners' understanding of links between form and communicative conventions that will allow them to construct meanings in ways that are appropriate within the immediate academic context as well as the larger societal context" (p. 182). [-14-]
Feedback is of utmost importance to the writing process. Without individual attention and sufficient feedback on errors, improvement will not take place. We must accept the fact that L2 writing contains errors; it is our responsibility to help learners to develop strategies for self-correction and regulation. Indeed, L2 writers require and expect specific overt feedback from teachers not only on content, but also on the form and structure of writing. If this feedback is not part of the instructional process, then students will be disadvantaged in improving both writing and language skills.
In order to learn more about L2 writers' use of language in the process of writing, we need to apply to L2 writing the research methods utilized in exploring the composing process in L1 writing, such as think-aloud protocols. We also need to understand how students compose in both their native languages and in English to understand more about their learning strategies (especially in monitoring errors), the role of translation, and transfer of skills. Certainly, ethnographic research in L2 writing that examines the writing process, along with the acquisition of communicative competence, will help to create a more comprehensive theory of L2 writing.
About the Author
Johanne Myles has been teaching ESL, EAP, and TESL for over 20 years in Canada and abroad. She is presently working on a Ph.D in Education with a focus on cultural and curriculum studies at Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Her research interests include intercultural communication, second language acquisition and second language writing. She intends to conduct ethnographic research on the communicative competence of engineering students who are non-native speakers of English in the workplace environment when on their internships.
References
Anderson, J. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Atkinson, D. & Ramanathan, V. (1995). Cultures of writing: An ethnographic comparison of L1 and L2 university writing/language programs.TESOL Quarterly, 29, 539-568.
Bartholomae, D. (1980). Study of error. College Composition and Communication, 31, 253-269.
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bialystok, E. (1998). Coming of age in applied linguistics. Language Learning, 48, 497-518.
Blanton, L. (1999). Classroom instruction and language minority students: On teaching to"Smarter" readers and writers. In L. Harklau, K. Losey & M. Siegal (Eds.), Generation 1.5 meets college composition (pp. 119-142). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brice, C. (1995). ESL writers' reactions to teacher commentary: A case study. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 394 312).
Brown, H.D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Cai, G. (1999). Texts in contexts: Understanding Chinese students' English compositions. In C. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing: The role of teachers' knowledge about text, learning and culture (pp. 279-297).Urbana, Ill: National Council of Teachers of English.
Carson, J. (2001). Second language writing and second language acquisition. In T. Silva and P.Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 191-200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [-15-]
Cazden, C. (1992). Performing expository texts in the foreign language classroom. In C. Kramsch & S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on language study (pp. 67-78). Lexington, MA: D.C.Heath and Company.
Cohen, A. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In A. Wendon and J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 57-69). UK: Prentice Hall International.
Coleman, H. (Ed.), (1996). Society and the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric: Implications for teachers of writing in multicultural classrooms. In C. Severino, J. Guerra and J. Butler (Eds.), Writing in multicultural settings (pp. 198-208). New York: Modern Language Association of America.
Connor, U. & Kaplan, R. (Eds.), (1987). Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text. USA: Addison-Wesley.
Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language Learning, 39, 81-141.
Cumming, A. (1995). Fostering writing expertise in ESL composition instruction: Modeling and evaluation. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language (pp. 375-397). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fathman, A. & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178-190). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53.
Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-339.
Flower, L. (1994). The construction of negotiated meaning: A social cognitive theory of writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.),Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing.College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
Flower, L., Stein, V., Ackerman, J., Kantz, M., McCormick, K., & Peck, W., (1990). Reading-to-write: Exploring a cognitive and social process. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the world: Cultural issues in academic writing. Urbana Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
Friedlander, A. (1990). Composing in English: Effects of a first language on writing in English as a second language. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. (pp. 109-125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gardner, R. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitude and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Giles, H., Robinson, P. & Smith, P. (Eds.) (1980). Language: Social psychological perspectives. Oxford: Pergamon.
Giles, H. & Byrne, J. (1982). An intergroup approach to second language acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 3, 17-40. [-16-]
Goldstein, L. (2001). For Kyla: What does the research say about responding to ESL writers. In T. Silva and P. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 73-90). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grabe, W. (2001). Notes toward a theory of second language writing. In T. Silva and P. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 39-58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. New York: Longman.
Hamers, J. & Blanc, M. (1982). Towards a social-psychological model of bilingual development. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 1, 29-50.
Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: Two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2 writing. Modern Language Journal, 80, 287-308.
Holliday, A. (1997). Appropriate methodology and social context Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hull, G. (1985). Research on error and correction. In B. McClelland & T. Donovan (Eds.), Perspectives on research and scholarship in composition (pp. 162-184). New York: The Modern Language Association of America.
