Japan TESOL Course Book

TESOL Course Certificate 2011 – Japan August 2011
Asian EFL Journal

TESOL Certificate Course
TESOL Theory Course Book
2011 Edition
Director
Dr. Paul Robertson
1
Published by TESOL Asia
Articles permission of the Asian EFL Journal
This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception no reproduction of any

part may take place without the written permission of TESOL Asia.
No unauthorized photocopying All rights reserved. No part of this book may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written
permission.
Editor: Dr. Paul Robertson
Principal Lecturer. Maria Binder (Philippines)
2
The TESOL Certificate
TESOL studies demand that the teacher be aware of the latest theories and research
combined with an understanding of the last 50 years of changing methodologies.
Methodologies are many and varied – and the expert TESOL teacher is aware of them and
can apply various elements of each method according to the student demands, course
requirements and employer’s curriculums.
In this new millennium TESOL teachers are faced with the applying the latest psycho-
linguistic components that are an important part of the student make up and of TESOL
teaching. The TESOL course gives excellent guidance into these new theories and
approaches, all of which make the TESOL teachers understanding of complex situations all
the more easier and making the class all the more enjoyable for the students.
The TESOL course is taught by experienced and qualified practitioners – but given the
dynamic nature of research findings, we highly recommend our graduates upgrade their
knowledge and skills by attending international TESOL conferences and reading the latest
journal publishing’s on TESOL second language acquisition research.
We wish you all the best in your TESOL studies and future TESOL career.
Paul Robertson. TESOL Division
3
4
Index.
1. Introduction to TESOL 6
2. Important tasks of English education. Asia wide and beyond 7-11
3. The methodology of task based teaching 12-29
4. Educational Settings and Second Language Learning 30-43
5. Understanding EFL Learners’ Strategy Use and Strategy Awareness 44-62
6. Effective Reading 63-72
7. Learning Vocabulary Through Games. 73-80
8. Error Correction .A Grounded Theory 81-98
9. Effectiveness of Recasts in the Teaching of EFL 99-106
10. The Role of Motivation 107-126
11.Taking Advantage of Cognitive Difference of Asians and 127-134

Westerners in the Teaching of English
5
Introduction to Course
By Dr. Paul Robertson
Welcome to the TESOL Certificate course. I have been teaching English as a second
language since 1993 (interspersed with a few years working as an attorney,) yet at all times
with Education authorities and in the Second Language Acquisition area. I have gained
various qualifications culminating in my PhD in English Education, however, the more
knowledge I have gained, there is one thing that I have learnt very clearly, and that is there
are always questions that I do not have an answer to, for the study of English and its teaching
is a vast area that no one person can fully master. The EFL profession has been good to me
with teaching experiences in Greece, Saudi Arabia, Czech Republic, Korea and the
Philippines. I have been invited to numerous other countries to deliver lectures on second
language acquisition and ESP theories – but there is no secret to this success – just wanting to
be a good teacher and always seeking more knowledge leads one to a similar path.
You are in a profession that is still in its early days of development. It was not long ago
(1980s) that Dr. Stephen Krashen pronounced his Language Acquisition Device as the
answer to how one learnt a second language. Whilst many have criticized his theory (Cook,
C, 2001) et al, there have since been few pronouncements (Chomsky on Universal Grammar)
to build upon Krashen’s ground-breaking theory.
Ten yeas ago there was no such as thing as Culture affecting language acquisition. In 1999
I began the Asian EFL Journal based on the premise that language learning and culture were
inextricably connected. Now it is largely agreed that this I so, but as the concept is still very
hard to quantify, it is often avoided as being ‘too difficult.’ Another area of dispute goes to
‘pronunciation’ and just what constitutes good pronunciation and whose English is the best.
We all know that Koreans have an affinity for American English, yet the vast majority seem
to prefer English in the Philippines or Australia!
English is an International Language (EIL) and you, as teachers have the unique skills and
professionalism to teach English across the globe.
6
Topic 1.
Important Tasks of English Education:

Asia-wide and Beyond
Author
David Nunan
Bio Data:
Professor David Nunan is Director of the English Centre and Professor of Applied
Linguistics at the University of Hong Kong. He has worked as an ESL/EFL teacher,
researcher, curriculum developer, and materials writer in many parts of the world, including
Australia, Oman, Japan, Singapore, Thailand, and the UK.
Professor Nunan has published books on language teaching curriculum development,

discourse analysis, second language teacher education, language teaching methodology, and
research methods in applied linguistics.
Dr. Nunan is on the Advisory Board of the Asian EFL Journal
We need to look deeply at times into the specific needs of learners in Asia and the Pacific
region who we cannot forget are still very much living in local contexts -not only an
evidently increasingly global one. That being said, there is much to learn from these studies
that can be borrowed and lent across a number of frontiers. Further, it is evident that we must
not exclude research into second language learning because of it its geographical or cultural
source. That has to underlay an important part of the integrity of research and this book is
very much devoted to that principle. One approach, that does seem to meet a wide range of
cross-regional needs and to which a number of the authors deal with directly or indirectly is
one to which I have continuously been drawing attention and analysis for more than two
decades. It is that of task based learning. Interestingly, its popularity is accelerating in East
Asia as well as elsewhere. A demonstration of this is the fact that I was asked by the Chinese
Government to prepare a new task based publication for the English curriculum. China
represents, as Li (2004) states in his included work, the world's largest source of English
learners, let alone the largest segment of EFL learners anywhere in the world.
India with its huge population and apparent new boom for English learning as mentioned by
Gupta (2005) is also a large beacon of English learning. Just these two countries alone and
their appetites for English education give us a new sense of the increased diversity of
language ownership; something Phan Le Ha (2005) touches on in her article on the
internationalization of the language and non-natives increasing critical role in teaching,
7
development and learning. It signals the reality that those learning English will be
significantly centered around or originating from Asia.
Therefore educators need evermore to recognize the importance and distinctive context based
needs of those requiring education in English outside the traditional native speaker contexts.
This is not inherently contradictory with those with persistent arguments that many general
principles of acquisition should be understood and appropriately applied by educators within
their distinctive classroom settings and communities.
In keeping with such thoughts, I believe it can be reasonably well argued that the task based
teaching as I have largely described in various publications -more recently, "An introduction
to Task Based Teaching", 2004, Cambridge University Press- does provide a flexible,
functionally compatible and contextually sensitive approach for many learners, as well as
teachers. There may not be a magic approach anywhere for this region or others, but let us
look at some of the attractive features of task based learning. It offers the potential for the
following:
1. A replacement to or a supportive infusion of more student centered learning to

certain single approach based syllabi.
2. Utilizing more authentic experiences and materials as well as principles of
constructivism compared to top down teaching.
3. More of a sense of personal and active accomplishment including developing a
greater sense of language ownership.
4. Increased student participation when task teaching is well planned and
implemented sensitive to learners' learning styles, learning and communicative
strategies, personalities, multiple intelligences and the overall local contexts, for
example.
5. Making specific lesson goals more evident through movement towards and/or
success of task completion.
6. Important and ongoing assessment and "washback" to both teacher and learner.
Tasks, well chosen and developed which are centered around relevant acquisition principles,
as well as sensitive to context have also the potential to lessen the need for test cramming and
excessive reliance on a result/test based oriented syllabi. Cramming, described by Poole
(2003) in the Asian EFL Journal amongst others as part of an "Exam Hell" represents a
significant phenomenon in a large part of Asia. Further, a result based syllabus, especially
one with a narrow focus on grammar-translation and reading and vocabulary may not provide
a full set of language skills needed by various L2 learners including those wishing to become
communicatively capable.
Tasks can be also fun and highly student centered when borrowing on effective games and
other such activities though task is not a substitute word for games. Where students are
conscious of marks, including many Asian high school students, if tasks are not clearly
supportive of good grades, they may find such exercises as either irrelevant or even label
8
them as bad teaching. For games may not be always supportive of important curricular goals.
Nevertheless, it can be argued that putting fun (back) into learning represents positive
motivation that can achieve even worthwhile outcomes in respect to the curriculum. It is
really difficult to think of most learners whatever their context as appreciating boring
teaching on a sustained basis.
It is also learners' complaints that that they do not always understand the teaching goals
through teacher centered lectures that make task based teaching potentially dynamic for
learning. Such task approaches can represent to students not only achieving the better
learning of a language item but in organizing time effectively, learning to work cooperatively
-an important Asian value- and using a variety of intelligences and skills such as computer
mediation. Thus, students can become cognitively and pragmatically more fully engaged
which can reduce tedium and make class work more challenging and relevant to their wider
needs and interests. Again, too many students in the region and elsewhere may become
overly committed to rote, passive approaches and formulaic thinking associated with certain
multiple choice questions that are simply re-stylized from practice tests. Combined within a
teacher centered, top down approach, students may simply associate English with a kind of
assembly line and formulaic work to be tolerated but not to be enjoyed. The end result is that
English becomes firmly embedded within some students thinking as a chore and not really
being authentic enough to act as a door to a whole new world of possibilities, career or
otherwise -be it in the business world or other sectors. Rather, many students in Asia and
elsewhere may, see their own world and future successes in terms of fulfilling tasks
especially when the teacher reinforces such a link with practical activities.
It is not to argue against there being merit at times for the grammar-translation, audio-lingual
approaches or lexical approaches, many of which remain popular and central to quite a few
teachers in the region. Learners' needs, proficiency, teacher competency and confidence,
government policy and a host of other factors may determine the validity of how instructors
best deal with instructed learning. In fact, Chew (2005) in her article on reviewing the
evolution of syllabi in Singaporean English education, indicates that the single centered
approach to a syllabus may be ebbing, increasingly substituted by a more eclectic one.
Whether this experience will be replicated in other countries in the region, may be difficult to
exactly say. It may be that we are in a period of the "end of methods". But like others in
different social sciences who harkened the end of ideology, it may be more prudent to view
change as largely evolutionary with recurring ebbs and flows depending upon the current
contextual streams of challenges.
However, the attractiveness of task based learning relates not only to the enumerated benefits.
It provides rather a useful practice that that can be applied across many approaches, as well as
boundaries. Task based learning may provide an enduring legacy that meets the test of time.
It may also provide a curricular and syllabus framework of flexibility that logically students
and teachers will be drawn to even if it need not be the central leitmotif for certain places.
For example, tasks could include, completing a grammar bingo game after a contrastive
analysis, grammar-translation based presentation. Subsequently, task based communicative
9
teaching practices could be supported to incorporate the appropriate grammar into developing
two way oral skills through an interview exercise. Again, the task approach does not deny
that in some Asian classes -or anywhere in the world for that matter- that certain traditional
approaches need to have their day. Rather it is especially supportive of an integrated
approach, or even where the needs of the learner may be solely communicative. However,
again task selection and development is the key to better ensure specific needs are met. In
doing this, the educator needs to be conscious of principles and aspects of acquisition.
In this respect Ellis, (2005) has so well summarized here with authority and clarity the
general understanding in the profession on instructed language learning. We are further faced
with the fact that the true task of learning a second language in the many EFL environments
that Asian learners find themselves are removed from a lot of 'naturalistic", non-classroom,
English speaking settings. Such an understanding of these realities and the principles that
surround realistic classroom learning can be of service to classroom teachers wondering what
methods, approaches and practices to choose at a specific time. It reminds us of the value of
the extensive reading programmes to which Helgesen (2005) alludes can be so useful for
Asian learners where they are limited in their accessibility to communicative English in a
natural environment.
Teachers in such contexts may need to be reminded, at times to extend the task work outside
the classroom with proper direction that permits students to develop independent learning
skills that facilitate students to do the extensive work necessary to gain fluency. In cultures
where top down approaches are in the main, instructors be they native teachers or not, need to
be cognizant of these realities and limitations. We can not simply, for example, put all
learners on the Internet or through CALL, clap our hands and say "go to it". Again learning
context, as related to acquisition can be highly relevant, which Ellis (2005) would seem to
imply.
Countries that have ESL environments, some of which appear comparatively advanced in
terms of their English education systems such as Singapore and Hong Kong, may for
historical or special leadership reasons have cultivated English as a second language. Here
students may have to be approached differently in general as they may be better motivated
through seeing English on a daily basis in coming to terms as to why they may be spending
more than a thousand hours to learn it within the school system. They may also have more
opportunities to integrate classroom learning into day to day usage if not immediately then
possibly in the relatively near future when they obtain employment. Task work in such
circumstances can even draw on giving real world assignments of surveying store managers
and others in English that extend instruction quantitatively to a level that helps develop real
authentic competency.
Simply speaking, English is not foreign to all parts of the region. This should draw more
Asian educators towards thinking about what techniques and experiences within their own
region itself that can be borrowed and/or adapted from places like Hong Kong. This is a place
I know personally for its significant daily use of English especially in the professional areas.
10
Whatever one argues is precisely workable, there is no denying that the future of English
education, as so well discussed by the likes of Ellis, (2005) Chew, (2005) Helgesen (2005)
and many others at the Asian EFL Journal Conference (2005) is well secured in respect to its
growth.
References
Chew, P. (2005). Change and Continuity: English Language Teaching in Singapore
[Electronic version]. Asian EFL Journal Vol. 7, Issue 1.
Ellis, R. (2005).Principles of Instructed Language Learning [Electronic version]. Asian EFL
Journal Vol. 7, Issue 3.
Gupta, D. (2005). ELT in India: A Brief Historical and Current Overview [Electronic
version]. Asian EFL Journal Vol. 7, Issue 1.
Helgesen, M. (2005). Classroom Practices & Materials. Future Directions [Electronic
version]. Asian EFL Journal Vol. 7, Issue 3.
Li, M. (2005). Culture and Classroom Communication: A Case Study of Asian Students in
New Zealand Language Schools [Electronic version]. Asian EFL Journal Vol. 6, Issue 1.
Nunan. D. (2004). An introduction to Task Based Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Phan Le Ha. (2005). Toward a critical notion of appropriation of English as an international
language [Electronic version]. Asian EFL Journal Vol. 7, Issue 3.
Poole, G. (2003). Assessing Japan's Institutional Entrance Requirements [Electronic version].
Asian EFL Journal Vol. 5, Issue 1.
11
Topic 2
Article Title
The Methodology of Task-Based Teaching
Author
Rod Ellis
University of Auckland
Biography:
Chair, Graduate School of Education; Professor, Teaching English to Speakers of Other

Languages; Applied language studies and Linguistics dept. Professor Ellis, a renowned
linguist, received his Doctorate from the University of London and his Master of Education
from the University of Bristol. A former professor at Temple University both in Japan and the
US. Prof. Ellis has taught in numerous positions in England, Japan, the US, Zambia and New
Zealand. Dr. Ellis, who is known as the "Father of Second Language Acquisition", has served
as the Director of the Institute of Language Teaching and Learning at the University of
Auckland. Author of numerous student and teacher training textbooks for Prentice Hall and
Oxford University Press, Prof. Ellis's textbooks on Second Language Acquisition and
Grammar are core textbooks in TESOL and Linguistics programs around the world.
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to consider methodological procedures for teaching tasks. These
are of two basic kinds. Firstly, there are those procedures relating to how the tasks specified
in a task-based syllabus can be converted into actual lessons. Secondly, there are procedures
relating to how the teacher and learners are to participate in the lessons. This paper will
address only the first of these.
The design of a task-based lesson involves consideration of the stages or components of a

lesson that has a task as its principal component. Various designs have been proposed (e.g.
Estaire and Zanon 1994; Lee 2000; Prabhu 1987; Skehan 1996; Willis 1996). However they
all have in common three principal phases, which are shown in Figure 1. These phases reflect
the chronology of a task-based lesson. Thus, the first phase is 'pre-task' and concerns the
various activities that teachers and students can undertake before they start the task, such as
whether students are given time to plan the performance of the task. The second phase, the
'during task' phase, centres around the task itself and affords various instructional options,
including whether students are required to operate under time-pressure or not. The final phase
is 'post-task' and involves procedures for following-up on the task performance. Only the
'during task' phase is obligatory in task-based teaching. Thus, minimally, a task-based lesson
12
consists of the students just performing a task. Options selected from the 'pre-task' or 'post-
task' phases are non-obligatory but, as we will see, can serve a crucial role in ensuring that
the task performance is maximally effective for language development.
Phase Examples of options
* Framing the activity (e.g. establishing the outcome

of the task)
A. Pre-task
* Planning time
* Doing a similar task
* Time pressure
B. During task
* Number of participants
* Learner report
C. Post-task * Consciousness-raising
* Repeat task
Figure 1: A framework for designing task-based lessons
Access to a clear framework for a task-based lesson is of obvious advantage to both teachers
and learners. Richards (1996) shows how many experienced teachers adhere to a maxim of
planning ('Plan your teaching and try to follow your plan') while Numrich (1996) reports on
how novice teachers feel the 'need to be creative and varied in teaching'. A framework such
as the one outlined in Figure 1 caters to both needs. It provides a clear structure for a lesson
and it also allows for creativity and variety in the choice of options in each phase.
The pre-task phase
The purpose of the pre-task phase is to prepare students to perform the task in ways that will
promote acquisition. Lee (2000) describes the importance of 'framing' the task to be
performed and suggests that one way of doing this is to provide an advance organizer of what
the students will be required to do and the nature of the outcome they will arrive at. Dornyei
(2001) emphasizes the importance of presenting a task in a way that motivates learners. Like
Lee, he sees value in explaining the purpose and utility of the task. This may be especially
important for learners from traditional 'studial' classrooms; they may need to be convinced of
the value of a more 'experiential' approach. Dornyei also suggests that task preparation should
involve strategies for whetting students' appetites to perform the task (e.g. by asking them to
guess what the task will involve) and for helping them to perform the task. Strategies in this
latter category are discussed below.
Skehan (1996) refers to two broad alternatives available to the teacher during the pre-task
phase: an emphasis on the general cognitive demands of the task, and/or an emphasis on
linguistic factors. Attentional capacity is limited, and it is needed to respond to both linguistic
and cognitive demands … then engaging in activities which reduce cognitive load will
release attentional capacity for the learner to concentrate more on linguistic factors. (p. 25).
13
These alternatives can be tackled procedurally in one of four ways; (1) supporting learners in
performing a task similar to the task they will perform in the during-task phase of the lesson,
(2) asking students to observe a model of how to perform the task, (3) engaging learners in
non-task activities designed to prepare them to perform the task or (4) strategic planning of
the main task performance. We will consider each in some detail.
Performing a similar task
The use of a 'pre-task' was a key feature of the Communicational Teaching Project (Prabhu
1987). It was carried out as a whole-class activity with the teacher and involved the learners
in completing a task of the same kind as and with similar content to the main task. Thus, it
served as a preparation for performing the main task individually. For example, if the main
task involved working out a class timetable from the timetables of individual teachers, then
the pre-task would be the same but with different information in the teachers' timetables.
Prabhu explains that the pre-task was conducted through interaction of the question-and-
answer type. The teacher was expected to lead the class step-by-step to the expected outcome,
to break down a step into smaller steps if the learners encountered difficulty and to offer one
of more parallels to a step in the reasoning process to ensure that mixed ability learners could
understand what was required. The teacher was provided with a lesson plan that included (1)
the pre-task and (2) a set of graded questions or instructions together with parallel questions
to be used as needed. When implemented in the classroom, the plan results in a 'pedagogic
dialogue'. Prabhu emphasises that the pre-task was not a 'demonstration' but 'a task in its own
right'. It is clear from this account that the 'pre-task' serves as a mediational tool for the kind
of 'instructional conversation' that sociocultural theorists advocate. The teacher, as an expert,
uses the pre-task to scaffold learners' performance of the task with the expectancy that this
'other-regulation' facilitates the 'self-regulation' learners will need to perform the main task on
their own.
Providing a model
An alternative is to ask the students to observe a model of how the task can be performed
without requiring them to undertake a trial performance of the task (see Aston (1982) for an
early example of such an approach). Minimally this involves presenting them with a text (oral
or written) to demonstrate an 'ideal' performance of the task. Both Skehan (1996) and Willis
(1996) suggest than simply 'observing' others perform a task can help reduce the cognitive
load on the learner. However, the model can also be accompanied by activities designed to
raise learners' consciousness about specific features of the task performance - for example,
the strategies that can be employed to overcome communication problems, the conversational
gambits for holding the floor during a discussion or the pragmalinguistic devices for
performing key language functions. Such activities might require the learners to identify and
analyze these features in the model texts. Alternatively, they might involve pre-training in the
use of specific strategies. Nunan (1989) lists a number of learning strategies (e.g. 'Learning to
live with uncertainty' and 'Learning to make intelligent guesses') that students can be taught
to help them become 'adaptable, creative, inventive and above all independent' (p. 81) and
14
thus more effective performers of a task. However, the effectiveness of such strategy training
remains to be convincingly demonstrated.
Non-task preparation activities
There are a variety of non-task preparation activities that teachers can choose from. These
can centre on reducing the cognitive or the linguistic demands placed on the learner.
Activating learners' content schemata or providing them with background information serves
as a means of defining the topic area of a task. Willis (1996) provides a list of activities for
achieving this (e.g. brainstorming and mind-maps). When learners know what they are going
to talk or write about they have more processing space available for formulating the language
needed to express their ideas with the result that the quantity of the output will be enhanced
and also fluency and complexity. Recommended activities for addressing the linguistic
demands of a task often focus on vocabulary rather than grammar, perhaps because
vocabulary is seen as more helpful for the successful performance of a task than grammar.
Newton (2001) suggests three ways in which teachers can target unfamiliar vocabulary in the
pre-task phase; predicting (i.e. asking learners to brainstorm a list of words related to the task
title or topic), cooperative dictionary search (i.e. allocating different learners words to look up
in their dictionary), and words and definitions (i.e. learners match a list of words to their
definitions). Newton argues that such activities will 'prevent the struggle with new words
overtaking other important goals such as fluency or content-learning' when learners perform
the task. However, there is always the danger that pre-teaching vocabulary will result in
learners treating the task as an opportunity to practise pre-selected words. In the case of task-
supported teaching this can be seen as desirable but in the case of task-based teaching it can
threaten the integrity of the task.
Strategic planning
Finally, learners can be given time to plan how they will perform the task. This involves
'strategic planning' and contrasts with the 'online planning' that can occur during the
performance of the task. It can be distinguished from other pre-task options in that it does not
involve students in a trial performance of the task or in observing a model. However, it may
involve the provision of linguistic forms/strategies for performing the task but a distinction
can still be drawn between the non-task preparation procedures described above and strategic
planning, as the former occur without the students having access to the task they will be
asked to perform while strategic planning involves the students considering the forms they
will need to execute the task workplan they have been given.
There are a number of methodological options available to teachers who opt for strategic
planning. The first concerns whether the students are simply given the task workplan and left
to decide for themselves what to plan, which typically results in priority being given to
content over form, or whether they are given guidance in what to plan. In the case of the latter
option, the guidance may focus learners' attention on form or content or, as in Sangarun's
(2001) study, form and content together. Skehan (1996) suggests that learners need to be
made explicitly aware of where they are focussing their attention - whether on fluency,
15
complexity or accuracy. These planning options are illustrated in Figure 2. Here the context is
a task involving a balloon debate (i.e. deciding who should be ejected from a balloon to keep
it afloat). The guidance can also be 'detailed' or 'undetailed' (Foster and Skehan 1996). The
examples in Figure 2 are of the undetailed kind. Skehan (1998) gives an example of detailed
planning for a personal task involving asking someone to go to your house to turn off the
oven that you have left on. This involved instructions relating to planning content (e.g. 'think
about what problems your listener could have and how you might help her') and language
(e.g. 'think what grammar you need to do the task'). These options do not just provide for
variety in planning activities; they also enable the teacher to channel the learners' attention
onto different aspects of language use. For example, Foster and Skehan (1996) found that
when students were given detailed guidance they tended to prioritise content with resulting
gains in complexity when they performed the task.
Strategic planning options Description
The students were introduced to the idea of a