Johns, A. (1999). Opening our doors: Applying socioliterate approaches (SA) to language minority classrooms. In L. Harklau, K. Losey & M. Siegal (Eds), Generation 1.5 meets college composition (pp. 159-171). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johns, A. (1995). Teaching classroom and authentic genres: Initiating students into academic cultures and discourses. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language (pp. 277-291). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co.
Kaplan, R. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revisited. In U. Connor & R. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 9-21). Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.
Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Klein, W. (1998). The contribution of second language acquisition research. Language Learning, 48, 527-549.
Kobayashi, H. & Rinnert, C. (1996). Factors affecting composition evaluation in an EFL context: Cultural rhetorical pattern and reader's background. Language Learning, 46, 397-437.
Kogen, M. (1986). The conventions of expository writing. Journal of Basic Writing, 5, 24-37.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kutz, E., Groden, S., & Zamel, V. (1993). The discovery of competence: Teaching and learning with diverse student writers. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Lambert, W. (1975). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In A. Wolfgang (Ed.), Education of immigrant students (pp. 55-83). Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Lantolf, J. (Ed.) (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (2nd ed.) Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Lee, I. (1997). ESL Learners' performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching. System, 15, 465-477.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 57-67). New York: Cambridge University Press. [-17-]
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-217.
Leki, I. (1993). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. In S. Silberstein (Ed.), State of the art TESOL essays (pp. 350-370). Virginia: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Leki, I. (1997). Cross-talk: ESL issues and contrastive rhetoric. In C. Severino, J. Guerra, and J. Butler (Eds.), Writing in multicultural settings (pp. 234-244).New York: Modern Language Association of America
.
Matalene, C. (1985). Contrastive rhetoric: An American writing teacher in China. College English, 47, 789-808.
McGroarty, M. (1996). Language attitudes, motivation, and standards. In S. McKay & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 3-46). New York: Cambridge University Press. [-18-]
McLaughlin, B. (1988). Theories of second-language learning. Baltimore: Edward Arnold.
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Odlin, T. (1994). Introduction. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp. 1-22). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Omaggio Hadley, A. (1993). Teaching language in context. Boston: Heinle & Heinle
O'Malley, J. & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59-86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Plata, M. (1995). Success of Hispanic college students on a writing examination. Journal of Educational Issue of Language Minority Students [on-line serial], 15. Available: http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/miscpubs/jeilms/vol15/success.htm
Radecki, P. & Swales, J. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16, 355-365.
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 229-257.
Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability and composing strategies: A study of ESL college student writers. Language Learning, 37, 439-468.
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 407-430.
Raimes, A. (1998). Teaching writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 142-167.
Robb, T., Ross, S. & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83-93.
Rodby, J. (1992). Appropriating literacy: Writing and reading in English as a second language. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Schinke-Llano, L. (1995). Reenvisioning the second language classroom: A Vygotskian approach. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Milcham & R. Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 21-28), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [-19-]
Schumann, J. (1978). The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schumann, J. (1998). The neurobiology of affect in language. Language Learning, 48, Supplement 1, 527-549.
Sengupta, S. (2000). An investigation into the effects of revision strategy instruction on L2 secondary school learners. System, 28, 97-113.
Shaughnessy, M. (1977). Errors and expectations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shen, F. (1998). The classroom and the wider culture: Identity as a key to learning composition in English. In V. Zamel & R. Spack (Eds.), Negotiating academic literacies: Teaching and learning across languages and cultures (pp. 123-134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-231.
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 657-677.
Snow, M. A. (2001). Content-based and immersion models for second and foreign language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.) (pp. 303-318). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Spack, R. (1997). The rhetorical construction of multilingual students. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 765-74.
Sternglass, M. (1997). Time to know them: A longitudinal study of writing and learning at the college level. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Valdes, J. (1995) (Ed.) Culture bound. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literary research (pp. 51-85). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, H. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
White, E. (1994). Teaching and assessing writing. (2nd ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers
Williams, J. (1989). Preparing to teach writing. California: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Yau, M. (1991). The role of language factors in second language writing. In L. Malave & G. Duquette (Eds), Language, culture and cognition: A collection of studies in first and second language acquisition (pp. 266-283). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.
Zamel, V. (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 697-715.
Zamel, V. (1998). Strangers in academia: The experiences of faculty and ESL students across the curriculum. In V. Zamel & R. Spack (Eds.), Negotiating academic literacies: Teaching and learning across languages and cultures (pp. 249-264). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Principles of Language Learning