1. No planning balloon debate, assigned roles and then asked to
debate who should be sacrificed.
The students were introduced to the idea of a

balloon debate and then shown how to use
modal verbs and conditionals in the reasons a
2. Guided planning - language focus
doctor might give for not being thrown out of
the balloon (e.g. 'I take care of many sick people
- If you throw me out, many people might die.'
The students were introduced the idea of a

balloon debate. The teacher presents ideas that
3. Guided planning - content focus each character might use to defend his or her
right to stay in the balloon and students were
encouraged to add ideas of their own.
Figure 2: Options for strategic planning (based on Foster and Skehan 1999).
Another option concerns the amount of time students are given to carry out the pre-task
planning. Most of the research studies that have investigated this kind of planning have
allocated between 1 and 10 minutes. An effect on fluency was evident with very short periods
of planning in some studies but longer was needed for an effect on complexity (Skehan 1998
suggests 10 minutes is optimal). Finally, planning can be carried out individually, in groups,
or with the teacher.
Summary and final comment
In these four ways, teachers can help to create conditions that will make tasks work for
acquisition. As Skehan (1998) points out, they serve to introduce new language that the
16
learners can use while performing the task, to mobilize existing linguistic resources, to ease
processing load and to push learners to interpret tasks in more demanding ways. However, it
is not yet possible to 'fine tune' learners' performance of a task through selecting specific pre-
task options. At best, all that the research to date has demonstrated is the likely effects of
some of the procedures referred to above. Important questions remain unanswered. For
example, we do not know whether task preparation that involves an actual performance of the
task is more or less effective than preparation that involves just observation. Nor is it clear to
what extent linguistic priming subverts the 'naturalness' of a task resulting in teaching of the
present-practice-produce (PPP) kind. Only in the case of strategic planning do we have some
idea of how the different options affect task performance.
The during-task phase
The methodological options available to the teacher in the during-task phase are of two basic
kinds. First, there are various options relating to how the task is to be undertaken that can be
selected prior to the actual performance of the task and thus planned for by the teacher. These
will be called 'task-performance options'. Second, there are a number of 'process options' that
involve the teacher and students in on-line decision making about how to perform the task as
it is being completed.
Task performance options
We will consider three task performance options that have figured in the research to date. The
first of these options concerns whether to require the students to perform the task under time
pressure. The teacher can elect to allow students to complete the task in their own time or can
set a time limit. Lee (2000) strongly recommends that teachers set strict time limits. This
option is important because it can influence the nature of the language that students' produce.
Yuan and Ellis (2002) found that giving students unlimited time to perform a narrative task
resulted in language that was both more complex and more accurate in comparison to a
control group that was asked to perform the same task under time pressure. The students used
the time at their disposal to monitor and reformulate their utterances. Interestingly, the
opportunity to plan on-line produced a different effect from the opportunity to engage in
strategic planning, which led to greater fluency and complexity of language. It seems, then,
that if teachers want to emphasize accuracy in a task performance, they need to ensure that
the students can complete the task in their own time. However, if they want to encourage
fluency they need to set a time limit.
The second task performance option involves deciding whether to allow the students access
to the input data while they perform a task. In some tasks access to the input data is built into
the design of a task (e.g. in Spot the Difference, Describe and Draw, or many information gap
tasks). However, in other tasks it is optional. For example, in a story retelling/recall task the
students can be permitted to keep the pictures/ text or be asked to put them on one side as
they narrate the story. This can influence the complexity of the task, as tasks that are
supported by pictures and texts are easier than tasks that are not. Joe (1998) reports a study
that compared learners' acquisition of a set of target words (which they did not know prior to
17
performing the task) in a narrative recall task under two conditions - with and without access
to the text. She found that the learners who could see the text used the target words more
frequently, although the difference was evident only in verbatim use of the words not
generated use (i.e. they did not use the target words in original sentences). Joe's study raises
an important question. Does borrowing from the input data assist acquisition? The term
'borrowing' in this context comes from Prabhu (1987).
He defines it as 'taking over an available verbal formulation in order to express some self-
initiated meaning content, instead of generating the formulation from one's own competence'
(p. 60). Prabhu distinguishes borrowing from 'reproduction' where the decision to 'take over' a
sample of a language is not made by the learner but by some external authority (i.e. the
teacher of the text book). Borrowing is compatible with task-based teaching but reproduction
is not. Prabhu sees definite value in borrowing for maintaining a task-based activity and also
probable value in promoting acquisition. Certainly, from the perspective of sociocultural
theory, where learning occurs through 'participation', borrowing can be seen as contributing
directly to acquisition.
The third task performance option consists of introducing some surprise element into the task.
Skehan and Foster(1997) illustrate this option. They asked students to complete a decision-
making task that required them to decide what punishment should be given to four criminals
who had committed different crimes. At the beginning of the task they were given
information about each criminal and the crime he/she had committed. Half way through the
task the students were given further information of a surprising nature about each criminal.
For example, the initial information provided about one of the criminals was as follows:
The accused is a doctor. He gave an overdose (a very high quantity of a painkilling drug) to
an 85-year-old woman because she was dying painfully of cancer. The doctor says that the
woman had asked for an overdose. The woman's family accuse the doctor of murder. After
talking for five minutes, the students were given the following additional information: Later,
it was discovered that seven other old people in the same hospital had died in a similar way,
through overdoses. The doctor refuses to say if he was involved. However, this study failed to
find that introducing such a surprise had any effect on the fluency, complexity or accuracy of
the learners' language. This does not mean that this option is of no pedagogic value, as
requiring learners to cope with a surprise serves as an obvious way of extending the time
learners spend on a task and thus increases the amount of talk. It may also help to enhance
students' intrinsic interest in a task.
Process options
Process options differ from task performance options in that they concern the way in which
the discourse arising from the task is enacted rather than pedagogical decisions about the way
the task is to be handled. Whereas performance options can be selected in advance of the
actual performance of the task, process options must be taken in flight while the task is being
performed.
18
The teacher's on-line decision about how to conduct the discourse of a task reflect his/her
'theory-in-use' (Schon 1983) and 'practical knowledge' (Eraut 1994). On the learners' part,
they reflect the language learning beliefs (Horwitz 1987) they bring to the classroom and,
more particularly, to a specific task. How teachers and learners conduct a task will be
influenced, to a large extent, by their prior experiences of teaching and learning and their
personal definitions of the particular teaching-learning situation. Thus, the options described
below are primarily descriptive, reflecting an internal rather than external perspective (Ellis
1998) on the methodology of task-based teaching.
A common assumption of task-based teaching is that the texts, the discursive practices and
the social practices of the classroom (Breen 1998) that are constructed by and through a task
resemble those found in non-pedagogic discourse. To achieve this, however, is no mean feat,
especially if the teacher is directly involved in the performance of the task. As Breen points
out, the 'texts' of lessons (i.e. the actual language produced by the participants) are typically
teacher-centred with learners 'not actually required to do much overt or explicit discursive
work' (p. 123), while the 'discursive practices' (i.e. the means by which the text are produced)
'construct learners as primarily responsive and seemingly fairly passive participants in the
discourse' (p. 124) and the 'social practices' (i.e. the organisational and institutional
circumstances that shape the texts and discursive practices) are directed at the avoidance of
'social trouble'. Task-based teaching, however, seeks the converse - texts that are learner-
centred, discursive practices that encourage the learner to actively engage in shaping and
controlling the discourse, and social practices that are centred on allowing and resolving
social trouble. This poses a problem, which teachers need to address.
Figure 3 contrasts two sets of classroom processes. The first set corresponds to the classroom
behaviours that are typical of a traditional form-focussed pedagogy where language is treated
as an object and the students are required to act as 'learners'. The second set reflects the
behaviours that characterize a task-based pedagogy, where language is treated as a tool for
communicating and the teacher and students function primarily as 'language users' (Ellis
2001). Thus, which set of behaviours arise is crucially dependent on the participants'
orientation to the classroom and to their motives for performing an activity.
A B
Traditional form-focussed pedagogy Task-based pedagogy
Rigid discourse structure consisting of IRF Loose discourse structure consisting of

(initiate-respond-feedback) exchanges adjacency pairs
Teacher controls topic development Students able to control topic development
Turn-taking is regulated by the same rules that

Turn-taking is regulated by the teacher. govern everyday conversation (i.e. speakers
can self select).
Display questions (i.e. questions that the Use of referential questions (i.e. questions that
19
questioner already knows the answer) the questioner does not know the answer to)
Students function in both initiating and

Students are placed in a responding role responding roles and thus perform a wide range
and consequently perform a limited range of language functions (e.g. asking and giving
of language functions. information, agreeing and disagreeing,
instructing).
Little need or opportunity to negotiate Opportunities to negotiate meaning when

meaning. communication problems arise
Scaffolding directed primarily at enabling Scaffolding directed primarily at enabling

students to produce correct sentences. students to say what they want to say.
Form-focussed feedback (i.e. the teacher Content-focussed feedback (i.e. the teacher
responds implicitly or explicitly to the responds to the message content of the students'
correctness of students' utterances) utterances).
Repetition (i.e. a student elects to repeat

Echoing (i.e. the teacher repeats what a
something another student or the teacher has
student has said for the benefit of the whole
said as private speech or to establish
class)
intersubjectivity).
Figure 3: Stereotypical classroom processes in traditional form-focussed pedagogy and task-

based pedagogy
Two questions arise. The first concerns what the participants in a task need to do to ensure
that the interactions they engage in manifest the processes described in column B in Figure 3.
Implicit in this question is an acknowledgement of the importance of these processes for task-
based instruction. The second question, however, challenges this assumption by asking
whether in fact these processes are criterial of task-based pedagogy and whether, minimally,
they need to be complemented by processes from column A. It has often been pointed out
(see, for example, Nunan 1987) that the processes described in column B are a rarity even in
classrooms where the teacher claims to be teaching communicatively. The main reason for
this lies in the difficulty teachers and students have in achieving the required orientation. As
Goffman (1981) has pointed out, classrooms are governed by an 'educational imperative'
which dictates the kind of discourse that arises. It is for this reason that teachers and students
find it difficult to consistently orient to language as a tool and to adopt the role of language
users when they both know that the raison-d'etre for their being together is to teach and learn
the language. In effect, task-based teaching calls for the classroom participants to forget
where they are and why they are there and to act in the belief that they can learn the language
indirectly through communicating in it rather than directly through studying it. This is asking
a lot of them, especially if the social practices the participants bring to the classroom belong
to a pedagogy of transmission rather than of interpretation (Barnes 1976). It is probably
20
easier to achieve when students are interacting among themselves, without the teacher being
present, as the greater symmetry of social roles this affords leads naturally to the kinds of
risk-taking behaviour required of a task-based pedagogy (Pica 1987). This is one reason why
pair and group work are seen as central to task-based teaching.
However, even when the participants in a task are oriented to treat language as a tool and to
function as language users, the text of the task may disappoint, manifesting few of the
characteristics facilitative of acquisition. Seedhouse (1999) has pointed out that the
characteristics of task-based interaction do not always match those described in Figure 3. He
illustrates how in some tasks the turn-taking system is conspicuously constrained, there is a
tendency for students to rely on topic-comment constructions where verbal elements are
omitted (a feature also noted in pidgins) and to produce highly indexicalised utterances. An
even greater limitation in task-based interaction, according to Seedhouse, is the
minimalization that characterizes some task-based interactions. This is illustrated in the
extract below where the students were required to complete and label a geometric figure:
L1: What?
L2: Stop.
L3: Dot?
L4: Dot?
L5: Point?
L6: Dot?
LL: Point, point, yeh.
L1: Point?
L5: Small point.
L3: Dot
(From Lynch 1989, p. 124; cited in Seedhouse 1999).
Here all the utterances but one consist of a single word. Clearly, such interactions do not help
the 'stretch' learners' interlanguages, one of the stated goals of task-based pedagogy (Nunan
1989). Seedhouse suggests that such limited interactions arise because 'learners appear to be
so concentrated on completing the task that linguistic forms are treated as a vehicle of minor
importance' (p. 154). In other words, the very nature of a task (i.e. the fact it is directed at
accomplishing a specified outcome) may result in a restricted variety of communication.
Seedhouse overstates this limitation of tasks. First, it is possible to argue that the restricted
nature of the talk shown in the extract above is well suited to the students' purpose. Second,
the nature of the interaction depends crucially on the design characteristics of tasks and
procedures for implementing them. Thus, richer varieties of communication characterized by
more complex language use, are achievable if, for example, students are asked to perform
open tasks with divergent goals and are given the opportunity to plan their performance
before hand. Nevertheless, Seedhouse's critique needs to be addressed. Clearly, teachers need
to monitor their students' performance of a task carefully, examining to what extent the
processes described in Figure 3 arise and, crucially, whether the interactions manifest the
minimalized and pidgin-like uses of language Seedhouse illustrates. The information
obtained from such monitoring can be used to inform decisions about what tasks and
procedures to use in subsequent tasks. In this way, teachers can build up a fund of experience
of the task characteristics and methods of implementation that will ensure the kinds of
21
interactions hypothesized to promote acquisition. Thus, the solution, to the problem

Seedhouse identifies lies not in attempting to manipulate process options directly, which may
well be impossible without imperilling the 'taskness' of the task, but through careful selection
from the pre-task options and the performance options described above.
Where Seedhouse questions whether the kinds of behaviours shown in Figure 3 are
achievable in task-based teaching, others have challenged whether they constitute appropriate
goals for interaction in a classroom. Cullen (1998) has pointed out that the classroom context
constitutes a communicative environment in its own right that is distinct from the
communicative contexts of the world outside and on these grounds has challenged the basis
for assessing the communicativeness of classroom discourse. In effect, then, Cullen disputes
the assumption that underlies task-bask pedagogy - that classrooms need to replicate the kind
of communicative behaviour found outside the classroom. He illustrates how 'what appears to
be non-communicative teacher talk is not necessarily so in the classroom context' (p. 183)
with an extract from an English lesson in Egypt. This interaction is teacher-led, is full of
display questions, includes feedback that is form-focussed and contains a lot of echoing - all
processes associated with a traditional form-focussed pedagogy. However, Cullen argues that
in the context of the classroom, the interaction can be considered 'communicative' in that the
entire sequence manifests a focus on message content, the teacher's questions are carefully
structured, the feedback is clear and the use of echoing serves to ensure that the students'
attention is not lost. He claims that the discourse is pedagogically effective because the
teacher has successfully combined the role of 'instructor' and 'interlocutor'. Arguably, this is
what a task-based pedagogy needs to strive for. How might it be achieved?
One way is by incorporating a focus on form into the performance of the task. Ellis,
Basturkmen and Loewen (2001) report this can be achieved in either responding focus-on-
form episodes, where one of the participants, usually the teacher, responds to a student
utterance containing an error, or in initiating episodes, where either the teacher or a student
elects to take time out from the exchange of message content to attend briefly to form,
usually by means of a direct query about a specific form. Such attention to form differs from
that arising in lessons of the traditional, focus-on-forms kind because, for, as Wilberg (1987)
notes, 'the content is dictated by the student, the form only by the teacher' (p. 27). It also
differs in another way. As Prabhu (1987) points out, correction during a task is 'incidental'
rather than 'systematic' in nature. In incidental correction, only 'tokens' are addressed (i.e.
there is no attempt to generalize the type of error), it is seen by the participants as 'a part of
getting on with the activity in hand, not as a separate objective' (p. 63) and, crucially, it is
transitory. Prabhu excludes preventive or pre-emptive attention to form but, as Ellis,
Basturkmen and Loewen's study shows this too can be 'incidental'.
Teachers can employ both implicit and explicit techniques to achieve this focus on form.
These techniques can be used when some kind of communication problem arises (as occurs in
the negotiation of meaning) or they can be used when the teacher chooses to abandon his/her
role as a language user momentarily in order to function as an instructor (i.e. to negotiate
form rather than meaning). Teachers can play a very direct role by initiating this negotiation
22
but they can also intervene to support a process that students have started for themselves, a
technique that involves 'nudging' the learners towards a solution . Teachers can also allow or
even encourage students to use the same techniques themselves - for example, by accepting
and responding to students' queries about form. Figure 4 describes some of the techniques
that can be used by the task participants. Evidence from research (Ellis, Basturkmen and
Loewen 2001) indicates that the use of these techniques, even when quite frequent, need not
detract from the primary focus on message, which is the defining characteristic of a task.
Thus, they serve as important process options for reconciling the roles of 'instructor/learner'
on the one hand and 'interlocutor/language user' on the other. Furthermore, they potentially
enhance the acquisitional value of a task by inducing noticing of linguistic forms that lie
outside or at the edges of students' current interlanguages.
Type of Technique Interactional device Description
A task participant seeks

clarification of something
another participant has said,
1. Request for clarification thus providing an opportunity
Implicit for the first participant to
2. Recast reformulate.
A task participant rephrases part
or the whole of another
participant's utterance.
A task participant draws explicit

attention to another participant's
deviant use of a linguistic form.
(e.g. 'Not x but y.')
A task participant uses
1. Explicit correction metalanguage to draw attention
to another participant's deviant
use of a linguistic form (e.g.
2. Metalingual 'Past tense not present tense.')
Explicit comment/question A task participant asks a
question about a specific
3. Query linguistic form that has arisen in
performing the task (e.g. Why is
4. Advise 'can' used here?).
A task participant (usually the
teacher) advises or warns about
the use of a specific linguistic
form (e.g. 'Remember you need
to use past tense').
23
Figure 4: Implicit and explicit techniques for focussing on form during a task
To sum up, it is clear that process options cannot be prescribed. Nevertheless, it is possible to
identify, in broad terms, the kinds of processes that the participants in a task performance
need to strive for. These are:
1. Discourse that is essentially 'conversational' in nature (i.e. as described in column B of
Figure 3). Such discourse can include 'instructional conversations'.
2. Discourse that encourages the explicit formulation of messages.
3. Opportunities for students to take linguistic risks.
4. Occasions where the task participants focus implicitly and/or explicitly on specific
linguistic forms.
5. Shared goals for the task.
6. Effective scaffolding of the participants' efforts to communicate in the L2.
The post-task phase
The post-task phase affords a number of options. These have three major pedagogic goals; (1)
to provide an opportunity for a repeat performance of the task, (2) to encourage reflection on
how the task was performed, and (3) to encourage attention to form, in particular to those
forms that proved problematic to the learners when they performed the task.
Repeat performance
Several studies (e.g. Bygate 1996 and 2001; Lynch and Maclean 2000) indicate that when
learners repeat a task their production improves in a number of ways (e.g. complexity
increases, propositions are expressed more clearly, and they become more fluent). A repeat
performance can be carried out under the same conditions as the first performance (i.e. in
small groups or individually) or the conditions can be changed. One interesting possibility
examined by Skehan and Foster (1997) is that of requiring students to carry out the second
performance publicly. As their study examined the 'threat' of such a requirement on learners'
initial performance of the task, it technically constituted a during-task option. However, if
students are not told to repeat the task publicly until after they have completed the first
performance, it becomes a post-task option. There has been no research comparing the
learner production that results from a second performance carried out under 'private'
conditions, as in the initial performance, and publicly. Clearly, performing a task in front of
the class increases the communicative stress (Candlin 1987) placed on the learner and thus
can be predicted to lead to a reduction in fluency and complexity. However, it is not without
value if students need experience in using English in front of an audience, as, for example,
might be the case with foreign academics training to give oral presentations in the L2. Public
performance is likely to encourage the use of a more formal style and thus may push learners
to use the grammaticalised resources associated with this style.
Reflecting on the task
Willis (1996) recommends asking students to present a report on how they did the task and on
what they decided or discovered. She considers this 'the natural conclusion of the task cycle'
24
(p. 58). The teacher's role is to act as a chairperson and to encourage the students. The reports
can be oral or written. Willis' examples make it clear that the reports should primarily focus
on summarising the outcome of the task. However, it would also be possible to ask students
to reflect on and evaluate their own performance of the task. For example, they could be
invited to comment on which aspect of language use (fluency, complexity or accuracy) they
gave primacy to and why, how they dealt with communication problems, both their own and
others, and even what language they learned from the task (i.e. to report what Allwright
(1984) has called 'uptake' [1]). Students could also be invited to consider how they might
improve their performance of the task. Encouraging students to reflect on their performance
in these ways may contribute to the development of the metacognitive strategies of planning,
monitoring and evaluating, which are seen as important for language learning (O'Malley and
Chamot 1990).
There is also a case for asking students to evaluate the task itself. Such information will help
the teacher to decide whether to use similar tasks in the future or look for a different type. I
have suggested that student-based evaluations of tasks can be carried out quickly and
effectively using simple questionnaires (see Ellis 1997a for an example).
Focussing on forms
Once the task is completed, students can be invited to focus on forms, with no danger that in
so doing they will subvert the 'taskness' of the task. It is for this reason that some
methodologists recommend reserving attention to form to the post-task phase of the lesson.
Willis (1996), for example, sees the primary goal of the 'task component' as that of
developing fluency and promoting the use of communication strategies. The post-task stage is
needed to counter the danger that students will develop fluency at the expense of accuracy. In
part, this is met by asking students to report on their performance of the task, as discussed
above, but it can also be achieved by a direct focus on forms. It should be noted, however,
that this is the not the position taken in this paper. I have emphasised that a focus on form
constitutes a valuable during-task option and that it is quite compatible with a primary focus
on message content, which is the hallmark of a task. Furthermore, in some tasks (e.g.
consciousness raising tasks) a linguistic feature is made the topic of the task. Attention to
form, in one way or another, can occur in any (or indeed all) of the phases of a task-based
lesson. In the pre-task and post-task phases the focus will be on forms while in the during-
task phase it will be on form, to invoke Long's (1991) distinction .
Two obvious methodological questions arise regarding attention to form in the post-task
phase. The first concerns which forms should be attended to. The answer is fairly obvious;
teachers should select forms that the students used incorrectly while performing the task or
'useful' or 'natural' forms (Loshcky and Bley Vroman 1993) that they failed to use at all. In
other words, teachers should seek to address errors or gaps in the students' L2 knowledge.
Consideration also needs to be given to how many such forms a teacher should seek to
address. Should the focus be placed on a single form that is treated intensively or a number of
forms that are treated extensively? Both approaches are warranted and are reflected in the
various options described below.
25
The second question concerns how the target forms should be dealt with. There is a whole
range of options available to the teacher. It should be noted however that in many cases the
effectiveness of these options has not been investigated.
1.Review of learner errors
While the students are performing a task in groups, teachers can move from group to group to
listen in and note down some of the conspicuous errors the students make together with
actual examples. In the post-task phase, the teacher can address these errors with the whole
class. A sentence illustrating the error can be written on the board, students can be invited to
correct it, the corrected version is written up, and a brief explanation provided. Lynch (2001)
offers an interesting way of conducting a post-task analysis, which he calls 'proof-listening'.
This involves three cycles based on repeated playing of a recording of the task. First, the
students who did the task review and edit their own performance. Second, the recording is
replayed and other students are invited to comment, correct or ask questions. Finally, the
teacher comments on any points that have been missed.
2. Consciousness-raising tasks
CR-tasks constitute tasks in their own right and, therefore, can be used as the main task in a
lesson. But they can also be used as follow-up tasks to direct students to attend explicitly to a
specific form that they used incorrectly or failed to use at all in the main task. Willis and
Willis (1996) and Ellis (1997b) offer descriptions of the various options that are available for
the design and implementation of CR tasks. When used as follow-up tasks, CR tasks can
profitably take their data from recordings of the students' performance of the task. For
example, students might be presented with a number of their own utterances all illustrating
the same error and asked to identify the error, correct the sentences and work out an
explanation.
3. Production practice activities
An alternative or addition to CR tasks is to provide more traditional practice of selected

forms. Traditional exercise types include repetition, substitution, gapped sentences, jumbled
sentences, transformation drills, and dialogues. Willis (1996; pp. 110) offers a number of
more novel ideas. The value of such production practice activities has been called into
question (see, for example, VanPatten 1996) on the grounds that they have no direct effect on
learners' interlanguage systems. However, they may help learners to automatize forms that
they have begun to use on their own accord but have not yet gained full control over.
4. Noticing activities
A number of suggestions have been made for developing noticing activities as a follow-up to
a task performance. Fotos (1994) used dictation exercises that had been enriched with the
target structures that students had tackled initially in CR tasks to examine whether the
subjects in her study subsequently attended to the structures. She found that they did so quite
consistently. Lynch (2001) recommends getting students to make transcripts of an extract
26
(90-120 seconds) from their task performance as a method for inducing noticing. After
transcribing, they are required to make any editing changes they wish. The teacher then takes
away the word-processed transcripts and reformulates them. The next day the students are
asked to compare their own edited transcript with the teacher's reformulated version. In a
study that investigated this procedure, Lynch found that students cooperated effectively in
transcribing, made a number of changes (most of which resulted in accurate corrections of
linguistic forms), and engaged in both self- and other-correction. Lynch also analysed the
types of changes the students made, noting that the majority involved grammatical
corrections, 'editing' slips (i.e. removal of redundancies, literal repetitions and dysfluencies)
and 'reformulation' (i.e. changes directed at more precise expressions). Finally, Lynch
comments that there was plenty left for the teacher to do after the students had made their
changes.
Using the framework for designing a lesson
What constitutes the main activity of a lesson is largely a matter of perception and therefore,
to some extent at least, arbitrary. For example, Prabhu (1987) talks of a 'pre-task' and a 'task'.
The former is carried out between the teacher and the whole class. The latter is performed by
the students working individually. But, such a sequence of activities could easily be described
in terms of 'task' and 'post-task'. Indeed, Prabhu's 'pre-task' involves the type of activity that
most task-based methodologists would consider to belong to the during-task phase of a
lesson. Similarly, a sequence of activities consisting of 'task' and 'post-task' where the latter
involves the kind of transcribing activity advocated by Lynch could also be described in
terms of 'pre-task' and 'task', if the transcribing activity is viewed as the main activity.
However, this caveat does not detract from the usefulness of the design framework described
above as a basis for planning task-based lessons. Teachers need to decide first on the basic
format of the lesson. Minimally, it will consist of the during-task phase but it can also include
either or both of a pre-task and post-task phase. Once the basic structure of the lesson has
been decided, the specific option(s) to be included in each phase of the lesson can be
considered. The description of the process options for implementing the during-task phase of
the lesson also provides a guide for the navigation of the actual task and for the teacher's
ongoing monitoring of the task performance.
Notes:
1. Allwright's (1984) use of 'uptake' differs from that of researchers who have investigated
corrective sequences in classroom discourse. Allwright uses the term to refer to what learners
are able to explicitly report having learned as a result of participating in a lesson.
References
Allwright, D. 1984. Why don't learners learn what teachers teach? The interaction hypothesis. In
D. Singleton and D. Little (eds.). Language Learning in Formal and Informal Contexts (pp. 3-18).
Dublin: IRAL.
Aston, G. 1982. Interact. Oxford: Modern English Publications.
27
Barnes, D. 1976. From Communication to Curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Breen, M. 1998. Navigating the discourse: On what is learned in the language classroom. In W.
Renandya and G. Jacobs (eds). Learners and Language Learning. Singapore: SEAMEO
Regional Language Centre.
Bygate, M. 1996. Effects of task repetition: Appraising the development of second language
learners. In J. Willis and D. Willis (eds). Challenge and Change in Language Teaching.
Oxford: Heinemann.
Bygate, M. 2001. Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M.
Bygate, P. Skehan and M. Swain (eds). (pp. 23-48).
Bygate, M., P. Skehan, and M. Swain. (eds). 2001. Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second
Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Harlow: Longman.
Candlin, C. 1987. Towards task-based language learning. In C. Candlin and D. Murphy (eds.).
Language Learning Tasks. Englewood Cliffs N.J.: Prentice Hall International.
Candlin, C. and D. Murphy. 1987. Language Learning Tasks. Englewood Cliffs N.J.: Prentice
Hall International.
Cullen, R. 1998. Teacher-talk and the classroom context. ELT Journal 52: 179-187.
Dornyei, Z. 2001. Motivational Strategies in the Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ellis, R. 1997a. SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. 1997b. Explicit knowledge and second language pedagogy. In L. Van Lier and D.
Corson (eds.). Encyclopedia of Language and Education Vol 6: Knowledge about
Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Ellis, R. 1998. Discourse control and the acquisition-rich classroom. In W. Renandya and G.
Jacobs (eds). Learners and Language Learning (pp. 145-171). Singapore: SEAMEO.
Ellis, R. 2001. Focussing on form: Towards a research agenda. In W. Renandya and N. Sunga
(eds). Language Curriculum and Instruction in Multicultural Societies (pp. 123-144).
Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Ellis, R., H. Basturkmen and S. Loewen. 2001. Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons.
Language Learning 51: 281-318.
Eraut, M. 1994. Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence. London: Falmer.
Estaire, S. and J. Zanon. 1994. Planning Classwork: A Task Based Approach. Oxford: Heinemann.
Foster, P. and P. Skehan. 1996. The influence of planning and task type on second language
performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 299-323.
Foster, P. and P. Skehan. 1999. The influence of planning and focus of planning on task- based
performance. Language Teaching Research 3: 215-247.
Fotos, S. 1994. Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through
grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly 28: 323-351.
Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Horwtitz, E. 1987. Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In Wenden, A. and
Rubin, J. (eds). Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Joe, A. 1998. What effects do text-based tasks promoting generation have on incidental vocabulary
acquisition. Applied Linguistics 19:357-77.
Lee, J. 2000. Tasks and Communicating in Language Classrooms. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Long, M. 1991. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot,
R. Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch (eds.). Foreign Language Research in Cross- Cultural
Perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Loscky, L. and R. Bley-Vroman. 1993. Grammar and task-based methodology. In Crookes, G.
and Gass, S. (eds.) Tasks in a Pedagogical Context: Integrating Theory and Practice.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lynch, T. 1989.Researching teachers: Behaviour and belief. In C. Brumfit and R. Micthell
(eds). Research in the Language Classroom. London: Modern English Publications and
the British Council.
Lynch, T. 2001. Seeing what they meant: Transcribing as a route to noticing. ELT Journal 55:
124-32.
28
Lynch, T. and J. Maclean. 2000. Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recyling for classroom
language learning. Language Teaching Research 4: 221- 250
Lynch, T. and J. Maclean. 2001. Effects of immediate task repetition on learners' performance. In M.
Bygate, P. Skehan and M. Swain (eds). (pp. 99-118).
Newton, J. 2001. Options for vocabulary learning through communication tasks. ELT Journal 55:
30-37.
Numrich, C. 1996. On becoming a language teacher; Insights from diary studies. TESOL Quarterly
30: 131-153.
Nunan, D. 1987. Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT Journal 41: 136- 45.
Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge:Cambridge
University Press.
O'Malley, J. and A. Chamot. 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Pica, T. 1987. Second language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied
Linguistics
Prabhu, N.S. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. 1996. Teachers' maxims in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 30: 281- 296.
Sangarun, J. 2001. The effects of pre-task planning on foreign language performance. Doctoral
thesis, University of Toronto, Canada.
Schon, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Seedhouse, P. 1999. Task-based interaction. ELT Journal 53: 149-156. Oxford University
Press.
Skehan, P. 1996a. A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied
Linguistics 17: 38-62.
Skehan, P. 1998a. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Skehan, P. and P. Foster. 1997. Task type and task processing conditions as influences on
foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research 1: 185-211
Wilberg, T. 1987. One-to-One. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Willis, D. and J. Willis. 1996. Consciousness-raising activities in the language classroom. In J.
Willis and D. Willis (ed). A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Harlow: Longman.
Willis, J. 1996. A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Harlow: Longman.
Willis, J. and D. Willis. (eds.). 1996. Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Oxford:
Heinemann.
Yuan, F. and Ellis, R. 2002. The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency,
complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics
29
Title
Educational Settings and Second Language Learning
Author
Rod Ellis
Chang Jiang Scholar of Shanghai International Studies University
and
University of Auckland
Bio Data:
Professor Ellis, a renowned linguist, received his Doctorate from the University of London
and his Master of Education from the University of Bristol. A former professor at Temple
University both in Japan and the US, Prof. Ellis has taught in numerous positions in England,
Japan, the US, Zambia and New Zealand. Dr. Ellis, who is known as the "Father of Second
Language Acquisition", has served as the Director of the Institute of Language Teaching and
Learning at the University of Auckland. Author of numerous student and teacher training
textbooks for Prentice Hall and Oxford University Press, Prof. Ellis's textbooks on Second
Language Acquisition and Grammar are core textbooks in TESOL and Linguistics programs
around the world.
Introduction
A general distinction can be drawn between ‘natural’ and ‘educational’ settings. The former
arise in the course of the learners’ contact with other speakers of the L2 in a variety of
situations—in the workplace, at home, through the media, at international conferences, in
business meetings, etc. The latter are traditionally found in institutions such as schools and
universities but, increasingly, in computer-mediated environments. There will be some
learners who experience the L2 entirely in natural settings and others whose only contact with
it is in educational settings. Many learners will experience the L2 in both natural and
educational settings. The focus of this article is educational settings.
In considering the relationship between setting and language learning, it is important to

clarify what is meant by ‘setting’. In this respect, Coupland’s (2001) distinction between two
types of sociolinguistics is helpful. Type 1 sociolinguistics adopts the perspective of
sociolinguistic realism, according to which social life is viewed as ‘a structured set of social
categories which, to some extent, control our social characteristics and opportunities’ (p. 2).
Type 2 sociolinguistics assumes that ‘social life and our entire experience of society is best
seen as structured through local actions and practices’ (p. 2).
Accordingly, we can view educational settings as both determining how successful learners
are in learning an L2 and/or as constructed by the participants (the teacher and the learners)
30
through the social actions that they perform in a particular setting. In the discussion of the
different settings that follows both perspectives will be drawn on.
Types of educational settings

Skuttnab-Kangas (2000) distinguished a number of different types of educational settings,
which she divides into ‘non-forms’ (i.e. types that do not use two languages of the learner as
the media of teaching and learning), ‘weak forms’ (i.e. types that have monolingualism,
strong dominance of one language or limited bilingualism as their aim) and ‘strong forms’
(i.e. types that aim to promote high levels of bi- or multilingualism and multiliteracy for all
participants). Table 1 summarizes the different types that Skuttnab-Kangas lists under these
headings. However, for reasons of space, I will only consider the main ones in detail.
Category Type Description Example

Non-forms Language The language of the school Teaching of English as a
teaching curriculum is the learners’ L1; the foreign language in
L2 is taught as a subject only. Japan.
Linguistic minority students with a

Submersion low-status L1 are taught the school
curriculum through the medium of Use of English as a
a high status L2. medium of instruction in
Anglophone Africa.
Linguistic minority children with a
low status L1 are taught the school
Segregation curriculum through the medium of
their L1. The L2 may be taught as Mother tongue medium
a subject. schools for the children
of Turkish migrant
workers in Germany.
Weak forms Transitional Linguistic minority children with a Use of students’ L1 in
low status L1 are instructed early primary school in
through the medium of the L1 until Anglophone Africa; L2
they have acquired sufficient English takes over in late
competence in the L2 for that to primary and secondary.
become the medium. Skutnabb-
Kangas (2000) sees this as a more
sophisticated version of
submersion’ (p. 592).
Strong forms Mother Linguistic minority children with a The programme in Italian
tongue lower status L1 receive instruction for children of Italian
maintenance in their L1 with a view to speaking parents in
maintaining and developing skills Bedford, UK (Tosi
in this language. 1984).
Linguistic minority children with a

high status language are instructed
Immersion through the medium of a French immersion
foreign/minority language in
31
classes consisting entirely of L2 programmes in Canada.

learners.
A mixed group of linguistic

minority and majority students are
taught through the medium of the
Dual language learners’ L1 and L2, with the Two-way Spanish
dominant language taught as a English programmes in
subject. the USA.
A mixed group of linguistic

minority and majority students are
Alternate days taught using their L1 and L2 on
alternate days.
The alternate day
Students with different L1s are programme in English
Plural taught the school curriculum and Spanish in Castiloga,
multilingual through the medium of their L1 California.
with an L2 taught as a foreign
language in grade 1. This then The 10 European Union
increasingly becomes the medium Schools in six countries.
of instruction in later years when
other L2s are also offered as
foreign languages.
Table 1: Educational settings
The language classroom setting

‘The language classroom’ is defined here as a setting where the target language is taught as a
subject only and is not commonly used as a medium of communication outside the
classroom. In this sense it includes both ‘foreign’ language classrooms (for example,
Japanese classes in the United States or English classes in China) and ‘second’ language
classrooms where the learners have no or minimal contact with the target language outside
the language classroom (for example, ‘ESL’ classes in a francophone area of Canada).
Whereas the second language classroom has been the subject of a number of sociolinguistic
studies (see, for example, Miller, 2004 and Poole, 1992), the foreign language classroom has
been largely neglected by sociolinguists. Rampton (2006) offered a number of reasons for
this neglect. First, in accordance with Type 1 sociolinguistics, the social significance of the
target language has been deemed minimal because its speakers are remote from the learners.
Second, sociolinguistic enquiry has focused on the interface between the home language and
the language of the nation-state (i.e. with language use in majority language settings) and
such an interface does not arise in foreign language classrooms. Third, the overarching
concern with ‘competence’ and with the tacit acquisition of language has led sociolinguists to
view the ‘specialized languages’ of the foreign language classroom as of no real interest.
32
However, the distinction between Type 1 and Type 2 sociolinguistics affords a way of
examining the language classroom setting from a social perspective. I will first adopt a Type
1 perspective by considering the differences between the foreign-language and second-
language classroom in terms of choice of target, the different roles that teachers and students
adopt, and parental support for language learning and the impact that these factors have on
what and how well a learner learns. I will then draw on Rampton’s (2006) interesting study of
how learners of German as a foreign language in an urban school in London appropriated
‘Deutsch’ for their own purposes as a way of exploring a Type 2 approach to the language
classroom.
Foreign-language classroom contexts can be distinguished from second language classroom

contexts in that native-like cultural and pragmatic competence is not a high priority in the
former (Nayar, 1997). To make it so would constitute a threat to the learners’ own ethnic
identities and also might not be favourably received by native speakers. Janicki (1985)
commented:
It has been noticed that non-natives are likely to face social consequences when their
linguistic behaviour complies with sociolinguistic rules saved (by some norm) for the natives.
Examples are the usage of obscenities, slang expressions, or very formal pronunciation. It
seems that there exists a set of as yet unidentified norms which proscribe the use of some
forms on the part of the non-native speaker.
Preston (1981) suggests that an appropriate model for the L2 learner is that of ‘competent
bilingual’ rather than a native-speaker model. This may well be the implicit model of many
learners in foreign-language settings.
The role relationships between teacher and student influence learning in a classroom. In the
case of traditional approaches to language teaching, where the target language is perceived
primarily as an ‘object’ to be mastered by learning about its formal properties, the teacher
typically acts as a ‘knower/informer’ and the learner as an ‘information seeker’ (Corder,
1977). In the case of innovative approaches (for example, communicative language teaching)
where the emphasis is on the use of the target language in ‘social behaviour’ a number of
different role relationships are possible, depending on whether the participants are ‘playing at
talk’, as in role-play activities, or have a real-life purpose for communicating, as in
information gap activities; the teacher can be ‘producer’ or ‘referee’ and the learner ‘actor’ or
‘player’. However, Corder noted that even ‘informal learning’ inside the classroom may
differ from that found in natural settings.1 As noted earlier, classroom learners often fail to
develop much functional language ability, which may reflect the predominance of the
knower/information seeker role set in classrooms.
Parents may play an active role by monitoring their children’s curricular activities. They may
also play a more indirect role by modelling attitudes conducive to successful language
learning. A number of studies have found a positive relationship between parental
33
encouragement and achievement in L2 classroom learning (for example, Burstall, 1975;

Gardner and Smythe, 1975). Gardner (1985) argues that parents’ influence on proficiency is
mediated through the students’ motivation.
I will turn now to examine a Type 2 approach to examining language classroom settings.
Rampton (2006), drawing on the techniques of interactional sociolinguistics, documented
how foreign language learners of German in a London school used ‘Deutsch’ (i.e. their
spontaneous improvizations of German) outside their German classes—in break time, in
corridors, and in other subject lessons. Rampton found that the boys he studied made much
greater use of Deutsch than the girls but put this down to differences in their interactional
dispositions rather than their sex (i.e. the boys used it to show off).
Rampton suggested that the use of German words and phrases served as a resource for the
‘voluntary “performance” of exhuberant students intent on embellishing the curriculum
discourse in whatever ways they could’ (p. 163), for making ‘music’ out of their linguistic
resources and for ritual purposes (for example, thanking and apologizing). Rampton also
noted that German did not belong to anyone and therefore served as a racially-neutral
language that was ‘safe’ for linguistically heterogeneous students. Rampton noted however,
that the use of Deutsch was a ‘passing fad’. In an interview some 18 months after the last
classroom recording, the students who had been shown to use Deutsch said they no longer
used it and expressed a dislike of their German classes. Thus, whereas Rampton’s study sheds
light on how students can appropriate elements of a foreign language to enact their social
lives in and out of the classroom, it also suggests that such use may not contribute much to
their actual proficiency in the foreign language.
Skuttnab-Kangas (2000) noted that foreign language classroom settings are characterized by
very varying degrees of success. In countries where the learners’ L1 does not function as a
lingua franca the teachers are well-qualified and the language curricula are well designed (for
example, the Nordic countries and the Netherlands) high levels of proficiency are often
achieved. In such countries, learners may also have exposure to some exposure to the target
language outside the classroom (for example, through TV). In other countries (for example,
the UK, France, Japan, and the USA) the results are less impressive. Ultimately, success in
learning a language in a foreign language classroom may depend on to what extent the
learners see the language playing a role in whatever identity they wish to construct for
themselves.
Submersion
Skuttnab-Kangas (1988) defined a submersion programme as:
a programme where linguistic minority children with a low-status mother tongue are forced
to accept instruction through the medium of a foreign majority language with high status, in
classes where some children are native speakers of the language of the instruction, where the
teacher does not understand the mother tongue of the minority children, and where the
34
majority language constitutes a threat to their mother tongue—a subtractive language

learning situation. (p. 40)
Submersion is common in Britain and the United States, where ethnic minority children are
educated in mainstream classrooms. Skuttnab-Kangas (2000) also noted that deaf children
also experience submersion education as there are very few schools in the world teaching
deaf children through the medium of sign languages.
The characteristics of submersion settings are discussed by Cohen and Swain (1979) and
Baker (2006). Right from the beginning, L2 learners are taught with native speakers. This can
create communication problems and insecurity in the learners. If L1 support is provided, it is
of the ‘pull-out’ kind, which stigmatizes the L2 child and also deprives learners of the
opportunity to progress in content subjects. The language teachers are typically monolingual
and thus unable to communicate with the learners in their L1. In some cases, the learners are
actively discouraged from speaking in their L1. The students’ low academic performance
may reflect the low expectations that teachers often have of the students, particularly those
from certain ethnic groups (for example, Mexican American students in the United States).
Reading material and subject-matter instruction in the L1 are not available, resulting in
increased insecurity in the learners. Parental involvement in the school programme is usually
limited. There are often problems with the learner’ social and emotional adjustment to school.
For many learners, the disjunction between L1 use in the home and L2 use at school
constitutes a painful experience, as Rodriguez’ (1982) autobiography illustrates. Rodriguez
was the son of a Mexican immigrant who settled in a mainly white locality of California. At
school he was required to use English exclusively. At home Spanish was spoken, until his
parents accepted the advice of the Catholic nun teachers at his school to speak English.
Gradually, Rodriguez lost the ability to communicate in Spanish, signalling his rejection of
his Spanish-Mexican identity. Although Rodriguez was ultimately successful in developing a
high level of L2 proficiency, this was achieved at considerable personal and social cost.
Rodriguez himself, however, while acknowledging the discomfort he experienced at both
school and home, did not question the subtractive model of bilingualism to which he was
exposed. In contrast, other learners, do question it and refuse to assimilate (for example,
Skuttnab-Kangas (2000) mentioned two case studies of members of the Sami group in Nordic
countries in Europe who made strenuous efforts to maintain their L1 and develop literacy
skills in it).
Although submersion settings do not invariably result in lack of success in learning an L2 (as
the Rodriguez example demonstrates), in general they do not facilitate it and they can lead to
L1 attrition. Cummins (1988) identified three characteristics that are important for L2
acquisition; (1) a bilingual teacher who can understand students when they speak in their L1,
(2) input that has been modified to make it comprehensible, and (3) effective promotion of L1
literacy skills. Submersion contexts have none of these. Baker (2006) argued that the basic
assumption of submersion is assimilation, commenting that ‘the school has become a melting
pot to help create common social, political and economic ideals’ (p. 196).
35
Segregation
Segregation occurs where the L2 learner is educated separately from the majority or a
politically powerful minority, who speak the target language as their mother tongue. As
Baker (2006) put it, it ‘forces a monolingual policy on the relative powerless’ (p. 198).
Immigrants or migrant workers who are educated in special schools, centres, or units
designed to cater for their language needs constitute an example of segregation in a majority
setting. ‘Bantu education’ in Namibia prior to independence is an example of segregation in a
setting where a powerful minority spoke the official language (Afrikaans) as a mother tongue.
Skuttnab-Kangas (1988) claimed that segregation settings produce poor results. She argued
that the overall aim of education in these settings is the development of a limited L2
proficiency—sufficient to meet the needs of the majority or powerful minority and to ensure
their continued political and economic control. Although some support for L1 development is
provided, this is also usually limited. Negative L2-related factors identified by Skuttnab-
Kangas include the poor quality of L2 instruction and the lack of opportunity to practise the
L2 in peer-group contexts.
However, the case against segregation is not as clear-cut as Skuttnab-Kangas makes out. In
certain situations, the provision of separate educational facilities may have beneficial effects.
For example, short-term programmes for refugee populations newly arrived in the United
States or European countries can help them adjust socially, affectively, and linguistically to
the demands of their new country. It can also be argued that the maintenance of minority
languages requires at least some segregation. Magnet (1990), for example, drew on the
Canadian experience to argue that a minority language will only be viable if its speakers
enjoy a ‘degree of autonomy and segregation in order to develop in their own way’ (1990, p.
295). The advantages of segregation are also recognized by minority communities
themselves, as illustrated by their attempts to set up separate schools for their children. In a
later discussion of segregation, Skuttnab-Kangas (2000) acknowledged that it has ‘a
somewhat better record than submersion’ (p. 592).
Segregation also has some advantages where L2 learning is concerned. In particular, because
the learners are likely to be at the same level of development, it is possible to tailor input to
their level. Where the learners have different L1s, the L2 is likely to serve as a language of
classroom communication and not just as a learning target. This is likely to broaden the
functions that it typically serves. For these reasons, segregation may facilitate the
development of ‘survival skills’ in the L2. However, as Skuttnab-Kangas (2000) pointed out,
it has a number of disadvantages, such as the failure to develop high levels of bilingualism
and, in some contexts, negative societal consequences. She argued that, in contrast to mother
tongue maintenance settings it is distinctly inferior.
Mother tongue maintenance