Principles of Language Learning

Language learning principles are generally sorted into three sub-groupings: Cognitive Principles, Affective Principals and Linguistic Principles. Principles are seen as theory derived from research, to which teachers need to match classroom practices. Here are some brief summaries of the principles that fall into each grouping:

Cognitive Principles
• Automaticity: Subconcious processing of language with peripheral attention to language forms;
• Meaningful Learning: This can be contrasted to Rote Learning, and is thought to lead to better long term retention;
• Anticipation of Rewards: Learners are driven to act by the anticipation of rewards, tangible or intangible;
• Intrinsic Motivation: The most potent learning "rewards" are intrinsically motivated within the learner;
• Strategic Investment: The time and learning strategies learners invest into the language learning process.

Affective Principles
• Language Ego: Learning a new language involves developing a new mode of thinking - a new language "ego";
• Self-Confidence: Success in learning something can be equated to the belief in learners that they can learn it;
• Risk-Taking: Taking risks and experimenting "beyond" what is certain creates better long-term retention;
• Language-Culture Connection: Learning a language also involves learning about cultural values and thinking.

Linguistic Principles
• Native Language Effect: A learner's native language creates both facilitating and interfering effects on learning;
• Interlanguage: At least some of the learner's development in a new language can be seen as systematic;
• Communicative Competence: Fluency and use are just as important as accuracy and usage - instruction needs to be aimed at organizational, pragmatic and strategic competence as well as psychomotor skills.

This is a very brief overview of various language learning principles, drawn heavily from H. Douglas Brown's explanation (see resources for reference). You may be able to come up with more or different interpretations yourself. However you view language learning principles, these should form the basis or backdrop of the techniques you choose to use and the choices you make in the language learner classroom.

Language Teaching Methodology
Theodore S. Rodgers, Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii

Background
Language teaching came into its own as a profession in the last century. Central to this phenomenon was the emergence of the concept of "methods" of language teaching. The method concept in language teaching—the notion of a systematic set of teaching practices based on a particular theory of language and language learning—is a powerful one, and the quest for better methods was a preoccupation of teachers and applied linguists throughout the 20th century. Howatt's (1984) overview documents the history of changes of practice in language teaching throughout history, bringing the chronology up through the Direct Method in the 20th century. One of the most lasting legacies of the Direct Method has been the notion of "method" itself.
Language Teaching Methodology Defined
Methodology in language teaching has been characterized in a variety of ways. A more or less classical formulation suggests that methodology is that which links theory and practice. Theory statements would include theories of what language is and how language is learned or, more specifically, theories of second language acquisition (SLA). Such theories are linked to various design features of language instruction. These design features might include stated objectives, syllabus specifications, types of activities, roles of teachers, learners, materials, and so forth. Design features in turn are linked to actual teaching and learning practices as observed in the environments where language teaching and learning take place. This whole complex of elements defines language teaching methodology.