Skuttnab-Kangas pointed out that mother tongue maintenance can take two forms. In the
weaker form, pupils are given classes in their mother tongue, directed at developing formal
language skills, including full literacy. In the stronger form, pupils are educated through the
36
medium of their mother tongue. Examples of the former are the programmes for Panjabi
established in Bradford, UK (Fitzpatrick 1987) and the Heritage Language Program
established in Ontario, Canada (Cummins, 1992). These programmes were all funded by
government or regional agencies. However, there is often reluctance on the part of such
agencies to pay for community language programmes. Saravanan (1995), for example,
reports that it took several years of lobbying to persuade the Singaporean government to
support community run classrooms in Hindi, Panjabi, Bengali, and Urdu. In the USA,
Chinese heritage community language schools are funded through tuition and private fund-
raising (Wang 1996). Examples of programmes where learners are educated through the
medium of their mother tongue can be found in the Finnish-medium classes for Finnish
migrant workers in Sweden (Skuttnab-Kangas, 1988). Summing up national policies and
practices regarding minority language maintenance in Western countries, Skuttnab-Kangas
(2000) commented: ‘Despite the small recent improvements, it seems clear that Western
countries have so far not respected what should be basic linguistic human rights, especially in
education, and that the world so far does little to prevent linguistic and cultural genocide’ (p.
563).
Mother tongue maintenance programmes are based on enrichment theory, according to which
high levels of bilingualism are seen as a cognitive and social advantage. This contrasts with
deficit theory, which views bilingualism as a burden and as likely to result in cognitive
disadvantage. The results of research strongly suggest that additive bilingualism (the goal of
mother tongue maintenance) confers linguistic, perceptual, and intellectual advantages. (See
Swain and Cummins, 1979 for a review.)
There is also evidence that mother tongue maintenance settings, particularly those of the
strong kind, result in considerable educational success (Skuttnab-Kangas, 1988). They are
characterized by positive organizational factors (for example, appropriate cultural content in
teaching materials), positive affective factors (for example, low anxiety, high internal
motivation, self-confidence in the learners), success in developing full control of the L1,
metacultural awareness, and a high level of proficiency in the L2.
Mother tongue maintenance provides support for L2 learning in two main ways. First, it
ensures that the L2 is an additional rather than a replacement language and thus results in
learners developing a positive self-identity. As Spolsky noted, learning an L2 is intimately
tied up with one’s personality and being forced to learn an L2 as a replacement for the L1 is a
‘direct assault on identity’ (1986, p. 188). Mother tongue maintenance, then, is more likely to
result in the positive attitudes needed for successful L2 development.
The second way involves a consideration of Cummins’ interdependency principle (Cummins

1981). This claims that whereas basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) develop
separately in the L1 and L2, cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) is common
across languages.2 Cummins noted that whereas L2 communicative skills are typically
mastered by immigrant learners in about two years, it can take from five to seven years for
the same learners to approach grade norms for L2 academic skills. The interdependency
37
principle has been demonstrated in a number of studies. Studies of the Portuguese-Canadian

community in Toronto (Cummins et al., 1990), of Japanese immigrant children in Canada
(Cummins and Nakajima, 1987), and of Turkish immigrant children in Holland (Verhoeven,
1991) support the importance of L1 academic skills as a basis for successful development of
L2 CALP. Swain and Lapkin (1991) also showed that literacy in a community language
benefits the learning of a second L2 (in this case, French) as a result of the transfer of
knowledge and learning processes. The notion of interdependency is an important one
because it suggests that the development of full L1 proficiency confers not only cognitive and
social advantages attendant on mother tongue use but also benefits the acquisition of L2
proficiency.
Immersion
Immersion programmes began with the St. Lambert Experiment (Lambert and Tucker, 1972),
a French immersion programme for English-speaking children living in Quebec, Canada.
Similar programmes were then started in other parts of Canada. Subsequently, immersion
programmes sprang up in many different parts of the world, for example in Hungary (Duff
1997), Finland (Bjorklund, 1997), and Catalonia (Artigal, 1997).
The term ‘immersion’ has come to refer to a number of different contexts, which need to be
clearly distinguished.
Initially, in the context of the Canadian French immersion programmes, it referred to

programmes where members of a majority group (native speakers of English) were educated
through the medium of French, the language of a minority group. There are a number of
variants of these programmes, depending on whether the programme begins early (for
example, in kindergarten) or late (for example, in Grades 4 or 7), and whether it is full (more
or less all instruction is conducted in the L2) or partial (only part of the curriculum is taught
through the L2). However, as Cummins (1988) pointed out, the term ‘immersion’ is used to
refer to a variety of programmes for minority students. He distinguishes ‘L2 monolingual
immersion programs for minority students’ which provide English-only instruction directed
at classes consisting entirely of L2 learners; ‘L1 bilingual immersion programs for minority
students’, which begin with L1-medium instruction, introducing L2-medium instruction some
time later; and ‘L2 bilingual immersion programs for minority students’, which emphasize
instruction in and on the L2 but which also promote L1 skills. He also noted that,
misleadingly, even submersion programmes have been referred to as ‘immersion’. Skuttnab-
Kangas (2000) took the view that the term ‘immersion’ should be reserved for programmes
where learners with a high-status L1 are taught through the medium of a low-status L2.
In an attempt to resolve definitional problems, Johnson and Swain (1997) identify a number
of core features of immersion programmes. These are:
1. The L2 is the medium of instruction.

2. The immersion curriculum parallels the local L2 curriculum.
3. Overt support for the L1 exists.
4. The programme aims for additive bilingualism (a feature that Skuttnab-Kangas
considers pivotal).
38
5. Exposure to the L2 is largely confined to the classroom.

6. Students enter with similar (and limited) levels of proficiency.
7. The teachers are bilingual.
8. The classroom culture is that of the local L1 community.
Swain and Lapkin (2005) reviewed these features in the light of the dramatic increase in
ethnic diversity in Canada’s urban centres, which make feature (8) problematic. They also
revised their views about restricting the learners’ use of the L1, acknowledging that
‘judicious use’ may be warranted.
The Canadian French immersion programmes have met with considerable success. Genesee
(1987) and Swain and Lapkin (1982) reviewed the various programmes, reaching similar
conclusions. English-speaking immersion students acquire normal English language
proficiency and show the same or better level of general academic development.
Furthermore, they tend to have less rigid ethnolinguistic stereotypes of the target-language
community, and place greater value on the importance of inter-ethnic contact. These
advantages are evident in ‘disadvantaged’ as well as ‘advantaged’ children.
Evaluation of the different kinds of programmes shows that in general, total immersion
produces better results than partial immersion, and also that early immersion does better than
late.
The Canadian French immersion settings also lead to a high level of L2 French proficiency,
particularly with regard to discourse and strategic competence, where learners achieve near-
native-speaker levels (Swain, 1985). However, such levels are not usually reached in
grammatical proficiency and, as Hammerley (1987) pointed out, in some cases a kind of
‘classroom pidgin’ can develop.3 Also, in comparison to younger immersion students (i.e.
second graders), older immersion learners (i.e. fifth and sixth graders) have been observed to
rely more on their L1 when interacting with each other. Tarone and Swain (1995) suggested
that this is because, whereas change from above occurs in early immersion (i.e. learners are
predominantly influenced by the superordinate style, represented in this case by L2 French),
older learners experience increasing pressure for change from below to perform important
interpersonal functions such as play, competition and positioning within their peer group and
resort to L1 English because they do not have access to a vernacular style French. Swain and
Tarone’s argument is supported by Caldas and Caron-Caldas’ (2002) study, which reported
that two adolescent children in a French immersion programme in Louisiana resisted using
French when speaking outside class with their peers.
Overall, however, immersion programmes are very successful in promoting L2 acquisition.

There are many reasons for this. One undoubtedly has to do with the fact that immersion
settings ensure a plentiful supply of input that has been tailored to the learners’ level and is
therefore comprehensible. There are also social reasons. The learners’ L1 and their ethnic
identity are not threatened, so it is easy for the learners to adjust to the immersion setting.
39
Furthermore, the immersion programmes are optional and, therefore, are well-supported by
those parents who elect to send their children to them.
Dual language
Dual language programmes are often referred to as ‘bilingual minority immersion
programmes’. They are common in the United States, where they have been controversial.
There has been considerable opposition to bilingual programmes for linguistic minorities, as
reflected in the Official English Movement—the attempt to have English designated as the
official language of the United States and to ensure that educational resources are directed
towards teaching English rather than some other language—see Bingaman 1990.
Cummins (1988) pointed out that the debate has centred on two arguments, both of which are
mistaken. Supporters of minority bilingual programmes have advanced the ‘linguistic-
mismatch’ argument, according to which minority children will be retarded academically if
they are required to learn exclusively through the L2. This is mistaken because the French
Canadian immersion programmes have shown conclusively that early instruction through the
medium of the L2 has no negative effects. Critics of bilingual immersion programmes have
also advanced the ‘maximum exposure’ argument, according to which bilingual education is
detrimental because it deprives learners of the exposure to the L2 necessary for successful
acquisition. This is refuted by programmes which show that minority children who spend less
time on English while they are developing L1 literacy skills ultimately do just as well in L2
academic skills as those who are educated exclusively through the L2. Cummins argued that
minority programmes that are designed in such a way that they reflect the interdependency
principle and the comprehensible input hypothesis have been shown to be successful.
Genesee, however, suggested that the success of minority immersion programmes also
depends on ‘changing the sociocultural fabric of the school’ (1987: 168–9). He noted that
ways are needed to upgrade the status and power attached to the minority language and to
teachers and support personnel who speak it as an L1. Genesee’s comment points to the need
to consider social as well as organizational factors in immersion education.
Conclusion
In this article, I have considered the relationship between different educational settings and
L2 learning. The aim has been to identify the potential learning outcomes associated with
different types of settings, defined in very broad terms. It is important to note that there will
be considerable variance in learning outcomes within settings as well as between settings.
Research to date (with the exception of that investigating the immersion programmes) has
focused more or less exclusively on identifying the actual or potential ‘learning opportunities’
that arise in the different settings rather than investigating ‘learning outcomes’.
It is possible to identify a set of general principles that underlie likely language learning
success in educational settings. The following is a list of such principles.
1.L1 maintenance—ensuring that learners achieve a high level of both oracy and literacy in
their L1 will promote learning of the L2.
40
2. Perceptions of L1—learning is enhanced when the setting confers status on both their L1
and the L2.
3. Social need—learners learn best when they have a clear social need for the L2. This social
need is highly varied, however. (For example, it can derive from the desire for power and
status, from the use of the L2 as a medium of instruction, from the importance learners attach
to achieving social cohesion, or from the ‘gaming’ that takes place in peer groups.)
4.Target norms—success in L2 learning cannot always be measured in terms of a set of

norms based on a standard form of the language. Learners may be targeted on a nativized
variety of the language or on a local dialect. There may a conflict between the norms the
students are targeted on and the norms the educational setting promotes.
5. Initial learning—initial L2 learning is more successful if learners have the opportunity to

learn within an L1 speaking group (as opposed to a context where they are immersed in a
group of native speakers).
Notes
1. This discussion of roles focuses on the interactional roles adopted by teachers and learners
in the classroom. Such roles reflect the status of the participants as teachers and students.
They reflect the positions which educational institutions expect them to adopt. These are
socially and culturally determined. This may be why teachers in some African and Asian
countries seem to find it especially difficult to abandon the traditional role of ‘knower’.
2. Contrary to Cummins’ claim, there is also some evidence that BICS is interdependent.
Verhoeven (1991) showed that children’s ability to produce context-embedded language in
an L2 matches their ability to do so in their L1.
3. Hammerley’s attack on the Canadian French immersion programmes has come in for
considerable criticism. Collier (1992, p. 87), for example, characterizes his 1989 book as an
‘emotional, polemical, one-sided account of his personal views … with scant research
evidence cited to undergird his opinions’.
References
Artigal, J. (1997). The Catalan immersion program. In R. Johnson and M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion
Education: International Perspectives (pp. 133-150). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Bingaman, J. (1990). On the English proficiency act. In K. Adams and D. Brinks (Eds.),
Perspectives on official English: The campaign for English as the official language of the
USA. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bjorklund, S. (1997). Immersion in Finland in the 1990s: A state of development and expansion.
In R. Johnson and M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion Education: International Perspectives (pp.
85-102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burstall, C. (1975). Factors affecting foreign-language learning: a consideration of some relevant
41
research findings. Language Teaching and Linguistics Abstracts, 8, 105- 125.

Caldas, S. and Caron-Caldas, S. (2002). A sociolinguistic analysis of the language preferences of
adolescent bilinguals: Shifting allegiances and developing identities. Applied Linguistics, 23,
490-514.
Cohen, A. and Swain, M. (1979). Bilingual education: The 'immersion' model in the North
American context. In J. Pride (Ed.), Sociolinguistic aspects of language learning and
teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corder, S. P. (1977). Language teaching and learning: A social encounter. In H. Brown, C. Yorio,
and R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL '77. Washington D.C.: TESOL.
Coupland, N. (2001). ‘Introduction: Sociolinguistic theory and social theory.’ in N.
Coupland, S. Sarangi and C. Candlin (Eds.), Sociolinguistic and social theory (pp.1-26). Harlow:
Pearson Education.
Cummins, J. (1981). Bilingualism and minority children. Ontario: Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education.
Cummins, J. (1988). Second language acquisition within bilingual education programs. In L. Beebe
(Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: multiple perspectives (pp. 145-166). New
York: Newbury House.
Cummins, J. (1992). Heritage language teaching in Canadian schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
24, 281-6.
Cummins, J., Harley, B., Swain, M. and Allen, P. (1990). Social and individual factors in the
development of bilingual proficiency. In Harley et al. (Eds.), The development of second
language proficiency (pp. 119-133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. and Nakajima, K. (1987). Age of arrival, length of residence, and interdependence of
literacy skills among Japanese immigrant students. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins and M.
Swain (Eds.). The development of bilingual proficiency: Final report. Volume III: Social context
and age. Toronto: Modern Language Centre, O.I.S.E.
Duff, P. (1997). Immersion in Hungary: An EFL experiment. In R. Johnson and M. Swain
(Eds.), Immersion Education: International Perspectives (pp. 19-43). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Fitzpatrick, F. (1987). The open door: The Bradford bilingual project. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Gardner, R. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitude and
motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. and Smythe, P. (1975). Second language acquisition: A social psychological approach.
Research Bulletin 332. Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario. Cited in
Gardner 1985.
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual
education. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Hammerley, H. (1987). The immersion approach: Litmus test of second language acquisition
through classroom communication. Modern Language Journal, 71, 395-401.
Janicki, K. (1985). The foreigner's language: A sociolinguistic perspective. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Johnson, R. and Swain, M. (Eds.) (1997). Immersion education: International perspectives.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lambert, W. and Tucker, G. (1972). The bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert
experiment. Rowley, MA.: Newbury House.
Magnet, J. (1990). Canadian perspectives on official English. In K. Adams and D. Brink (Eds.),
Perspectives on official English: the campaign for English as the official language of the
USA. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Miller, J. (2004). Identity and language use: The politics of speaking ESL in schools. In A. Pavlenko
and A. Blackledge, I. Piller, and M. Teutsch-Dwyer (Eds.), Multilingualism, Second
Language Learning, and Gender (pp. 290-315). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Poole, D. (1992). Language socialization in the second language classroom. Language Learning,
42, 593-616.
Preston, D. (1981). The ethnography of TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 105-16.
42
Preston, D. (1989). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Rampton, B. (2006). Language in later modernity: Interaction in an urban school. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Rodriguez, R. (1982). Hunger of memory: The education of Richard Rodriguez. Boston: David R.
Godine.
Saravanan, V. (1995). Linguistic and cultural maintenance through education for minority groups in
Singapore. In M. Tickoo (Ed.), Language and culture in multilingual societies (pp. 139-151).
Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Skuttnab-Kangas, T. (1988). Multilingualism and the education of minority children. In T. Skuttnab-
Kangas and J. Cummins (Eds.), Minority education (pp. 9-44).. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Skuttnab-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education – or worldwide diversity in
human rights? Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Spolsky, B. (1986). Overcoming language barriers to education in a multilingual world. In B.
Spolsky (Ed.), Language and education in multilingual settings. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds.), Input in
second language acquisition (pp. 235-256) Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Swain, M. and Cummins, J. (1979). Bilingualism, cognitive functioning and education. Language
Teaching and Abstracts, 4-18. Reprinted in V. Kinsella (Ed.), 1982. Surveys 1: Eight
state-of-the-art articles on key areas in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1982). Evaluating bilingual education: A Canadian case study.
Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1991). Heritage language children in an English-French bilingual program.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 47, 635-41.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (2005). The evolving socio-political context of immersion education in
Canada: some implications for program development. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 15, 169-186.
Tarone, E. and Swain, M. (1995). A sociolinguistic perspective on second-language use in
immersion classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 79, 166-178.
Tosi, A. (1984). Immigration and bilingual education. Oxford: Pergamon.
Verhoeven, L. (1991). Predicting minority children's bilingual proficiency: child, family and
institutional factors. Language Learning, 41, 205-233.
Wang, X. (Ed.). (1996). A view from within: A case study of Chinese heritage community language
schools in the United States. Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center.
43
Article Title
Understanding EFL Learners’ Strategy Use and Strategy Awareness
Authors
Kyoung Rang Lee, Ph.D.
Sejong University, Korea
Rebecca Oxford, Ph.D.

University of Maryland, U.S.A.
Biography:
Kyoung Rang Lee is an Assistant Professor at Sejong University in Seoul, Korea. She is
interested in individual differences in teaching and learning English, including learning
strategies of both teachers and students. Currently, she is devoted to better understanding and
promoting Koreans’ English learning strategy awareness and use.
Rebecca Oxford is Professor and Distinguished Scholar-Teacher at the University of

Maryland. She has authored or edited a number of books on learning strategies, motivation,
and language education. She has also edited the Tapestry Program, a series of English
textbooks for college students.
Abstract
This study discusses the statistically significant impact of Korean students’ (from middle
school, high school, and university, N=1,110) strategy awareness, English-learning self-
image, and Importance of English on language learning strategy use. Students who had
certain characteristics – valuing English as important (Importance of English), evaluating
their own proficiency as high (English-learning self-image), and being already aware of many
language learning strategies – employed learning strategies more frequently than those who
did not (all significant at p<.000). As expected, strategy awareness and strategy use were
related to the Korean cultural context. Cognitive and cultural interpretations of the results
were presented. Implications for English language learners including Korean students were
also addressed.
Keywords: English learning strategies, strategy use, strategy awareness, self-image,

Importance of English
Introduction
English is one of the most important subjects in many schools around the world, including
Korea. These days many countries have introduced English classes to elementary schools,
and many adults study English even after graduating from universities. For example, Korean
students study English for at least 10 years on the average: three years in middle school, three
years in high school, and four years at the university. In spite of this enthusiasm for studying
English, the profile of Korean students’ strategies for learning English is not well researched,
which is similar to that of English learners’ strategies in the context of English as a foreign
44
language (EFL). Likewise, “learning strategy” is still quite a vague concept to Korean EFL
learners, although learning strategies could definitely help them learn English more
efficiently if they knew and employed such strategies consciously.
Many education studies have investigated learning strategies since the 1980’s, and this has
also been a trend in second and foreign language education. Researchers have discovered that
successful L2 learners, compared with their less successful classmates, used more strategic
mental processes (learning strategies) and employed them more frequently; this strategy use
was shown to occur before, during, and after L2 tasks (Oxford, 1994; Oxford, Cho, Leung, &
Kim, 2004). Oxford (1990) pointed out how important learning strategies are, both in theory
and in practice, for language learners. Rubin (1994) described learning strategies as behaviors
that would contribute to developing learner’s language system affecting learning directly.
This information provides a background for understanding the L2 strategy research reviewed
in this section.
Strategy Use
Strategy Use and Gender
Many empirical studies show women are different from men in language learning strategy
use, with women generally using more strategies than men, but not in all cases (Dreyer &
Oxford, 1996; Green & Oxford, 1995; Lan & Oxford, 2003; Lee & Oh, 2001; Oxford &
Ehrman, 1995).
Oxford, Nyikos, and Ehrman (1988) summarized four studies concerning gender differences
in language learning, confirming that females use a greater range of language learning
strategies. Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990) discovered that girls use metacognitive
strategies, such as goal-setting, planning, keeping records, and monitoring, more than boys.
According to Green and Oxford (1995), 15 out of 50 strategies on the Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning (SILL; Oxford, 1990) showed differences between women and men in
terms of strategy use, with women using them more frequently, while only one strategy was
used more often by men than women. Oxford and Ehrman’s (1995) comprehensive study,
with 520 language learners for an average of 20 weeks, also discovered that females’ use of
strategies was more frequent than males’. Lan and Oxford (2003) found that with the
Taiwanese Children’s SILL, significant differences in strategy use between girls and boys
were present for 11 out of 50 strategies, with these differences in favor of greater strategy use
by girls.
In contrast to these significant gender differences, there are also studies showing a less clear
distinction in strategy use between males and females (Dadour & Robbins, 1996; Oh, 1996;
Park, 1999). Kaylani (1996) found out that girls are different from boys in terms of strategy
use, not because of only gender, but because of gender in relation to proficiency.
Strategy Use and Major
Similar to gender, academic majors generally affect students’ use of learning strategies.
Generally speaking, students majoring in humanities used more and a wider range of
strategies than those majoring in science/engineering in several studies (e.g., Lee, 1994; Park,
45
1999). Dreyer and Oxford (1996) and Oxford and Nyikos (1989) also showed significant
influences of university majors on students’ strategy use.
Strategy Use and Age
Many strategy studies have been conducted with college students or adults (Dadour &
Robbins, 1996; Green & Oxford, 1995; Leki, 1995; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995; Phillips, 1991).
Some studies have focused on younger students or have compared younger learners with
college students (Dörnyei, 1995; Kaylani, 1996; Lan & Oxford, 2003; Lee, 2000; National
Capital Language Resource Center [NCLRC], 1996 & 2000). Several studies showed that
young learners tended to use social strategies more than other types of strategies, including
discussing with and asking help from others (Lee, 2000; Wong Fillmore et al., 1985). In
contrast, adult learners have shown high use of metacognitive strategies for planning,
organizing, and evaluating their own L2 learning (Oh, 1992; Touba, 1992).
Strategy Use and English Proficiency (English-Learning Self-Image)
Since numerous studies about L2 learning strategies have been rooted in the distinction
between good and poor learners, there are many studies about the relationship between
strategy use and L2 proficiency. Some have used actual proficiency test scores (Dreyer &
Oxford, 1995; Green & Oxford, 1995; Phillips, 1991), while others have used proficiency
self-ratings (Wharton, 2000). Most researchers have agreed that more proficient learners
employ a wider range of strategies more efficiently than less proficient learners (Green &
Oxford, 1995; Kaylani, 1996; Lan & Oxford, 2003; Oxford, 1996; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995;
Philips, 1991). Strategy use was significantly correlated with English proficiency scores of
university students learning English as a second language (ESL) in South Africa (r=.73,
p<.0001) (Dreyer & Oxford, 1996). Research in Asia, such as in Thailand (Mullins, 1992), in
Japan (Watanabe, 1990), and in Korea (Kim, 2000; Lee, 2000; Lee & Oh, 2001; J. Park,
2001; Y. Park, 1999; Yoon, Won, & Kang, 2001), also showed strong, positive correlations
between strategy use and EFL proficiency.
Strategy Awareness
Most investigators have agreed that awareness helps students learn a language and use
strategies, at least in the earlier stages of learning (Chamot, 1998; Cohen, 1995; NCLRC,
1996; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Oxford & Cohen, 1992). According to
Cohen (1995), when students are no longer aware of their behaviors to learn a language, these
behaviors are, by definition, no longer strategies but are instead processes; thus, he was
emphasizing, through definitions, the importance of strategy awareness (a key element of
consciousness) (see also, Carrell, Gajdusek, & Wise, 1998). Chamot (1998) stressed that
learning strategies are teachable (see also Green & Oxford, 1995), i.e., that students can
become more aware of strategies through strategy instruction. Chamot (1998) also stated that
awareness of one’s own strategies is closely related to metacognition, adding that more
successful learners have better and more metacognitive awareness.
Despite the importance of awareness, few studies have been done concerning students’
metacognitive awareness of L2 strategies. Carrell (1989, 1991) used a questionnaire,
Metacognitive Awareness Strategies Questionnaire (MASQ, 1989), to measure metacognitive
strategies. Results underscored the effects of metacognitive awareness on reading and the
importance of discerning learners’ level of awareness of reading strategies. Though many
46
researchers believe that learner awareness is a necessary feature of strategy use (e.g., Carrell,
1989; Cohen, 1995), we still can see situations like Baker and Brown (1984) pointed out:
when a reader did not describe how to use a particular strategy but did in fact use it. This will
become important in considering the results of the current study.
Based on the previous research, the current study aims to help to better understand Korean
learners’ English learning strategies in terms of strategy awareness, English-learning self-
image, and importance of English, which have been known to be related with strategy use. In
this study, Oxford’s (1990) SILL is used to measure Korean English language learners’
strategy use, and a column has been added next to each strategy on the SILL to ask whether
the participants are aware of each strategy 1. The Background Information Questionnaire was
administered to measure other relevant variables, such as gender, major, education level,
English-learning self-image, and importance of English. At the same time, the study
examined the culturally-related construct validity of the SILL for Korean EFL learners.
Based on this goal, this study asks the following research questions:
(1) Are there any significant main effects or interaction effects of the following variables on
strategy use: (a) gender, (b) major, (c) education level, (d) English-learning self-image, (e)
importance of English, and (f) strategy awareness?
(2) Which are the best predictors of strategy use among the given variables?
(3) Are there any significant main effects or interaction effects of the given variables on
strategy awareness: (a) gender, (b) major, (c) education level, (d) English-learning self-
image, and (e) importance of English?
(4) Which are the best predictors of strategy awareness among the given variables?
(5) What strategies do Korean EFL students use that are not reflected in the SILL?
(6) What strategies in the SILL do students perceive as culturally relevant in the Korean EFL
situation?
Methods
This study primarily used quantitative methods to gain broader perspectives on Korean EFL
learners’ strategy use. However, two open-ended questions were added to the main
questionnaire, the SILL, to provide in-depth, qualitative data.
Participants
More than 1,000 students, ranging from middle school to university students, participated in
this study. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the participants. Data were collected from one
middle school, three high schools, and two universities. Table 2 displays the locations of the
schools and the socioeconomic status of the participants.
Table 1. Total Participants and Number of Participants by Gender
. Total Male Female

Middle School 379 188 191
High School 438 256 182
University 293 173 120
Total 1,110 617 493
47
Table 2. Geographic Location of Each Educational Institution and General Socioeconomic

Status of Students in Each Institution
General Socioeconomic Status (SES) of

. Geographic Location
Students
Middle -This middle school is in the eastern Medium to high SES
School part of Seoul
High School -One high school is in the suburbs of Medium to high SES
Seoul Medium to high SES
-Others are in the eastern part of Seoul
University -One university is in Seoul Both have mixed SES (ranging from
-One university is in the middle of low SES to high SES). These are the
Korea best-known universities in their regions.
Instrumentation
Version 7.0 of the SILL (Oxford, 1990) was chosen for this study but was extended in certain
new ways, as described below. This version includes 50 quantitative, close-ended items 2,
with each item measuring the frequency with which respondents use the particular strategy.
Examples of items on Version 7.0 are: “I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to
study English,” and “I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them.”
Students responded to each strategy item using a Likert scale of 1 through 5 to reveal the
frequency with which they used the strategy, with 1 representing “Never or almost never true
of me” (i.e., rarely or never used) and 5 representing “Always or almost always true of me”
(i.e., always or almost always used).
The SILL contains six factor-analytically created strategy categories: memory-related

(primarily for helping vocabulary enter long-term memory), cognitive (for processing and
practicing language information), compensatory (for making up for missing knowledge, as in
guessing from the context), metacognitive (for planning, organizing, and evaluating one’s
own learning), affective (for managing emotion and motivation), and social strategies (for
working with others or asking questions of others). The exploratory factor analysis on which
the categories were initially based was conducted with 1,200 U.S. foreign language students
studying a variety of languages, including French, Spanish, German, Russian, and Italian
(Nyikos & Oxford, 1993; Oxford, 1996). Other studies have factor analyzed the SILL in EFL
contexts (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002; Oxford, 1996; Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995). Hsiao and
Oxford (2002) reported a confirmatory factor analysis, which tested 15 potential strategy-use
models with several strategy questionnaires. The SILL was the only strategy questionnaire
that showed acceptable fit indices 3.
The first author translated the SILL into Korean and then compared it to three other, already
published Korean translations of the SILL. We wanted to ensure that the translation used in
this study was as faithful as possible to the English version. Since three versions of the
translated SILL in Korean (Lee, 1994; Park, 1999; Park, Kim, & Park, 2003) were already
available, the first author used an adapted Parallel Blind Technique (Behling & Law, 2000) to
compare the four Korean translations, hers and the three published translations. In the Parallel
Blind Technique, two or more translators independently translate the material. After the
translations are complete, the works are compared for the purpose of identifying and
resolving discrepancies. This study’s translation of the SILL was further checked and
approved by a Korean English teacher who holds a master’s degree in English education and
48
was in her thirteenth year of teaching English in Korea at the time of the study. This
additional check was done to ensure that the wording of all items was appropriate for students
from middle school through university. In this study the 50 Korean-translated strategy-use
items had an overall reliability (Cronbach alpha) of .94, N=1,110. This is approximately the
same level of reliability as typically found with the 50-item version of the SILL (Oxford,
1996).
For the first time, a measurement of metacognitive strategy awareness was added to the SILL.
Specifically, students were asked to respond to the following question with regard to each
strategy-use item: “Did you know (think about) this strategy before now?” The intention was
to discover whether the respondents were aware of a given strategy prior to taking the SILL.
This was important because this basic awareness should precede “metacognitve knowledge
about specific strategies [the value of procedures as well as when and where to use
strategies]” (Pressley, Goodchild, Fleet, Zajchowski, & Evans, 1989, p.305), which plays a
very important role in adequate transfer of strategy use. This move thus added to the SILL 50
dichotomous (yes-no) strategy-awareness items, each corresponding to a given strategy. The
overall reliability of these 50 strategy-awareness items was calculated with a total of 1,090
Korean students responding to these items; the Cronbach alpha reliability index was .94.
New qualitative items were also added to the SILL. The qualitative items were as follows: (a)
“Can you identify any strategies you have been using but that you can’t find in this SILL? If
so, please list the strategies below.” (b) “If you found any strategy on the SILL that cannot
easily be employed in Korea, please write down the strategy. If you can revise it for use in the
Korean situation, please do so.” These items were added for this study to discover any
cultural beliefs and practices relating to strategy use, as well as to examine the culturally-
related validity of the SILL in an EFL situation where English native speakers are rare.
The Background Information Questionnaire was adapted from Oxford’s (1990) Background
Questionnaire (p. 282). It was originally written in English and then translated into Korean.
Items concerned gender, major, current education level (middle school, high school, and
university), importance of English, and English-learning self-image. The item assessing
importance of English was, “How important is it for you to become proficient in English?”
with the following response options: very important, important, somewhat important, not so
important, and not important at all. Also, the item measuring English-learning self-image
was, “How do rate your overall English proficiency as compared with the proficiency of
other students in your class?” (emphasis in original). Response options in the current study
included: excellent, very good, good, fair, and poor. We felt it was very important to obtain
students’ metacognitive self-assessment of proficiency vis-à-vis their peers because we agree
with motivational theorists like Harter (1986). They believe that “humans have complex
perceptions of themselves and their competences. . . All of these self-perceptions have
motivational properties, with competence on a task more directly influenced by task-limited
self-perceptions than global self-esteem” (Pressley et al., 1989, p. 307). We consider that this
self-perception on his/her own English proficiency will play a very important role in actual
performances. In addition, one of the most important themes of this study is awareness of
one’s own strategy use; therefore, we considered self-rated English proficiency to be more
relevant to our study than standardized test scores 4.
Data Collection and Analysis Procedures
49
The questionnaires were distributed to eight teachers, who administered them to students as
in-class activities. This made it possible to obtain complete responses from almost all
intended participants. A very small number of students (<1%) answered all the same answers
to every item in an insincere manner, so their responses were excluded from this study. The
first author provided guidelines to help teachers administer the questionnaires, and the
teachers explained to their students that the results would not affect their grades in any way.
The students answered the questionnaires voluntarily, and those who did not wish to
participate did not have to do so.
Quantitative analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS 13.0). For various research questions, independent t-tests, and multiple regression
analysis were employed. For the Likert-scaled strategy-use items on the SILL, the following
key helped to interpret the means: 3.5 to 5.0, high use; 2.5 to 3.4, medium use; and 1.0 to 2.4,
low use (Oxford, 1990). The qualitative results were summarized, categorized, and analyzed
for frequency of mention. The answers to the two open-ended SILL questions were translated
from Korean to English. To assess the quality of the translation, the Korean English-teacher
in Korea and a Korean-English bilingual doctoral student in the U.S. were asked to compare
the Korean responses to the two open-ended SILL items with the corresponding English
translations. This process revealed that there were no areas of translation discrepancy.
Results
In this section, these qualitative as well as quantitative results are presented in terms of
strategy use, strategy awareness, and Korean EFL learners’ English learning strategies.
Strategy Use
In contrast to preconceptions about Asians as constant memory-strategy users, compensatory

strategies for making up for missing knowledge were used the most frequently (mean=3.10,
SD=.83, medium use range) of the six strategy categories. The other strategy categories in
order of frequency of use for the entire sample (all ages) were as follows: metacognitive
(mean=2.83, SD=.81, medium use range), cognitive (mean=2.79, SD=.67, medium use
range), memory (mean=2.61, SD=.71, medium use range), affective (mean=2.48, SD=.76,
medium to low use range), and social strategies (mean=2.43, SD=.87, low use range).
Table 3 shows the different profile of strategy use in terms of the given variables. As shown
by many previous studies, (a) women used strategies more often than men (t=3.47, df=1108,
p<.01), and (b) students majoring in humanities, more often than those majoring in
science/engineering (t=1.96, df=989, p<.05). In addition, (c) strategy use was higher for the
following groups than for other groups: university students (F=29.74, df=2, p<.05), students
who rated their proficiency as excellent (F=54.45, df=4, p<.001), students who considered
English to be important (F=37.47, df=4, p<.001), and students who were typically aware of
strategies (t=15.69, df=1088, p<.001).
Table 3. Strategy Use by Different Variables
Variable Strategy Use Means (1 to 5)

Awareness Yes No . . .
2.94 2.41 (N=449)
(N=641)
Gender Female Male . . .
50
2.79 2.67 (N=617)

(N=493)
Major Humanities Science/Engineering . . .
2.77 2.69 (N=433)
(N=558)
Education Level Middle High School University . .
School 2.57 (N=438) 2.91
2.75 (N=293)
(N=379)
English-learning Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent
Self-image 2.24 (N=89) 2.47 (N=159) 2.63 2.92 3.14
(N=388) (N=358) (N=112)
Importance Not Not so important Somewhat Quite Very
important 2.16 (N=23) important important important
1.90 (N=16) 2.41 2.70 2.91
(N=159) (N=452) (N=454)
Table 4 shows that the main effects of (a) strategy awareness, (b) education level, (c)
English-learning self-image, and (d) importance of English on strategy use were very
significant. Gender and major did not have significant main effects alone; however, gender
showed significant interaction effects with other variables. Strategy awareness had a
significant main effect on strategy use; the more that a student was aware of strategies, the
more the student reported using strategies. Evidence from means also showed the
significantly higher use of strategies by those who answered “yes” than “no” to the awareness
questions. Education level also showed a significant main effect on strategy use. Specifically,
university students used strategies the most frequently, followed by middle school students
and high school students. Reasons for this possibly surprising finding are explored in the
discussion section. Another significant main effect was found for self-image, that is, the
students’ self-rating of their English proficiency. A fourth significant main effect appeared
for importance of English (perceived importance of English).
Table 4. Main Effects and Interaction Effects on Strategy Use
Dependent variable: Strategy Use

Type III df Mean F Sig. Eta Squared
Sum of Squares
Source Squares
Corrected Model 179.55 179 1.00 4.30 .000 .49
Intercept 289.81 1 289.81 1241.33 .000 .61
Awareness 28.85 1 28.85 123.56 .000 .14
Gender .014 1 .014 .06 .808 .00
Education Level 1.71 2 .86 3.66 .026 .01
Major .003 1 .003 .011 .916 .00
English-learning Self-image 5.77 4 1.44 4.18 .000 .03
Importance of English 7.36 4 1.84 7.88 .000 .04
Gender * Education level 1.74 2 .87 3.73 .024 .01
Gender * Major 1.15 1 1.15 4.96 .027 .01
Gender * Self-image 3.32 4 .83 3.55 .007 .02
51
Gender * Importance of English 2.31 3 .77 3.30 .020 .01

Gender * Self-image * Importance 3.75 8 .47 2.01 .043 .02
of English
Five interaction effects were significant. Without a significant main effect, gender played an
important role in all the interaction effects: (a) gender with education level, (b) gender with
major, (c) gender with self-image, (d) gender with importance of English, and (e) gender with
self-image and importance of English.
According to Cohen (1988), a large effect size is .40 or over, a medium effect size is .25 to
.39, and a small effect size is .10 to .24. Applying Cohen’s criteria for effect size, the overall
model had a large effect size (.49). Effect sizes for the individual main effects and the
interaction effects were not as impressive as the overall model’s effect size. The significant
main effect for strategy awareness had a small effect size (.14). Effect sizes for other
significant main effects (i.e., for education level, self-image, and importance of English) and
for significant interaction effects were all very small, although they contributed to the large
overall model effect size.
To discover the best predictors of overall strategy use among the given variables, a stepwise
multiple linear regression was conducted. The relationship between the predictors and
strategy use was R=.60, and the predictors explained 36% of the variability in strategy use
(R2=.36, Adjusted R2=.36, p=.000). This is a large amount of variance explained for an
educational study such as this.
Table 5. Multiple Regression Results of Strategy Use
Model R R2 Adjusted R2 F Sig
1 50a .25 .25 321.44 000a
2 57b .32 .32. 229.04 000b
3 60c .36 .36 181.24 000c
4 60d .36 .36 137.79 000d
1. predictor: strategy awareness

2. predictors: strategy awareness, English-learning self-image
3. predictors: strategy awareness, English-learning self-image, importance of English
4. predictors: strategy awareness, English-learning self-image, importance of English,
education level
Strategy awareness was the best predictor (Beta=.37, p=.000) of strategy use, followed by
English-learning self-image (self-rated proficiency) (Beta=.25, p=.000), importance of
English (Beta=.19, p=.000), and education level (Beta=.07, p=.012). Gender and major were
not significant predictors of overall strategy use. One quarter of the variance in strategy use
was explained by strategy awareness alone (R2=.25, Adjusted R2=.25, p=.000).
52
Strategy Awareness
Similarly to the results of strategy use, Korean students were aware of compensatory
strategies (mean=.62, SD=.30) best, followed by metacognitive (mean=.60, SD=.30),
cognitive (mean=.56, SD=.26), memory (mean=.53, SD=.28), social (mean=.49, SD=.34),
and affective strategies (mean=.46, SD=.30).
Table 6 shows the different profile of strategy awareness in terms of the given variables: (a)
university students were the most aware of strategies of all (F=44.30, df=2, p<.001), and (b)
students who rated their English proficiency as excellent (F=2.493, df=4, p<.001) and those
who considered English to be very important (F=16.62, df=4, p<.001) were more aware of
strategies than other students.
Table 6. Strategy Awareness by Different Variables
Variable Strategy Awareness Means (Yes=1, No=0)

Gender Female Male . . .
.56 (N=486) .54
(N=604)
Major Humanities Science/Engineering . . .
.56 (N=548) .53
(N=425)
Education Level Middle High School University . .
School .48 .64 (N=284)
.56 (N=371) (N=435)
English-learning Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent
Self-image .48 .46 .51 (N=382) .61 .65 (N=108)
(N=88) (N=157) (N=352)
Importance Not Not so important Somewhat Quite Very
important .37 important important important
.42 (N=23) .45 (N=158) .55 .59 (N=449)
(N=16) (N=439)
Table 7 shows that the main effects of (a) education level, (b) English-learning self-image,
and (c) importance of English on strategy awareness were very significant. Gender and major
did not have significant main effects. The only significant interaction effect on strategy
awareness was found for the combination of these variables: major, English-learning self-
image, and importance of English.
Table 7. Main Effects and Interaction Effects on Strategy Awareness
Dependent variable: Strategy Use

Type III df Mean F Sig. Eta Squared
Sum of Squares
Source Squares
Corrected Model 18.17 178 .10 2.26 .000 .34
Intercept 33.20 1 33.20 735.66 .000 .48
Gender .021 1 .021 .46 .496 .00
53
Education Level .70 2 .35 7.73 .000 .02

Major .01 1 .01 .20 .658 .00
English-learning Self-image .68 4 .17 3.79 .005 .02
Importance of English 1.02 4 .26 5.65 .000 .03
Major * Self-image * .92 8 .12 2.54 .010 .03
Importance of English
The effect size of the overall strategy awareness model had a medium effect size (.34), a little
lower than that of the overall strategy use model. However, the effect sizes of the variables
were very small despite the significant main effects.
Predictors of strategy awareness were also tested by a stepwise multiple linear regression.
Because strategy awareness was one of the best predictors of strategy use, finding its best
predictors would ultimately help teachers teach students how to promote strategy use and
how to use strategies properly. However, the overall relationship between strategy awareness
and its predictors was not very high (R=.35), so the proportion of the variability in strategy
awareness explained by the predictors was small (R2=.12, Adjusted R2=.12, p=.000). Among
the given variables, students’ self-rated English proficiency (English-learning self-image)
(Beta=.24, p=.000) was the best predictor of strategy awareness, followed by rating of
importance of English (Beta=.17, p=.000) and education level (Beta=.13, p=.000). Gender
and major were not significant predictors.
Korean EFL Learners’ Strategies
The results of this question indicated that participants were using different kinds of memory
strategies from those on the SILL. Most write-in answers to Research Question 5 were about
the specific memory strategies favored by Koreans, such as repetition and dictation. Most
students said, “I write a lot to memorize English words or expressions,” and “I repeat a tape a
lot so that I can get used to its expressions.” Table 8 shows the top five write-in responses of
this question. More specifically, Table 9 shows the different strategies used by different
education levels.
Table 8. Koreans’ Strategies Not Reflected in the SILL
Order Strategy
1 I write a lot to memorize English words or expressions.
2 I repeat a tape a lot so that I can get used to its expressions.
3 I dictate while listening to English tapes several times.
4 I watch a movie / listen to a pop song until I memorize the lines.
5 I put new words or expressions on everywhere to memorize them any time.
Middle school students especially liked writing English words or expressions several times to
memorize them, or having pen pals to write English letters regularly. They also tried to write
English words or sentences and post them wherever they could see them often. In addition,
they recorded their reading in English to correct wrong pronunciations, or they played games
to learn English.
High school students also liked writing new words or expressions several times to learn them
by heart. Some high school students even kept a journal of wrong answers not to make the
54
same mistake again, which is a test-oriented strategy. Similar to the quantitative SILL results
about frequency of strategy use, high school students listed fewer strategies than those in the
middle school or universities. In particular, only high school students did not write in a new
strategy related to seeing movies in English, because studying for the entrance examination
had discouraged them from seeing movies. Instead, high school students tried to come up
with an motivating reason why they must study English, or associate words or sentences with
what they liked, which may be related to the fact that more than half of high school students
did not enjoy English.
In contrast, university students did not have to memorize English words or sentences like
high school and middle school students did. Thus, they wrote that they used entertaining
materials, such as English tapes, movies, the Internet, newspaper, or magazines, to make
themselves get used to sounds and expressions. They usually filled in blanks or dictated
whole sentences while listening to English. In addition, they imitated English speaking actors
or actresses, or tried to come up with their lines in advance while watching a movie.
University students were more positive about opportunities for contacting native speakers and
for traveling to English-speaking countries. They also used monolingual dictionaries instead
of bilingual dictionaries.
In general, Korean students depended on mass media, such as English movies, popular songs,
and books written in English, in order to compensate for the lack of native English speakers.
This seemed a reason that made most students tended not to use social strategies, except for a
few university students. Korean specific educational situation, where the entrance
examination is the most important in students’ life, high school students used test-oriented
strategies mostly unlike the others who are not immediately facing it.
Table 9. Different Strategies by Different Education Levels
. Strategy
Middle -write to memorize English a lot
School -make a pen pal to write English letter regularly
Students -read books written in English
-put new words on everywhere to read and memorize the words
-memorize a whole sentence
-repeat the tape a lot
-record my own voice and listen to correct it
-listen to English one hour a day
-watch movies without scripts
-learn English through games
High -write to memorize English a lot
School -prepare a notebook to gather wrong answers
Students -write new expressions and read them very often
-don’t give up despite the bad scores
-come up a motivation saying that I must study English
-associate words or sentences with what I like
University -repeat new words a lot to memorize
Students -dictate while listening English tapes
-read English novel or newspaper
-read various English materials about something that I am interested in (book,
55
internet…)
-read books written in English
-make English sentence for every expression
-use monolingual dictionaries instead of bilingual dictionaries -try to come up the
next line when watching movies
-try to find incorrect scripts while watching movies
-imitate an actor or an actress in movies and radio/TV programs
-travel to the English speaking country
-make a friend with a native speaker and talk in English
-try to think in English
Regarding the research question 6, most strategies that students considered not feasible in the
Korean EFL situation were strategies related to native speakers: “I look for people I can talk
to in English”; “I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk”; and “I ask for help from
English speakers.” Also, some strategies relevant to the ESL situation were mentioned as
difficult to use in the Korean EFL context, such as “I remember new English words or
phrases by remembering their location on the page, on the board, or on a street sign,” and “I
start conversations in English.” The most reasons given by the participants were “It’s difficult
to find native English speakers,” “We can’t see native English speakers, so we can’t ask help
from them,” and “I’ve never talked to native English speakers.” Many middle school students
reported that they had never seen native speakers, so they could not even imagine a situation
where English speakers could help them. University students interpreted native speakers as
peers or English teachers, who were good at English, even without such guidelines.
Again, high school students answered differently from the others because of their test-
oriented attitudes due to the specific Korean educational situation. Some of them explicitly
mentioned the entrance examinations, saying that the examinations had prevented them from
relating English to fun and emphasizing that they never studied English for fun.
Discussion
Even though there were several strategies that Korean students considered to be impossible in
the Korean EFL situation, the general profile of strategy use, drawn from the SILL in this
study, was very consistent throughout the different education levels of the participants.
Specifically, the order of strategy frequency was the same for all education levels:
compensatory, metacognitive, cognitive, memory, social, and affective strategies. This
section presents cognitive and cultural interpretations of the results in terms of (a) gender, (b)
major, (c) education level, (d) English-learning self-image, and (e) importance of English.
The relationship between strategy use and strategy awareness is also addressed.
Effect of Gender Differences on Strategy Use and Strategy Awareness