Schools of Language Teaching Methodology
Within methodology a distinction is often made between methods and approaches, in which methods are held to be fixed teaching systems with prescribed techniques and practices, whereas approaches represent language teaching philosophies that can be interpreted and applied in a variety of different ways in the classroom. This distinction is probably most usefully seen as defining a continuum of entities ranging from highly prescribed methods to loosely described approaches.
The period from the 1950s to the 1980s has often been referred to as "The Age of Methods," during which a number of quite detailed prescriptions for language teaching were proposed. Situational Language Teaching evolved in the United Kingdom while a parallel method, Audio-Lingualism, emerged in the United States. In the middle-methods period, a variety of methods were proclaimed as successors to the then prevailing Situational Language Teaching and Audio-Lingual methods. These alternatives were promoted under such titles as Silent Way, Suggestopedia, Community Language Learning, and Total Physical Response. In the 1980s, these methods in turn came to be overshadowed by more interactive views of language teaching, which collectively came to be known as Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Communicative Language Teaching advocates subscribed to a broad set of principles such as these:
• Learners learn a language through using it to communicate.
• Authentic and meaningful communication should be the goal of classroom activities.
• Fluency is an important dimension of communication.
• Communication involves the integration of different language skills.
• Learning is a process of creative construction and involves trial and error.
However, CLT advocates avoided prescribing the set of practices through which these principles could best be realized, thus putting CLT clearly on the approach rather than the method end of the spectrum.
Communicative Language Teaching has spawned a number of off-shoots that share the same basic set of principles, but which spell out philosophical details or envision instructional practices in somewhat diverse ways. These CLT spin-off approaches include The Natural Approach, Cooperative Language Learning, Content-Based Teaching, and Task-Based Teaching.
It is difficult to describe these various methods briefly and yet fairly, and such a task is well beyond the scope of this paper. However, several up-to-date texts are available that do detail differences and similarities among the many different approaches and methods that have been proposed. (See, e.g., Larsen-Freeman, 2000, and Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Perhaps it is possible to get a sense of the range of method proposals by looking at a synoptic view of the roles defined for teachers and learners within various methods. Such a synoptic (perhaps scanty) view can be seen in the following chart.
TEACHING METHODS AND TEACHER & LEARNER ROLES
Method Teacher Roles Learner Roles
Situational Language Teaching Context Setter
Error Corrector Imitator
Memorizer
Audio-lingualism Language Modeler
Drill Leader Pattern Practicer
Accuracy Enthusiast
Communicative Language Teaching Needs Analyst
Task Designer Improvisor
Negotiator
Total Physical Response Commander
Action Monitor Order Taker
Performer
Community Language Learning Counselor
Paraphraser Collaborator
Whole Person
The Natural Approach Actor
Props User Guesser
Immerser
Suggestopedia Auto-hypnotist
Authority Figure Relaxer
True-Believer
Figure 2. Methods and Teacher and Learner Roles