Different from the previous research and expectations, gender did not affect strategy use and
awareness significantly. It did not have large effect sizes either. Gender played a significant
role only with other variables, not by itself. More interestingly, except social strategies,
females used five of the six categories significantly more often than males (p<.001). This is
very interesting, considering previous studies showing that social strategies are the best-
known strategies employed more by women than by men (Oxford, Nyikos, & Ehrman, 1988).
Regardless of gender, Korean students are not typically encouraged to talk with classmates,
so it stands to reason that social strategies might not show a significant gender effect. This
may also be true in such countries where teachers are authoritative figures. Another
56
possibility is that Korean students could not use the social strategies in the SILL; half of the
social strategies in the SILL involve working with or communicating with native English
speakers, and since there are few such speakers available in Korea, this might have
suppressed social strategy use for both males and females. All the other EFL learners will
experience such difficulties as Koreans.
Surprisingly, metacognitive strategies (t=2.80, p<.005) showed significantly more awareness

by males than by females. This is also very interesting because men were more aware of their
metacognitive strategies than women, while using them less often than women. According to
Pressley (2000), good readers use a strategy only when it is necessary to help their learning,
thus, it is possible that men were better English learners than women. However, the English-
learning self-image of men (mean=3.19) and that of women (mean =3.26) were almost the
same (both considered their English proficiency to be good). Comparison between the self-
ratings and the official scores is needed.
In sum, gender, though reaching statistical significance on some interaction effects, had effect
sizes that were negligible. We think that it is still good for learners because we cannot change
nor manipulate gender. The smaller the effect size of gender, the more possible it is for
teachers or learners to improve learning.
Effect of Major on Strategy Use and Strategy Awareness
Students who were majoring–or want to major–in humanities had a higher overall mean
(2.77, medium use range) than students majoring in science/engineering fields (2.69, medium
use range), but it was not significant, p>.05. The former were also more aware of their
strategies than the latter (p>.05). Metacognitive strategy use was the only category in which
major had a significant difference, with humanities majors using the metacognitive category
of strategies more frequently (p<.05) and being more aware (p<.05) than their
science/engineering peers. This conforms to the general belief that humanities students are
more reflective (metacognitive) than science/engineering students.
Except for this, major did not significantly influence strategy use or strategy awareness.
Because middle school students chose as majors what they wanted to focus on in high school,
they might not have known exactly what humanities and science/engineering fields were like.
This might have related to non-significant influences of major on both strategy use and
awareness. Based on this, it may be better to study the relationship between strategy and
major of only university students who have clear ideas on their majors.
Effect of Education Level on Strategy Use and Strategy Awareness
Education levels turned out to affect both strategy use and strategy awareness very
significantly. As addressed in the results section, middle school and university students were
more aware of as well as employed strategies significantly more often than high school
students, p<.001. Korea’s college entrance examinations seem to cause this difference
between high school students and the others, probably because students in high school are
discouraged from employing a wide range of strategies with great frequency, while middle
school and university students are encouraged to do so. Lee (1994) found that Korean
students used compensatory strategies as the most frequently used category, and this result
appeared again in the present study. Since 1969, Korean students have taken multiple-choice
entrance examinations, equivalent to the Scholastic Aptitude Test in the U.S., and we
57
speculate that such examinations might promote compensatory strategies for guessing the
right choice from the context, even if the details are not fully understood.
Compensatory strategies were among the two most frequently used categories for
Anglophone children in Canada learning French (Gunning, Oxford, & Gatbonton,
forthcoming) and for Taiwanese children learning English too (Lan & Oxford, 2003). It is
possible that these children are also used to a similar type of a foreign language test—
multiple choice.
Effect of English-learning Self-image on Strategy Use and Strategy Awareness
The ranges of strategy use conformed to students’ self-ratings of English proficiency

(F=54.45, p<.001) and their awareness of strategies (F=24.93, p<.001), which means that the
more highly they rated their English proficiency, the more they used strategies and the more
they were aware of them. These results suggest that those who viewed themselves more
positively than the others used strategies more often and were more of them than those who
did not. Teachers should keep this result in mind so that they can help the learners promote
their positive self-image, which will eventually help them learn English better.
Effect of Importance of English on Strategy Use and Strategy Awareness
The frequencies of strategy use conformed to students’ ratings of the importance of English
(F=37.47, p<.001). Strategy awareness was also positively influenced by students’ attitudes
toward the importance of English (F=16.62, p<.001). This is very encouraging because
students’ ratings of importance of English had a positive relationship with both strategy use
and strategy awareness. Some students become more nervous when they consider something
very important, so they perform worse than when they consider it unimportant. Teachers
should properly emphasize how important English is, and the certain amount of anxiety will
help students learn English more effectively.
Effect of the Relationship between Strategy Use and Strategy Awareness
As shown earlier, strategy awareness had a significant main effect on strategy use, although
the effect size was small (.14). In a different analysis, strategy awareness, among the possible
predictors included in the model, had the greatest ability to predict strategy use, but even so,
it only explained 25% of the variability in strategy use. These relationships were significant,
but other variables beyond strategy awareness (and the others in this study) might also
influence strategy use. Baker and Brown (1984) noted that there is not a perfect connection
between strategy use and strategy knowledge/awareness. Moreover, the role of awareness in
strategy use is very complex. A strategy might fade from awareness by becoming automatic
and habitual, at which time it is called a non-strategic "process"; but it can be brought back
into consciousness (as a strategy) through direct instruction, reflection, or discussion. One
thing is certain, however: As Pressley et al. (1989) noted, the learner can actively transfer a
given strategy to a new learning situation only when the strategy is in awareness, i.e., when
the learner has metacogntive knowledge of the strategy.
In particular, these four items showed non-significant impact of strategy awareness on

strategy use: “6: I use flashcards to remember new English words (p=.197)”; “14: I start
conversations in English (p=.164)”; “27: I read English without looking up every new words
(p=.147)”; and “42: I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using English
58
(p=.054).” The possible reason why several items showed the non-significant correlations
between strategy use and strategy awareness is that, for example, students decided not to use
flashcards even though they knew what the flashcards were, and they also decided to look up
many words even though they knew it was not an effective strategy. Thus, it is necessary to
practice strategies properly so that students can employ effective strategies and avoid
ineffective behaviors.
Among different categories of strategies, the correlation between metacognitive strategy use
and awareness was the highest (r=.43, p<.001). Metacognitive strategies involve awareness of
cognitive processes, so this strongest relationship was not surprising at all. It suggests that
teachers or learners should start from metacognitve strategies to promote their overall
strategies. In addition, there are many ways for students to become aware of their strategies.
For example, students might observe that they are using certain strategies. They might
observe their friends’ or siblings’ strategy use. Their teachers could teach specific strategies.
Uncovering the precise mechanism of strategy awareness might be somewhat difficult.
Construct Validity of the SILL in Korea
At first it might have been surprising that the SILL category of memory strategies was not
more frequently employed by Korean students. We have to look into the strategy items in the
SILL more carefully. The memory strategies in the SILL are mostly related to vocabulary.
Also, it does not include any rote memory and repetition items, which are the basis of much
of the successful memorizing by Asian students. The SILL memory category was structured
to include a range of memory strategies based on visual, auditory, and kinesthetic modalities,
and the Korean memory strategies might not have fitted that overall profile.
Regarding the strategies that the Korean participants considered difficult to employ in Korea,
they were mostly the items related to native English speakers. It is not so easy to find native
English speakers in Korea as in other ESL countries. However, those items can be easily
adaptable when the items are revised to mean English teachers or better English learners,
instead of native English speakers. Some students actually mentioned that they asked help
from English teachers because they can’t from native English speakers.
Despite some memory strategies not reflected in the SILL and some other social strategies not
easy to employ in Korea, the strategies in the SILL were usable and actually used in Korea.
With minor revisions, the SILL can get the higher construct validity in the Korean EFL
situation than as it is, resulting in helping both teachers and students in EFL countries like
Korea.
Conclusions
This study has focused on the influences of rarely-considered but very important variables, in
addition to other variables, on EFL students’ strategy use: (a) strategy awareness, (b) English-
learning self-image, and (c) importance of English. Focusing on Korean EFL students, this
study showed that except for major and gender, all the other variables had significant
influences on strategy use and strategy awareness. Gender and major were expected to be
helpful indicators of successful learning, but they turned out not to affect strategy use and
awareness alone. However, when gender and major are combined with other variables, they
interactively affected strategy use and awareness. Therefore, teachers should not emphasize
stereotypical strategy use based on gender or majors.
59
This study also found that their strategy use was closely tied to strategy awareness and
English-learning self-image. Both strategy awareness and English-learning self-images can
be considered as metacognition about their English learning. Thus, the significant influences
of strategy awareness and English-learning self-image on strategy use imply how to teach
English effectively: teachers should promote positive self-image and strategy awareness
when they teach learning strategies more effectively and efficiently.
In Korea, the entrance examinations’ impact on students’ learning proved to be very

important, especially for high school students, according to the write-in data for the two
qualitative questions and the quantitative findings. High school students used test-related
strategies, but they did not use other strategies as often as students in middle school and
universities. Moreover, high school students were less aware of these strategies than were
students in the other education levels. In addition, the entrance examinations are multiple-
choice standardized tests, which makes it unnecessary to understand the specific content
correctly; this might have caused compensatory strategies to be the most frequently used
strategies. Teachers in other countries where an entrance examination is seriously important,
as well as in Korea, should encourage students to understand the details on standardized tests,
not just the guessable outlines, so that students will not limit themselves to using
compensatory strategies the most frequently.
Lastly, to teach English in the EFL settings more effectively, several items in the SILL can be
added or revised, according to Korean EFL students’ suggestions in the open-ended
questions. Teaching appropriate learning strategies is very important because learning
strategies can enable students to become more independent, autonomous, lifelong learners
(Allwright, 1990; Little, 1991).
Notes
1. Strategy awareness is analyzed both as a dependent variable and as an independent

variable.
2. SILL Version 7.0, designed for speakers of other languages learning English, was selected
for this study. Another version of the SILL (Version 5.1) contains 80 items and was originally
designed for native English speakers learning other languages, although it has also been
extensively used in translation in a variety of settings.
3. For the current Korean translation of Version 7.0, we conducted a new exploratory factor
analysis to determine whether the underlying factor structure was similar to that found for the
SILL in earlier studies. We found that the factor structure was very close to the SILL factors
reported elsewhere. For a summary of such studies, see Oxford (1996).
4. Just as in most countries, it was not possible to obtain a standardized external criterion
measure of English achievement or proficiency for Korean students across all educational
levels: middle school, high school, and university. Existing English assessments were not
comparable across levels, and statistically creating standard scores for comparison would not
begin to address that issue.
References
Allwright, D. (1990). Autonomy in language pedagogy. CRILE Working Paper 6. Centre for
Research in Education, University of Lancaster, U.K.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, M.
Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). New
York: Longman.
60
Behling, O., & Law, K. S. (2000). Translating questionnaires and other research instruments:
Problems and solutions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language
Journal, 73, 121-133.
Carrell, P. L. (1991). Second language reading: Reading ability or language proficiency? Applied
Linguistics, 12, 159-179.
Carrell, P. L., Gajdusek, L., & Wise, T. (1998). Metacognition and ESL/EFL reading.
Instructional Science, 26, 97-112.
Chamot, A. U. (1998). Teaching learning language strategies to language students. (Report No.
EDO-FL-025-976). ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics: Washington, D.C.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED433719).
Chamot, A. U., & El-Dinary, P. B. (1999). Children’s learning strategies in immersion classrooms.
Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 319-341.
Cohen, A. D. (1995). Second language learning and use strategies: Clarifying the issues. (Report No.
EDO-FL-023-639). ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics: Washington, D.C.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED393307).
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Essex, U.K.: Longman.
Cohen, A. D., & Hosenfeld, C. (1981). Some uses of mentalistic data in second language research.
Language Learning, 31, 285-313.
Dadour, E. S., & Robbins, J. (1996). University-level studies using strategy instruction to improve
speaking ability in Egypt and Japan. In Oxford, R. L. (Ed.), Language learning strategies
around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp.157-166). Manoa: University of
Hawaii Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 55-
85.
Dreyer, C., & Oxford, R. L. (1996). Learning strategies and other predictors of ESL proficiency
among Afrikaans-speakers in South Africa. In Oxford, R. L. (Ed.), Language learning
strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp.61- 74). Manoa: University of
Hawaii Press.
Green, J., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). A closer look at learner strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender.
TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261-297.
Hsiao, T-Y., & Oxford, R. L. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning strategies: A
confirmatory factor analysis. Modern Language Journal, 86(3), 368-383.
Kaylani, C. (1996). The influence of gender and motivation on EFL learning strategy use in
Jordan. In Oxford, R. L. (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-
cultural perspectives (pp.75-88). Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.
Kim, H. (2000). Learner variables and their relationships to English achievement of Korean
high school students. Foreign Language Education, 7(2), 233-258.
Lan R., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning strategy profiles of elementary school
students in Taiwan. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,
41, 339-379.
Lee, H. (1994). Investigating the factors affecting the use of foreign language learning strategies
and comparing the strategy use of EFL students. English Teaching, 48, 51- 99.
Lee, H. (2000). A relationship between English language learning strategies and cloze test.
Journal of English Language Teaching, 12(1), 247-270.
Lee, H., & Oh, J. (2001). The relationship between attitudes and proficiency in learning English.
English Teaching, 55(4), 389-409.
Leki, I. (1995). Coping strategies of ESL students in writing tasks across the curriculum. TESOL
Quarterly, 29(2), 235-260.
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues, and problems. Dublin: Authentik.
Mullins, P. (1992). Successful English language learning strategies of students enrolled in the
Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, United States International University, San Diego, CA.
National Capital Language Resource Center (1996). Language learning strategies use by secondary
foreign language students (EDO-FL-026-393). Washington, D.C.: Department of
61
Education.
National Capital Language Resource Center (2000). High school foreign language students’
perception of language learning strategies use and self-efficacy (EDO-FL-026-388).
Washington, D.C.: Department of Education.
Nyikos, M. & Oxford, R. L. (1993). A factor-analytic study of language-learning strategy use:
Interpretations from information processing and social psychology. Modern Language
Journal, 77, 11-22.
Oh, J. (1992). Learning strategies used by university EFL students in Korea. Language Teaching, 1,
23-53.
Oh, J. (1996). The effects of attitude and sex on use of EFL learner strategies. English Teaching,
51(2), 35-53.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston:
Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. (1994). Language learning strategies: An update. ERIC Digest. (Report No.
EDO-FL-95-02). ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics: Washington,
D.C. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED376707).
Oxford, R. L. (1996). Employing a questionnaire to assess the use of language learning strategies.
Applied Language Learning, 7, 25-45.
Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies
worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for language learning
(SILL). System, 23(1), 1-23.
Oxford, R. L., & Ehrman, M. E. (1995). Adults’ language learning strategies in an intensive
foreign language program in the United States. System, 23(3), 359-386.
Oxford, R. L., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by
university students. Modern Language Journal, 73, 291–300.
Oxford, R. L., Nyikos M., & Ehrman, M. E. (1988). Vive la difference? Reflections on sex
differences in use of language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 21(4),
321-328.
Oxford, R. L., Cho, Y., Leung, S., & Kim, H. (2004). Effect of the presence and difficulty of task
on strategy use: An exploratory study. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 42, 1- 47.
Park, J. (2001). Korean EFL learners’ vocabulary learning strategies. English Teaching, 56(4), 3-30.
Park, Y. (1999). An analysis of interrelationship among language learning strategies, learning
styles, and learner variables of university students. English Teaching, 54(4), 281-308.
Park, K., Kim, H., & Park, H. (2003). Language learning strategies. Seoul: Kyobo-Thompson.
Phillips, V. (1991). A look at learner strategy use and ESL proficiency. CATESOL Journal, 57-67.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L.
Kamil, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp.545-561). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J., Zajchowski, R., & Evans, E. D. (1989). The challenges of
classroom strategy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 89(3), 301-342.
Rubin, J. (1994). A review of second language listening comprehension research. Modern
Language Journal, 78(2), 199-221.
Touba, N. (1992). Language learning strategies of Egyptian student teachers of English. Paper
presented at the Twelfth National Symposium on English Teaching in Egypt, Nasr City,
Cairo, Egypt.
Watanabe, Y. (1990). External variables affecting language learning strategies of Japanese
EFL learners: Effects of entrance examination, years spent at college/university, and
staying overseas. Unpublished master’s thesis, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
62
Article Title
Extensive Reading Reports - Different Intelligences, Different

Levels of Processing
Author
Marc Helgesen
Bio Data:
Professor Marc Helgesen, Department of Intercultural Studies, Miyagi Gakuin Women's

University, Sendai, Japan and adjunct, Columbia University Teachers College MA TESOL
Program, Tokyo, Japan. Marc is a well-known writer and teacher-trainer. He is the author of
over 100 professional articles, book chapters and textbooks including the popular English
Firsthand series (Longman) and "Listening" in Practical English Language Teaching, David
Nunan (ed.), (McGraw-Hill). Marc has been a featured speaker at KOTESOL, JALT,
ThaiTESOL and other conferences. He is particularly interested in language planning,
extensive reading and brain-friendly teaching.
Introduction
Extensive Reading (ER) is an important aspect of any English as a Foreign/Second Language
reading program. In this paper, I will consider a definition of ER and benefits of including it
in a program. In the main part of the paper, I will explain four reporting forms that work with
different intelligences and levels of processing. While there are many variations in ways to
implement an ER program, what they all have in common is that the learners read very large
amounts of material in the target language.
Extensive Reading can be defined as:
Students reading a lot of easy, enjoyable books (Helgesen, 2005).
Each element of this definition includes elements which contrast ER with skills-based
methodologies that focus on skimming, scanning, main idea identification and the like. The
first point is that the students spend most of their time actually reading, not answering
comprehension questions, writing reports or translating. They may do those things, but such
tasks are subordinate to actually reading. The second element is that the students are reading
a lot. Bamford and Day (2004) suggest that, although specific targets will vary, goals such as
"a book a week or 50 pages a week" are realistic. This is in sharp contrast to traditional
reading programs which had learners reading a single book over a term or a year and doing a
63
detailed analysis of it. The easy aspect of the definition is important. Easy books build speed
and reading fluency. Anderson (1999) suggests that 200 words per minute is a useful and
realistic goal for second language readers.
To achieve this target, the books need to be easy. Enjoyable is also a key part of ER. ER is
much like the way people read for pleasure in their native languages. Enjoyable is, of course,
a relative term - it can only be determined by the reader. For that reason, Day and Bamford
(1998) suggest that it is best if the books are self-selected. There is no assumption that
learners are all reading the same book. Indeed, it would be unusual and perhaps impossible to
find a single title that all members of a class find interesting. Different learners will prefer
mysteries, love stories, biography and other forms of non-fiction, even comics. In the ER
classroom, these genre preferences are respected. The final element of the definition is books.
While any reading material can be used, graded readers which present stories with controlled
vocabulary and, at times, limited grammar and information flow are often used.1 These are
books that can help learners become fluent, skilled readers.
In a review of ER research, Day and Bamford identify several benefits of ER including the
following:
o Increased reading ability. This is unsurprising since that is the stated goal of ER.
o Increased affect and motivation. It should a be noted that reading is one type of study that
can actually be enjoyable as it is being done. Students are reading books they choose at a
level they can enjoy. This pleasure orientation seems to impact their overall feeling about
learning English.
o Improved vocabulary. Students need to meet vocabulary in context many times to acquire
it. ER seems to be a good way to achieve this.
o Improved listening, speaking and spelling abilities. Interestingly, even if listening and
speaking are not the goals of the class, ER seems to support these skills, possibly because of
the increased exposure to English vocabulary and discourse.
o Facilitation of acquisition. Most current theories of second language acquisition recognize
the roles of language input and intake. ER provides these necessities.
Typically, much of the student reading in ER happens largely outside the classroom. With
students required to read large amounts of English - typically several books a month rather
than one book a term or a year - there simply is not enough class time for all that reading to
happen during class time. (Helgesen 1997, Anderson, 2005). If the goal of ER is to develop a
reading habit, it can not be limited to being a classroom activity. Also, teachers often choose
to provide a balance of extensive and intensive reading activities (Waring, 2005). In such
cases, class time is frequently used for skill building activities while ER is done outside of
class.
Classroom management and grading requirements may require a way to keep track of what
learners are reading. In some cases, this involves having learners keep a reading portfolio
(Markovic, 2005) or, in a portfolio's simpler form, a reading notebook (Helgesen, 1997) to
report on books they are reading.
64
The remainder of this paper is to present four written report models. The models intend to
accomplish several goals:
o to allow students to report using several different sensory modalities (Jensen, 1995) and
intelligence types (Gardner, 1993), thus insuring that, at times, everyone is working in the
type(s) that they find most comfortable.
o to provide variety and avoid habituation (Howard 2000). That is, by giving learners a range
of ways to report on the books, teachers can avoid the fatigue and boredom that comes with
repeating the same task many times.
o to reach several levels of comprehension. Barrett (cited in Richards, 1990) suggests that
comprehension can be considered on the following continuum:
5. Appreciation (affective) - highest level of comprehension

4. Evaluative
3. Inference
2. Reorganization
1. Literal (lowest level of comprehension).
The forms provided here exercise comprehension across this range of levels.
Four reading reaction report forms.

The following are the forms2 students in my university use in their ER classes. They are
introduced in the order given here. Each form is introduced two to three months after the
previous one. Learners must use each type at least once. After that, they are free to use
whichever previously introduced form they like. Reports are glued into a student reading
portfolio notebook. The portfolios are collected weekly and read by the teacher who stamps
"OK" on the page and writes an occasional comment or question.
The "student voice" comments following each form are taken from anonymous
questionnaires my students submitted. On the questionnaire, they rated each form for interest
and wrote comments about each. Comments were accepted in either English or their native
language.
"Summary/reaction" form
This is the first form the learners meet. It is the most traditional, asking them simply to
summarize what happened in the story and give their opinion. It deals with what Gardner
(1993) calls "linguistic intelligence." They are reacting to language and using language to do
so. Since they are reporting what happened in the story, they are processing primarily on a
literal level. Asking for their opinions about the story is an attempt to encourage them to
incorporate their feelings (intrapersonal intelligence) and process at a level of evaluation or
appreciation.
65
Figure one: Summary / opinion form

Student voices:
o I like this because it fits any type of story.
o This type is good because I can write any kind of feelings.
o This is easy to write.
Teacher's reaction.
o The fact that this is the most standard school task-type included in the forms may be why
the learners find it easy to do. Since the idea of ER and of reading English for pleasure is new
to most learners, it is probably useful to start with a fairly simple task.
"Draw a picture" form
Two months after starting the ER program, students get this form. Note that they are asked to
draw a picture from their imaginations, not copy one from the book. This reporting method is
66
an attempt to get them to use "bodily-kinesthetic" intelligence. At a minimum, learners have

to reorganize information - transfer the words into a mental, then a drawn image. In practice,
their pictures often reflect emotion more typical of an evaluative or appreciative response.
Figure two: "Draw a picture "form

Student voices:
o I used this many times. This type is good for thinking and imagining.
o I can't draw pictures well but I like this type.
o It was useful when I didn't (know the words to) explain the story.
o I like this because sometimes I want to change forms.
Teacher's reaction.
67
o The comment "I can't draw well" was frequent. It caused some learners to dislike this form.
Others, like the one who commented here, weren't satisfied with their drawings but still like
the form.
o The student who commented that drawing a picture was useful when she didn't know a
word was touching on the fact that reading is a receptive skill. We can always understand
more language than we can produce so the drawing task works well here as a compensation
strategy.
o The comment about wanting to change forms deals with habituation. When teachers and
students follow the same routine too rigidly, boredom and disinterest can set in. Using a
different form can combat this.
"Your own questions" form

Learners using this form are asked to preview the book by looking at the title and cover
illustration and to read the blurb on the back of the book. They then look through the book
and find three illustrations, ideally one near the beginning, one in the middle and one toward
the end. They write a question about each picture - something they actually want to know.
This appeals to an analytic "logical-mathematical" type of intelligence and requires
inferencing and speculation. It also gets student to "think ahead." That is, they preview the
book and think about what may be happening. This is similar to what we do in our first
language when reading something like a magazine where we often look ahead. Also, when
we read in our first language, we normally know why we are reading - for pleasure, to find
out certain information, and so on. Writing their own questions allows learners to set their
own tasks. They decide what they want to find out.
Of course, this task requires books with pictures. While not all ER graded readers are
illustrated, most are so this requirement is not usually a problem.
68
Figure three: "Your own questions " form

Student voices:
o It is interesting to write questions and find the answers.

o I like this because I can understand the book's substance more and more. And I enjoyed
writing these reports.
o This is the best to understand all parts of the story in detail.

Teacher's reaction.
o The learners commented that this form helped them focus on details. While the questions
they write often focus on literal elements of the book3, reading to find out specific
information can be a useful task for any learner. For university students who will be expected
to use the Internet and other resources for research in English, in can be invaluable.
"The book and you" form

Judging from the students' responses, this is the most challenging form. Part of the challenge
probably comes from the fact that it is requires high-level processing. It is an interpersonal
69
task requiring self-knowledge and usually includes reactions at a level of appreciation or

evaluation. While sometimes the reports are somewhat superficial (e.g., a student reading
Gulliver's Travels and commenting "I have never been around little people" prompting her
teacher to ask playfully, "How about when you were in kindergarten?"), other learners write
more significant, heartfelt responses. A student who had read a biography of Princess Diana,
wrote: "Diana's life had tragedy." The student went on to point out incidents of sadness
before the princess' heartbreaking fatal accident. Then, in the parallel panel, she wrote about
her own life: "I know tragedy, too. Last year, my father died from cancer." She went on to
explain and draw comparisons.
Figure four: "The story and you" form

Student voices:
o I can compare my life to the hero.
o This is good because I think about my life again. I feel it's interesting.
o It's useful but I think it's hard to find a book (with) which we can compare my life and the
70
story.
o I think the "kind of book" is important.
o This is good for (books about) the history of the person (biography).
o This is not good for mysteries.
Teacher's reaction.
o Several students commented that this form is easiest with biographies. Of course, it is
possible to compare nearly any kind of book to one's own life by comparing personalities or
experiences but biographies tend to be less abstract than some other books so the
comparisons are easier.
In this paper, I have attempted to make a case for Extensive Reading in the EFL/ESL
classroom and present a series of forms which allow learners to report on their own reading in
ways that fit a variety of intelligences and levels of understanding. ER can be a useful,
powerful tool for our students.
References
Anderson, N. (1999). Exploring second language reading: Issues and strategies. Boston,
MA: Heinle & Heinle
Anderson, N. (2005). Extensive reading in the BYU intensive English program. Paper
presented at the meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (San
Antonio, Texas, USA, April 2005).
Bamford, J. and Day, R. R. (2004). Extensive reading activities for teaching language.
Day, R. R. and Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language classroom.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:
Basic Books.
Helgesen, M. (1997). What one extensive reading program looks like. The Language
Teacher, 21(5) 31-33.
Helgesen, M. (2005). Extensive reading, effective reading. Paper presented at the meeting of
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (San Antonio, Texas, USA,
April, 2005).
Howard, P. (2000). The owner's manual for the brain: Everyday applications from mind-
brain research. Atlanta, GA: Bard Press.
Jensen, E. (1995). The learning brain. San Diego, CA: The Brain Store.
Markovic, J. (2005). Reading Portfolios: A Way to Assess Extensive Reading. Paper
presented at the meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (San
Antonio, Texas, USA, April, 2005).
Richards, J. (1999). The language teaching matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Notes:
1. For information on various graded readers series, see
http://www.extensivereading.net/er/materials.html
For a somewhat impressionistic description of the the most popular series, see
http://eltnews.com/features/thinktank/023_mh.shtml
71
2. These forms are available as downloadable jpgs on the Internet

http://www.extensivereading.net/er/marcreports.html
3. For a critique of literal comprehension questions and more information on Barrett's

taxonomy of comprehension, see http://www.mgu.ac.jp/~ic/helgesen/marc.article1.htm
Internet resources
www.extensivereading.net - a resources site for teachers
http://www.ials.ed.ac.uk/eper.html - The Edinburgh Project for Extensive Reading
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ExtensiveReading/ - a discussion list for teachers interested in

ER
www.erfoundation.org - The Extensive Reading Foundations, an independent, non-profit

organization which promotes ER. The foundation awards the "Language Learner Literature"
awards to the best graded readers each year
72
Article Title
The Effectiveness of Learning Vocabulary Through Games
Author
Nguyen Thi Thanh Huyen
Khuat Thi Thu Nga
Abstract
Vietnamese students usually feel bored in vocabulary lessons because they have not changed
their learning habits, such as writing words on paper, trying to learn by heart or learning
passively through the teacher's explanations. To help students find language classes,
especially vocabulary lessons more interesting, and to achieve more from games, we
conducted action research to find the answer to the question, "Do games help students learn
vocabulary effectively, and if so, how?" Most academic reviews start from an assumption that
games, bundled with other aspects of learning, e.g., CALL, are beneficial. However we
singled out the component of games to study that in isolation. After reviewing academic
opinions on this specifically focussed matter, of which there are relatively few, we began
action research which included applying games in our own classes, observing other teachers'
classes, and interviewing both teachers and learners so as to elicit students' reactions, feelings
and the effectiveness of games in vocabulary learning. The research shows they are effective
in helping students to improve their vocabulary building skills.
1.0 Introduction
Problem
In learning a foreign language, vocabulary plays an important role. It is one element that links
the four skills of speaking, listening, reading and writing all together. In order to
communicate well in a foreign language, students should acquire an adequate number of
words and should know how to use them accurately. Even though students realize the
importance of vocabulary when learning language, most Vietnamese students learn
vocabulary passively due to several factors. First, they consider the teacher's explanation for
meaning or definition, pronunciation, spelling and grammatical functions boring. In this case
scenario, language learners have nothing to do in a vocabulary learning section but to listen to
their teacher. Second, students only think of vocabulary learning as knowing the primary
meaning of new words.
Therefore, they ignore all other functions of the words. Third, students usually only acquire
new vocabulary through new words in their textbooks or when given by teachers during
73
classroom lessons. For example, learners find many new words in a text and then ask the
teacher to explain the meanings and usage's. Forth, many Vietnamese learners do not want to
take risks in applying what they have learnt. Students may recognize a word in a written or
spoken form and think that they already "know the word", but they may not be able to use
that word properly in different contexts or pronounce it correctly.
In recent years, communicative language teaching (CLT) has been applied in Vietnam and
from our own experience, it has shown its effectiveness in teaching and learning language.
CLT is an approach that helps students be more active in real life situations through the
means of individual, pair and group work activities. It encourages students to practice the
language they learn in meaningful ways. In a CLT classroom, playing vocabulary games is
one of the activities which requires students to actively communicate with their classmates,
using their own language. Thus the question we began to examine is, "Do games help
students learn vocabulary effectively and if so, how?"
Literature review
Learners of English have to deal with unfamiliar vocabulary during their language
acquisition. In order to learn and retain new words, learners should participate in different
task-based activities in their classroom whether it is a guessing task, a describing exercise or
conversation making. Such activities also include vocabulary games which especially focus
on helping learners develop and use words in different contexts by making the lessons
enjoyable. Therefore, it is necessary to explore whether students learn vocabulary effectively
through games and how they learn it.
Traditionally, vocabulary has not been a particular subject for students to learn, but has been
taught within lessons of speaking, listening, reading and writing. During the lesson, students
use their own vocabulary and are introduced to new words provided by the teacher and
classmates which they apply to classroom activities. For many learners of English, whenever
they think of vocabulary, they think of learning a list of new words with meanings in their
native language without any real context practice. A number of learners may share the same
experience of looking up words in a bilingual dictionary to find their meanings or definitions
when they encounter new words. They may even write down lines of new words without any
idea of the real use of them in context. Working this way, after a short period of time, many
learners may find out that learning vocabulary in lists does not satisfy themselves, and they
think the cause for it is just their bad memorization, Gnoinska (1998:12). Research and
publications have shown that this is not a very effective way to study. Decarrico (2001) states
that words should not be learnt separately or by memorization without understanding.
Moreover, "learning new words is a cumulative process, with words enriched and established
as they are met again", Nation (2000, p.6). Therefore, the "look and remember" way of
vocabulary learning seems to be not very effective for learners of the English language.
Furthermore, some other students may require teachers to give meaning and grammatical
function for words that they are not familiar. Learners just wait for teachers who control the
lesson to provide new forms of words then they write those words in their notebooks or
74
complete their exercises. They may use words they learn in the exact formats as the original
patterns in which those words appeared. This kind of rote verbal memorization is good to a
certain extent since it helps learners learn and use the correct form of words. However,
according to Decarrico (2001), the vocabulary used in such context is rather simple because
grammatical and phonologic aspects are emphasized; and as a result, the lexical aspect is
neglected. In other words, learners just know how to use the vocabulary in an exact form, but
they do not know how to use it with different shades of meanings in real life communication.
Unlike the traditional method of learning and teaching, in a communicative language

teaching (CLT) approach, learners are required to take part in a number of meaningful
activities with different tasks. This is to improve learners' communicative competence by
encouraging them to be a part of the lessons themselves. Newton (2001) refers to this
approach as a way that can enable learners to manage their vocabulary meaning and develop
their communicative skills at the same time. Many experts of language teaching methodology
also agree that playing games is a good way to learn vocabulary, especially in CLT class.
With the use of games, the teacher can create various contexts in which students have to use
the language to communicate, exchange information and express their own opinions (Wright,
Betteridge and Buckby, 1984). Huang (1996: 1) comes to a conclusion that "learning through
games could encourage the operation of certain psychological and intellectual factors which
could facilitate communication heightened self-esteem, motivation and spontaneity,
reinforcing learning, improving intonation and building confidence."
Some experts have also figured out characteristics of games that make vocabulary learning
more effectively. Lee (1995:35) lists several main advantages when games are used in the
classroom, including "a welcome break from the usual routine of the language class",
"motivating and challenging" "effort of learning", and "language practice in the various
skills." Ersoz (2000) holds that games are highly appreciated thanks to their amusement and
interest. Teachers can use games to help their students practice more their skills of
communication. In addition, Uberman (1998) also affirms the helpful role of games in
vocabulary teaching after quoting and analyzing different opinions of experts. From her own
teaching experiences, Uberman observed the enthusiasm of her students in learning through
games. She considers games a way to help students not only enjoy and entertain with the
language they learn, but also practice it incidentally.
In summary, games are useful and effective tools that should be applied in vocabulary
classes. The use of vocabulary is a way to make the lessons more interesting, enjoyable and
effective.
Method
To assess the effectiveness of learning vocabulary through games in the classroom, we want
to know how students' experiences help with their learning and what progress they gain.
Specifically, can we apply games as an effective means to make students feel more
comfortable and interested in learning the subject of vocabulary, which, in Vietnam, is
usually believed to be boring rather than enjoyable?
75
To achieve our goal, we focused on the perception and attitudes of our students as well as
what students gained through their learning with vocabulary games. The plan involved
conducting different kinds of games in our lessons so that we could see how students reacted
to this method of learning vocabulary. We also wanted to find if there were any problems that
occurred during the process of teaching. In addition, in line with research methodology and
principles (Robertson, 2002) it was necessary to enrich our perspectives by observing some
experienced teachers' classes at HUFS, reviewing other teachers' lesson plans for games and
interviewing some teachers and students as well.
Over a period of two weeks we tried to apply as many games as possible in our classes at the
Distance Education Center (DEC) to learn from learners' reactions whether they liked games
or not and if games could help improve their existing vocabulary. Another way for us to
gather data was to interview our learners at DEC orally so that we were able to better
understand their expectations, problems and progress in their process of learning vocabulary.
In addition, we observed the classes of CLT teachers at HUFS, and reflected back in our
journals. We also conducted a small post-class survey to elicit student's feelings and their
own experiences in learning vocabulary. A simple questionnaire was designed beforehand to
help students understand clearly the purpose of the survey. Furthermore, experienced teachers
also helped us work out different ways of conducting effective vocabulary games by their
lesson plans, handouts for games and their helpful advice. Further triangulation involved
interviewing a student who had conducted similar research one year prior.
Results
After collecting data by observing CLT teachers' classes, interviewing teachers and students,
and from our reflections of applying games in the classes we are teaching, we have come to
some findings that will be helpful for teaching and learning vocabulary. The results will be
displayed in three subsections, (i) students' expectations and attitudes, (ii) students' progress
and iii) unanticipated problems.
i. Students' expectations and attitudes

When being asked about the way of learning English vocabulary, most students in our classes
at the Distance Education Center said they just copied new words provided by teachers or
looked up words in the dictionary. Many of them marked or underlined words they did not
know in their textbooks and noted the meaning in Vietnamese. Some students noted the time
they had to copy lines and lines of new words in their notebooks which were forgotten soon.
"It was so boring. I hated learning new words that way!". Sometimes, students asked many
questions regarding learning vocabulary like "Teacher, how can I remember words and their
meanings quickly and for a long time?", "How can I use words properly in different
contexts?", "Can you tell me an easy and simple way to retain the vocabulary that I have
learnt?" etc. (Khuat, Teaching journal, March, 2003). All of the learners expressed their wish
to learn vocabulary effectively in more interesting ways than the traditional ways that they
knew. What we wanted to know was whether vocabulary games worked or not.
76
Most of the learners (17 out of 20) were willing to join our games in groups and they tried
their best to be the winners. The students especially liked such games as "Hangman"
(guessing words that belong to the topic of jobs), animal squares (words puzzle) and
advertisement poster competition (making an advertisement for a travel tour). Students
collaborated quite actively in games that required group work, even the quiet students. They
said that they liked the relaxed atmosphere, the competitiveness and the motivation that
games brought to the classroom. This is because students have a chance to "use their
imagination and creativity" during activities like games in the classroom; therefore they are
motivated to learn, Domke (1991).
However, there were usually one or two students who seemed to isolate themselves from the
activities. When asked to join their classmates, some students were reluctant to move from
their seats to play games with their groups, some others just said they simply did not like to
play the games. Nevertheless, 17 among 20 students expressed their satisfaction after the
games and many of them wanted to play more as they said those games were fun and they
found games helpful for their learning. In general, it was encouraging for us to know that
most of our students showed pleasant feelings and positive attitudes towards learning
vocabulary through games.
Moreover, we observed four lessons which applied games in providing and retaining students'
vocabulary by two CLT teachers at HUFS. In two different classes, we watched the game-
like activity called "Selling and Buying Things (in which 10 students were shopkeepers
selling fruits and food to the rest of the class. The shopkeepers had to sell all food they had
and the shoppers had to buy all food they needed in the shortest time) in two different classes,
and we observed the same students' reaction in both classes. Before the game started, the
teachers tried to explain the game' rules to students and gave some examples. Once students
understood the rules, they quickly rearranged their seats and grouped as instructed. The
classes became as noisy as a real market. Students tried to use as many phrases and words
they had learnt as possible. Thus, through this kind of activity students may be able to
remember their vocabulary better.
We had a second opportunity to observe a class again. This time, the teacher used a game
called "Snakes and Ladders". Students worked in groups of five and everyone went from the
start and tried to reach the finish as soon as possible by answering correctly to questions
which were prepared by the teacher. After observing the game, we gave a small survey to 20
students with some questions about their feelings toward the game like; "Do you think this
game is useful for you to remember words you have learnt?" and, "How can your classmates
help you learn through the game ?"... From this survey, we learnt that all 20 students agreed
that games help them a lot in vocabulary learning. Among them, 12 students said that said
that they could answer well two-thirds of questions in the game; and only one student could
always respond to all questions.
ii. Students' progress
77
Although our games were short activities and were applied to create a relaxed, pleasant
learning atmosphere in the classrooms, we wanted games to be more than just fun. Games
should also promote learning and teach students vocabulary as well. Therefore, it was
important to know if our students made any progress in learning vocabulary through games.
However, the action research was conducted in a limited time of two weeks, and it was hard
to assess what our students had achieved because vocabulary learning is a cumulative
process.
However, students in our classes are gradually progressing in English vocabulary and games
help them to learn new words and phrases that appear in the games and to recall their existing
vocabulary at the same time. Generally, teachers can use the first part of a lesson, warm-up
activity, for checking what students remember about the previous lesson or how many words
of the topic they have. For example, a CLT teacher at HUFS, conducted the game "Simon
Says" to examine students' vocabulary of parts of body. In the same way, we chose the game
"Hangman" with the topic of jobs to check students' memory of the vocabulary introduced in
previous lessons. Our students got eleven correct answers out of twelve job cards which were
passed out.
Many students were really quick at answering and their answers were all accurate; others
could not guess, but they could learn from their friends' answers. Another example is the
advertisement poster game. This is a game to check the students' understanding of the reading
exercise about holiday tours in the U.S.A. and to see if students can use similar vocabulary
and structures to create a short piece of advertising for an interesting place. Students worked
in four groups and all groups in the class produced quite nice, funny posters with short
sentences using vocabulary of tourism and advertising. The classroom atmosphere was
exciting as students discussed and chose the best poster of the class. In addition, our students
revealed that games were very useful for them to enrich their vocabulary because they could
learn from their classmates.
Regarding the effectiveness of games, interviewed teachers reported that their students
seemed to learn new vocabulary more quickly and retain it better when it was applied in a
relaxed and comfortable environment such as while playing games. In the same way, Giang,
a junior student at HUFS that we interviewed also shared that she could remember new words
more quickly and also for a long time when she learnt them through games.
Through our post-game survey of one teacher's class, all students confirmed that their
classmates helped them to remember words for the games. 16 out of 20 students said they
could learn lots of new words from their classmates. Also, 18 questioned students said that
games are one of the most effective ways of learning vocabulary. Most students agreed that
their use of vocabulary was becoming better since they actively joined games.
iii. Unanticipated problems