As suggested in the chart, some schools of methodology see the teacher as ideal language model and commander of classroom activity (e.g., Audio-Lingual Method, Natural Approach, Suggestopedia, Total Physical Response) whereas others see the teacher as background facilitator and classroom colleague to the learners (e.g., Communicative Language Teaching, Cooperative Language Learning).
There are other global issues to which spokespersons for the various methods and approaches respond in alternative ways. For example, should second language learning by adults be modeled on first language learning by children? One set of schools (e.g., Total Physical Response, Natural Approach) notes that first language acquisition is the only universally successful model of language learning we have, and thus that second language pedagogy must necessarily model itself on first language acquisition. An opposed view (e.g., Silent Way, Suggestopedia) observes that adults have different brains, interests, timing constraints, and learning environments than do children, and that adult classroom learning therefore has to be fashioned in a way quite dissimilar to the way in which nature fashions how first languages are learned by children.
Another key distinction turns on the role of perception versus production in early stages of language learning. One school of thought proposes that learners should begin to communicate, to use a new language actively, on first contact (e.g., Audio-Lingual Method, Silent Way, Community Language Learning), while the other school of thought states that an initial and prolonged period of reception (listening, reading) should precede any attempts at production (e.g., Natural Approach).
What's Now, What's Next?
The future is always uncertain, and this is no less true in anticipating methodological directions in second language teaching than in any other field. Some current predictions assume the carrying on and refinement of current trends; others appear a bit more science-fiction-like in their vision. Outlined below are 10 scenarios that are likely to shape the teaching of second languages in the next decades of the new millenium. These methodological candidates are given identifying labels in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek style, perhaps a bit reminiscent of yesteryear's method labels.
1. Teacher/Learner Collaborates
Matchmaking techniques will be developed which will link learners and teachers with similar styles and approaches to language learning. Looking at the Teacher and Learner roles sketched in Figure 2, one can anticipate development of a system in which the preferential ways in which teachers teach and learners learn can be matched in instructional settings, perhaps via on-line computer networks or other technological resources.
2. Method Synergistics
Crossbreeding elements from various methods into a common program of instruction seems an appropriate way to find those practices which best support effective learning. Methods and approaches have usually been proposed as idiosyncratic and unique, yet it appears reasonable to combine practices from different approaches where the philosophical foundations are similar. One might call such an approach "Disciplined Eclecticism."
3. Curriculum Developmentalism
Language teaching has not profited much from more general views of educational design. The curriculum perspective comes from general education and views successful instruction as an interweaving of Knowledge, Instructional, Learner, and Administrative considerations. From this perspective, methodology is viewed as only one of several instructional considerations that are necessarily thought out and realized in conjunction with all other curricular considerations.
4. Content-Basics
Content-based instruction assumes that language learning is a by-product of focus on meaning--on acquiring some specific topical content--and that content topics to support language learning should be chosen to best match learner needs and interests and to promote optimal development of second language competence. A critical question for language educators is "what content" and "how much content" best supports language learning. The natural content for language educators is literature and language itself, and we are beginning to see a resurgence of interest in literature and in the topic of "language: the basic human technology" as sources of content in language teaching.
5. Multintelligencia
The notion here is adapted from the Multiple Intelligences view of human talents proposed by Howard Gardner (1983). This model is one of a variety of learning style models that have been proposed in general education with follow-up inquiry by language educators. The chart below shows Gardner's proposed eight native intelligences and indicates classroom language-rich task types that play to each of these particular intelligences. The challenge here is to identify these intelligences in individuallearners and then to determine appropriate and realistic instructional tasks in response.
INTELLIGENCE TYPES AND
APPROPRIATE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Intellegence Type Educational Activities
Linguistic lectures, worksheets, word games, journals, debates
Logical puzzles, estimations, problem solving
Spatial charts, diagrams, graphic organizers, drawing, films
Bodily hands-on, mime, craft, demonstrations
Musical singing, poetry, Jazz Chants, mood music
Interpersonal group work, peer tutoring, class projects
Intrapersonal reflection, interest centers, personal values tasks
Naturalist field trips, show and tell, plant and animal projects
Figure 3. (Adapted from Christison, 1998)
6. Total Functional Response
Communicative Language Teaching was founded (and floundered) on earlier notional/functional proposals for the description of languages. Now new leads in discourse and genre analysis, schema theory, pragmatics, and systemic/functional grammar are rekindling an interest in functionally based approaches to language teaching. One pedagogical proposal has led to a widespread reconsideration of the first and second language program in Australian schools where instruction turns on five basic text genres identified as Report, Procedure, Explanation, Exposition, and Recount. Refinement of functional models will lead to increased attention to genre and text types in both first and second language instruction.
7. Strategopedia
"Learning to Learn" is the key theme in an instructional focus on language learning strategies. Such strategies include, at the most basic level, memory tricks, and at higher levels, cognitive and metacognitive strategies for learning, thinking, planning, and self-monitoring. Research findings suggest that strategies can indeed be taught to language learners, that learners will apply these strategies in language learning tasks, and that such application does produce significant gains in language learning. Simple and yet highly effective strategies, such as those that help learners remember and access new second language vocabulary items, will attract considerable instructional interest in Strategopedia.
8. Lexical Phraseology
The lexical phraseology view holds that only "a minority of spoken clauses are entirely novel creations" and that "memorized clauses and clause-sequences form a high proportion of the fluent stretches of speech heard in every day conversation." One estimate is that "the number of memorized complete clauses and sentences known to the mature English speaker probably amounts, at least, to several hundreds of thousands" (Pawley & Syder, 1983). Understanding of the use of lexical phrases has been immensely aided by large-scale computer studies of language corpora, which have provided hard data to support the speculative inquiries into lexical phraseology of second language acquisition researchers. For language teachers, the results of such inquiries have led to conclusions that language teaching should center on these memorized lexical patterns and the ways they can be pieced together, along with the ways they vary and the situations in which they occur.
9. O-zone Whole Language
Renewed interest in some type of "Focus on Form" has provided a major impetus for recent second language acquisition (SLA) research. "Focus on Form" proposals, variously labeled as consciousness-raising, noticing, attending, and enhancing input, are founded on the assumption that students will learn only what they are aware of. Whole Language proponents have claimed that one way to increase learner awareness of how language works is through a course of study that incorporates broader engagement with language, including literary study, process writing, authentic content, and learner collaboration.
10. Full-Frontal Communicativity
We know that the linguistic part of human communication represents only a small fraction of total meaning. At least one applied linguist has gone so far as to claim that, "We communicate so much information non-verbally in conversations that often the verbal aspect of the conversation is negligible." Despite these cautions, language teaching has chosen to restrict its attention to the linguistic component of human communication, even when the approach is labeled Communicative. The methodological proposal is to provide instructional focus on the non-linguistic aspects of communication, including rhythm, speed, pitch, intonation, tone, and hesitation phenomena in speech and gesture, facial expression, posture, and distance in non-verbal messaging.
References
Christison, M. (1998). Applying multiple intelligences theory in preservice and inservice TEFL education programs. English Teaching Forum, 36 (2), 2-13.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
Howatt, A. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like selection and native-like fluency. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication. London: Longman.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language Teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
________________________________________
This digest was prepared with funding from the U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Library of Education, under contract no. ED-99-CO-0008. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of ED, OERI, or NLE.