At first, we hypothesized that if vocabulary learning became more active with activities like
games, students would not face any difficulties. However, journal reflections from our own
78
experience, observations of other teachers' classes and interviews reveal that sometimes
games create problems for both students and teachers.
Games cannot be successful if the teacher does not explain the tasks and roles of students
clearly in playing games. An American teacher working at HUFS once told us that sometimes
she failed to make her students understand the games' rules. Her students felt embarrassed
because they did not know how the games went and what procedures they had to follow.
Fortunately, some of her students were able to find out what they had to do in the games and
re-explained to their classmates. Since then, the games went smoothly.
Using games in the classroom sometimes fails due to the lack of cooperation among members
of the class. Games require all students' involvement and they promote friendly competition,
therefore, it is very important that students have a cooperative attitude. One attempt to
conduct the game "Marvelous Cone Hat" (the Vietnamese television version of the American
"Wheel of Fortune") in a class at the Distance Education Center was not successful. "I
divided my students into three groups, each group was a team. While members of two groups
were enthusiastic to join with others to win the game, members of the third group did not
cooperate with each other. As a result, the third group lost the game." (Nguyen, Teaching
journal, November, 2002)
Another issue related to using games for language teaching is while playing games, students
usually speak in their mother tongue to discuss instead of the language they are learning.
From our own experience and HUFS teachers' comments, it is hard to control the use of first
language (L1) in classrooms when we use games as a tool to have students practice more
their communicative skills in a foreign language. One unavoidable thing in utilizing games in
English classrooms is that students, especially those who speak the same language, prefer
using their first language to English. Even advanced students in our classes at the Distance
Education Center still discussed with each other in L1. Note Dash (2002) suggests this
approach must be allowed.
Conclusion
In Vietnam, learning vocabulary has been considered a boring subject for a long time and the
traditional way of learning vocabulary by mere copying and remembering has shown to be
less than effective. Meanwhile, games are also seen as a time-filling activity in most English
classrooms. It is believed that games are just for fun and they have very little effect in
teaching and learning. However, our research reveals that games contribute to vocabulary
learning if they give students a chance to learn, practice and to review the English language
in a pleasant atmosphere. From the research, we found that students are demanding a new
way of teaching vocabulary, and they themselves are in search of a new way of learning this
subject as well.
Under such circumstances, games have been shown to have advantages and effectiveness in
learning vocabulary in various ways. First, games bring in relaxation and fun for students,
thus help them learn and retain new words more easily. Second, games usually involve
79
friendly competition and they keep learners interested. These create the motivation for
learners of English to get involved and participate actively in the learning activities. Third,
vocabulary games bring real world context into the classroom, and enhance students' use of
English in a flexible, communicative way.
Therefore, the role of games in teaching and learning vocabulary cannot be denied. However,
in order to achieve the most from vocabulary games, it is essential that suitable games are
chosen. Whenever a game is to be conducted, the number of students, proficiency level,
cultural context, timing, learning topic, and the classroom settings are factors that should be
taken into account.
In conclusion, learning vocabulary through games is one effective and interesting way that
can be applied in any classrooms. The results of this research suggest that games are used not
only for mere fun, but more importantly, for the useful practice and review of language
lessons, thus leading toward the goal of improving learners' communicative competence.
1. DEC, established by HUFs, is a center of English for learners who can either go to a class
or learn from a distance. Students are admitted to take the DECs course, beginning at
elementary level if they pass the entrance exam.
80
Title
Error Correction: A Grounded Theory
Author
Seyyed Ali Ostovar Namaghi
Biodata
Seyyed Ali Ostovar Namaghi received his MA in TEFL from the University of Tehran and
then entered Shiraz University for the PhD programme. He earned his PhD in TEFL in 2005.
His chief research interest is language teacher knowledge. He has published in a number of
leading peer-reviewed journals including: The Reading Matrix, Teacher Education Quarterly,
and the Asian EFL Journal. Presently he runs courses in EAP at Shahrood University of
Technology.
Abstract
The findings of theory-first studies about error correction are inconclusive since they
compare different techniques of error correction without specifying the conditions under
which they can be applied. Through open-ended interviews and in line with the sampling
procedures of Grounded Theory, this study theoretically sampled eight experienced EFL
teachers' perspectives to uncover the conditions that help teachers differentiate error
correction techniques to cater for individual and group differences. The rigorous coding
schemes of the grounded theory method yielded a set of categories – "Differentiated Error
Correction" as the core category, coupled with some sub-categories such as "Learners'
Purpose", “Learners' Age", and "Learners' Level of Proficiency" together with "Task
Objective" and "Source of Error" – which explain with the fewest possible categories the
conditions that determine the 'what' and 'how' of error correction. Further studies need to be
undertaken to uncover more determining conditions in other contexts. Only then can the field
replace situated knowledge of error correction with universal knowledge which is assumed to
be applicable across a myriad of conditions.
Keywords: grounded theory, theoretical sampling, differentiated error correction, classroom

conditions
Introduction
81
A synthesis of theory and practice implies that there are two main conditions that are
conducive to language development in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts:
involvement in communication or consistent activities in which students can form and test
hypotheses about the target language by being allowed to make mistakes; and corrective
feedback or error correction that allows students to evaluate, reflect and change their
linguistic performance by enabling students to notice the gap between the forms they produce
and the target language forms. If teachers stick to the former at the cost of the latter, students
will be communicatively competent but linguistically incompetent. On the other hand, if they
stick to the latter and ignore the former, students will be linguistically competent but
communicatively incompetent.
Although corrective feedback has recently become one of the prominent buzzwords of
second language studies, there has been a dearth of studies that conceptualize practitioners'
views from the bottom-up. The reason is that, more often than not, research on error
correction has been theory-first in approach. Thus the field is in urgent need of data-first
approaches which aim at conceptualizing language teachers' perspectives on error correction
rather than testing hypotheses derived from dominant theories of second language
acquisition. Instead of following a theory-first approach which starts with preconceived
notions, this study follows a data-first approach which aims at uncovering and
conceptualizing teachers' perspectives on error correction.
Literature Review
Polarized views of errors have been translated into two contrasting approaches to language
teaching: form-focused instruction and meaning-focused instruction. According to
behaviourists, untreated errors lead to fossilisation and therefore require rigid and immediate
correction if bad habits are to be avoided (Skinner, 1957). Teachers who believe in Skinner's
perspectives, focus on form-focused instruction. Form-focused instruction treats language as
an object to be studied, i.e., instead of using language to communicate meaning, students
learn about the formal aspects of the target language. This approach provides learners with
explicit information before or during exposure to second language (L2) input, by means of
either grammatical explanation or negative evidence in the form of corrective feedback (Sanz
& Morgan-Short, 2004). In this approach error correction is often used to ensure accuracy.
This approach has produced a host of students who are grammatically competent but
communicatively incompetent. According to language acquisition scholars, language learners
cannot communicate because:
82
 Early focus on grammar inhibits the development of fluency (VanPatten, 1988).

 A skill must be practiced repeatedly, until no attention is required for performance
(McLaughlin, 1990).
 Language acquisition device (LAD) can only accept natural input (Schwartz,
1993).
 Declarative memory cannot translate into procedural memory. Each uses a
different part of the brain (Paradis, 1994).
 Meta-linguistic knowledge does not actually transform into implicit knowledge
(Hulstijn, 2002).
Conversely, Chomsky (1959) approached error from a cognitive point of view, according to
which errors are seen as the result of the learner thinking through the process of rule
formation. According to Corder (1967), errors provide evidence of progress. Similarly,
Selinker (1972) argued that errors are a natural part of the learner developing interlanguage.
Krashen and Terrell (1983) prohibited error correction, since they believed it had no place in
a Natural Approach to learning language. On a pragmatic level, Long (1977) suggested that
much corrective feedback is erratic, ambiguous, ill-timed and ineffective, whilst Truscott
(1998) maintained that error correction is ineffective and even harmful. These theoretical
perspectives led teachers to meaning-focused instruction, which is an aspect of
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). As CLT came into fashion, a common position
was that errors were not important as long as they did not affect communication (Littlewood,
1981). Overstating the importance of meaning at the cost of form together and ignoring errors
produced students who were communicatively competent but grammatically incompetent.
The following studies are examples:
 The level of foreign language proficiency has deteriorated in the last 25 years. The
median proficiency score for foreign language majors is now probably no higher
than 1+ (Valette, 1991).
 Despite the focus on communication, a disappointing proportion of pupils are
making the transition to creative control of the target language system (Mitchell,
2000).
To solve this problem Long (1991) suggested that CLT should not focus on forms, i.e.,
teach isolated rules, rather it should focus on form, i.e., teach rules in context. This involves
an integrated approach to language instruction, incorporating attention to language structures
83
within a meaning-focused activity or task. One method for achieving an integrated approach
is to provide error correction whilst learners are using the language to communicate. Many
second language acquisition researchers argue that such a method is optimal for learners to
learn to use the language fluently and accurately (e.g., Doughty, 2001). There is growing
evidence from individual research studies (e.g., Ellis, Loewen & Erlam, 2006; Loewen, 2005)
that this type of error correction can be useful for L2 learners. In addition, a recent synthesis
of error correction research has found that, in general, it is beneficial for learning (Russell &
Spada, 2006).
Having considered error correction as beneficial, teachers have followed different methods
for correcting errors. One method that has received considerable attention recently is
recasting. A recast, according to Lightbown and Spada (2006), correctly reformulates a
student’s incorrect utterance whilst maintaining the central meaning of the utterance. Current
research is mixed on whether or not recasts are beneficial to learners. Several research studies
have found that recasts facilitate language learning (Ayoun, 2001; Braidi, 2002; Doughty &
Varela, 1998; Han, 2002; Havranek, 2002; Iwashita, 2003; Leeman, 2003; Mackey & Philp,
1998; Oliver & Mackey, 2003); however, these studies have only been able to demonstrate a
positive effect on short-term learning (Ayoun, 2001; Braidi, 2002; Doughty & Varela, 1998;
Han, 2002; Havranek, 2002; Iwashita, 2003; Leeman, 2003; Mackey & Philp, 1998; Oliver &
Mackey, 2003). Recasts are favoured by some researchers because they are relatively implicit
and unobtrusive. However, Loewen (2007) believes that recasts are so implicit that learners
often fail either to notice them or to perceive their corrective intent. Despite this limitation,
Long (2006) asserts that foreign and second language teachers should not reject the use of
recasts in their classrooms.
Researchers who dislike recasts tend to favour prompts or elicitations as a type of feedback.
In prompting, the teacher does not provide the correct form but rather attempts to get the
student to self-correct. Panova and Lyster (2002) found that students who received prompts
achieved greater accuracy in subsequent language processing than those who received
recasts. Lightbown and Spada (2006) argue that trying to get students to correct themselves
involves them in deeper mental processing and thus may have a greater impact on learning.
However, this technique is effective only if learners have some latent knowledge of the form.
If the form is entirely new, no amount of prompting will suffice.
Another type of error correction is the provision of meta-linguistic information regarding

the error. Recent studies are contradictory as to the effectiveness of meta-linguistic
84
explanations. Bitchener et al. (2005) and Sheen (2007) both found that there is an advantage
for meta-linguistic explanations over direct error correction alone. On the other hand,
Bitchener (2008) and Bitchener and Knoch (2008) found no advantage for those who
received meta-linguistic explanation after a similar two month period.
It is also important to consider the student’s response to feedback, often called uptake.
Again, perhaps not surprisingly, there is controversy regarding the importance of uptake.
Some researchers argue that in recasting, it is not important for students to produce the
correct forms themselves since such uptake may be mere parroting of the form provided by
the teacher. Others, drawing on Swain’s (1995) Output Hypothesis, insist on learners'
producing the correct form since (a) it helps learners move somewhat beyond their current
ability; (b) it helps teachers make sure that their correction has been noticed by the learner.
Compared with recasting, prompting makes uptake a very necessary and essential component
of the interaction. Finally, some studies (e.g., Loewen, 2004) have found that successful
uptake is one of the main predictors of students’ subsequent accurate test scores.
Despite the inherent contradictions in efficacy of different techniques of error correction,

many scholars advise language teachers to incorporate form-focused activities and corrective
feedback in communicative classes. Among others, the following researchers consider
provision of negative evidence or corrective feedback as beneficial:
 Both repetition and focus on form have measurable benefits for L2 speech
processing ( Trofimovich & Gatbonton, 2006).
 Within the context of second language acquisition (SLA), negotiation of meaning
and feedback facilitate language acquisition (Gass, Mackey & Ross-Feldman,
2005).
 Attention and awareness have been identified as two cognitive processes that
mediate input and L2 development through interaction (Mackey, (2006).
 Students naturally want the English they produce to be understood, and they
usually expect to be corrected (Ur, 2000).
 Feedback that allows students to evaluate, reflect and change their behaviour is
conducive to learning (Jenson, 2005).
 Feedback has been directly linked to the process of hypothesis formation and
testing, which has been shown to facilitate restructuring and system learning
(Rosa & Leow, 2004b)
85
Whilst these studies provide the reader with researchers' views on error correction, none
provides language teachers' perspectives on error correction. This is because by nature all of
the foregoing studies are theory-first which aim to shed light onto classroom practice through
tested hypotheses. These studies will be of little use in practice unless studies are undertaken
which aim at theorizing teachers' perspectives on error correction. These perspectives may
shed light and complement researchers' views. Thus the field is in urgent need of data-first
studies which aim at theorizing teachers' views about error correction.
Research Methods
Participants
The study started with an open-ended interview with an experienced male teacher who was
willing to share his views on error correction with the researcher. Analysis and coding of this
first interview shaped the subsequent questions and participants that could help develop the
concepts and categories that emerged. The study took place in Shahrood, a large city located
in the centre of Iran. All participants were selected from urban areas. The researcher sought
out experienced EFL teachers—those who had been teaching for at least seven years. Eight
participants who taught EFL to secondary school children were located at five institutions.
Two females and six males participated in the study. Three of the participants had earned
their Masters’ degrees in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL); three had
received their Bachelors’ degrees in TEFL; and two had earned their Bachelors' degrees in
other fields.
Sampling
Instead of statistical sampling which starts with a representative sample of participants,

theoretical sampling works by selecting subsequent subjects based on the information which
has emerged from the data already coded (Sarantakos 2005, p. 166). More specifically,
instead of statistical sampling of participants to ensure that each member of the accessible
population has a non-zero chance of being selected, this study used theoretical sampling to
guide the questions used to collect data and indeed the sources of data, so as to ensure that the
theory could be developed fully. Theoretical sampling is generally accepted as a critical
feature of grounded theory (Webb 2003; Becker 1993). It is defined as:
…the process of data collection for generating theory whereby the analyst
jointly collects, codes, and analyses his [sic] data and decides what data to
86
collect next and where to find them, in order to develop his [sic] theory as it
emerges (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p.45).
Participants were sampled based on their willingness to share their views and
experience of error correction with the researcher. Theoretical sampling of concepts
ended after interviewing eight participants since the researcher was faced with
theoretical saturation, i.e., a point at which new data seemed to be redundant.
Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection, coding, and analysis were iterative, i.e., cyclical rather than linear. Analysis
led to the development of concepts and categories but these were taken as transient so as to
accommodate new data. Since the study was data-first, the researcher tried to enter the field
with as little presupposition about error correction as possible. Thus literature review
followed data collection and analysis rather than preceding it as is common in quantitative
studies. In effect, the researcher entered the field to discover the main concerns and views of
participants about error correction through open-ended interviews. Grounded Theory is
founded on the conceptualisation of data through coding, using a method of constant
comparison. Through analysis, interview transcripts and memos were fractured into
conceptual codes. Then, during a process of comparison these individual codes were
compared, and were collected together to form meaningful categories. Finally, through a
process of selective coding, a core category that pulls all concepts and categories together
was selected. As the analysis is abstract in time, place and people, it lends itself to
modification in light of new data (Glaser, 2001; Glaser & Holton, 2004). In the light of this
statement and through a process of constant comparison the emergent concepts and categories
were constantly modified to accommodate new data. In effect, the concepts and categories
were modified so that no data were left out
In short, the coding schemes of the Grounded Theory method yielded a set of categories –
"Differentiated Error Correction" as the core category, coupled with some sub-categories
such as "Learners' Purpose", “Learners' Age", and "Learners' Level of Proficiency" together
with "Task Objective" and "Source of Error" – which explain with the fewest possible
categories the conditions that determine the 'what' and 'how' of error correction. More
specifically, these conditions helped participants differentiate their error correction. During
the research, each participant was assured confidentiality through the use of pseudonyms in
the reporting of data. They were also assured that once the data were coded, identification of
the individual participant was not paramount, because the concepts generated by the
87
participants—not the individual participants—were at the centre of study (Glaser, 1978). As

for the credibility of the findings, following Yin (2003), the final version of emergent
concepts and categories were validated through member checking.
Limitations
Despite the methodological rigor of Grounded Theory, findings such as these are not a
guarantee of truth, for truths are always partial (Clifford, 1986), and knowledge “situated”
(Haraway, 1988). It also cannot be ignored how interviewer and interviewee negotiate face or
manage impressions (Goffman, 1959) in interviews. An interview is but a snapshot in time.
Much is left unsaid about events and persons despite the intention of the interviewer to
provide a holistic account. Of course, more interviews in other contexts would deepen
understanding of this exploratory study.
Results
In contrast with theory-first views on error correction, which take one technique or other to
be applicable across varying conditions, this data-first study clearly indicates that error
correction is contingent upon a host of factors including learners' purpose for learning, age,
and level, as well as task objective and source of error. More specifically, whereas theory-
first views presume that teachers use recasts, prompts and meta-linguistic feedback uniformly
regardless of actual classroom conditions, this data-first study, which is deeply grounded in
practitioners' perspectives, shows that one technique that is beneficial under one set of
conditions may be inefficient and, at times, limiting under another set of conditions. Rather
than being universal, knowledge of error correction is situated in nature. It is the clarification
of these determining conditions that accounts for differentiated error correction as implied by
the participants. Morrison and Petrella (2004) found that one-size-fits-all instruction simply
will not be as effective as differentiated instruction. Along the same lines, participants in this
study realised that “direct-correction-fits-all” can be as erroneous as “indirect-correction-fits-
all”. As such they differentiated the 'what' and 'how' of error correction in the light of the
specified conditions in order to create the best learning experience possible. What follows is
an elaboration of the conditions that determine teachers' approaches to error correction.
Learners' Purpose for Learning
Results clearly show that the 'what' and 'how' of error correction is determined by a host of
factors including learners' purpose for learning. In one class there may be different groups of
students who learn English for different purposes. There may be some who learn English
88
because they need it for academic purposes. On the other hand, there may be some who learn
English for social purposes such as travelling. Whereas the first group may want their errors
to be corrected because accuracy is a main concern for them, the second group may not want
their flow of speech to be interrupted because communication and fluency is vital for them.
Ali, one of the participants, believed that he should differentiate his error correction to
respond to these two distinct needs:
Your error correction techniques cannot be independent of learners'

purpose. There are some learners who need English for social
communication. Focusing on form for such learners is totally inhibitive. On
the other hand, there are some learners who need English for academic
purposes. This group takes form as an unalienable objective. Thus, you
should attend to the form of their speech through error correction.
Moreover, there are some who are learner teachers. That is, they learn
English to teach it. This group should not only produce the correct form,
they should also have some sort of meta-linguistic awareness of the forms
of language to make use of it in clarifying these forms for the students in
future. Thus, as you see different levels of error correction is involved.
Similarly Reza, another participant, differentiated error correction based on the same
learner variable. He stated that his being lenient or strict towards learner error depended on
learners' expectations of the course. Just like teaching, error correction should respond to
learners' needs. He stated:
If they learn English for academic purposes, I correct all of their errors
since in information communication within academic circles accuracy is
more important. On the other hand, if they learn English for social
communication I try to be lenient and focus on fluency. Sometimes I teach
teacher learners. In this case I try to correct each and every error since they
need not only to be aware of errors in their speech but also they need to be
able to verbalize their meta-linguistic awareness to their students in the
future.
Along the same lines another participant believed that the 'what' of error correction should
be derived from learners' concerns. For students who need English for social communication,
pronunciation is a main concern. Conversely, for those who need English for doing academic
89
tasks, grammar is of vital importance. What follows better illustrates how he differentiates his
approach to accommodate different needs:
Take pronunciation for instance. In social communication it is very

important. Thus I try to correct pronunciation errors for those who need
English for social communication. On the other hand, pronunciation, stress
and intonation are not a concern for academic purposes since in Iranian
schools and universities students' communication is mostly in written form.
As far as these aspects of language are comprehensible, their use of
language is accepted. Whereas I ignore errors of grammar for social
communication, I try to correct grammatical errors for those who need
English for academic purposes.
Learners' Age
In studies that have compared direct and indirect approaches, two (Ferris & Helt, 2000;
Lalande, 1982) have reported an advantage for indirect feedback, two (Robb et al., 1986;
Semke, 1984) have reported no difference between the two approaches, and one (Chandler,
2003) has reported positive findings for both direct and indirect feedback. The results are
inconclusive in that whilst all of them specify the error correction technique, none specify the
conditions under which the technique was applied. Participants in this study believed that
whilst direct error correction is effective for adults, children respond better to indirect error
correction. More specifically, they believed that children grasp better the target language
form through implicit, inductive approaches. Conversely adults come to grips with the target
language form better through explicit deductive approaches. Compared with adults, children
rarely understand it if the teacher explains a target language rule. Karim explains:
When children talk, I try to ignore their errors. If I have to correct their
errors, I correct them in such a way that does not hurt their feelings. As they
talk, I never correct. Rather, I write the erroneous forms and familiarize
them with the correct form inductively. Since children do not know
technical jargon, they cannot understand it if I explain the rule. Thus, I try
to immerse them in examples of the correct use of the erroneous form, and I
leave the rest to the learners. I believe they can induce the correct form
from examples.
90
Whereas Karim prefers the implicit approach for children, Mohammad explained why he
does not use this approach for adults. He related his preferred approach to error correction to
the nature of language education in Iran. In Iranian high schools teachers mostly present
grammar deductively. Over time, learners get used to it and like the technical jargon of
grammar. He stated, "no matter how many examples I present, they expect me to give them
the rule." Moreover, he believed that adults are mature enough to come to grips with abstract
rules. On the efficacy of meta-cognitive awareness for adults he explained:
In Iran a good language teacher is one who teaches grammar deductively. If

you do not teach grammar, they do not accept you as a language teacher. To
respond to this cultural expectation, I try to prepare a list of ill-formed
sentences learners made during their communicative efforts. Then in the
practice phase of my class, I try to help learners get the correct form
through giving rules and explanations. I like delayed error correction on
two grounds: first, it helps me approach errors systematically through
planning, and second, it does not interrupt students as they try to
communicate their purpose.
Whilst both participants prefer delayed error correction rather than immediate, on the spot
error correction, they follow two different approaches to help learners become aware of the
target language form. Children get the right form better through discovery provided that
teachers present them with ample examples. On the other hand, adults better understand the
target form via explanation. Of course this does not imply that adults do not need examples.
Learners' Level of Proficiency

Participants believed that depending on learners' levels of proficiency they use different
methods and different degrees of error correction. They differentiated their error correction
techniques based two distinct objectives: fluency and accuracy. Most of them seemed to
agree that at lower levels of proficiency they should focus on fluency. When learners are able
to convey their intended meaning fluently, they focus on accuracy. It is at this stage that error
correction comes into play. Behnoosh explains:
At lower levels, I focus on communication and learners' communicative
intent rather than the form of their speech. At these levels we should rarely
correct learners' errors for two reasons: first, correcting de-motivates
learners, and second, they are likely to encounter and discover the correct
91
form at other higher levels. At higher levels, I correct learners directly by

showing what the erroneous form is and then try to present them with the
relevant linguistic information through explanation.
Whilst Behnoosh related infrequent error correction in the early stages to learners' motivation
to communicate, Zahra related it to creating confidence in beginners. She believed that
correction may create the feeling of incompetency in learners. To justify her position she
explained:
It depends on how well students can communicate. At lower levels, I ignore

ill-formed structures because the main objective is to enable students to
communicate. Correcting errors may erode their confidence and they may
come to the conclusion that they are not able to communicate. At this stage,
I try to appreciate their efforts to get their meanings across. At higher
levels, I try to devote some time to form-focused tasks. In these tasks, I
clearly state that the purpose is language learning rather than
communication and I try to correct their errors through exposure and
explanation.
Task Objective
One teaching unit may be organized around different types of tasks. Whilst some aim to
involve students in communication, others may aim at presenting learners with practice.
Moreover, some tasks are devoted to developing pronunciation and some to improving
grammar and vocabulary. One of the common pitfalls of error correction is to correct all
errors irrespective of the objective of the task. This unsystematic approach not only disrupts
communication, it is also useless in terms of creating form-awareness. Participants believed
that what to correct depends on the task objective. Ali stated:
In observing classes I have found that error correction is totally
unsystematic. That is, each and every mistake is corrected on the spot. I
believe that error correction should be systematic. I believe that error
correction should be in line with the objectives of the task in hand. That is,
if we teach grammar, we should correct grammatical mistakes. If the
purpose of the task is to improve learners' pronunciation, I focus on their
pronunciation errors and try to ignore errors in other areas such as grammar
or word choice. I believe if you correct everything, you correct nothing; the
92
reason being that students lose the objective of the task and they do not
learn anything at all.
Another participant stated that her teaching objectives are twofold: communication and
practice. Thus she divides class time into two phases to respond to the specified objectives
respectively. The interesting point about her approach is that she limits error correction to the
practice phase. She stated:
There are two distinct phases in my class: a communication phase and a

practice phase. When my students communicate, I never correct their errors.
I encourage them to concentrate on meaning and get it across by any means.
On the other hand, in the practice phase of the class I focus on form. During
communication, I write students' major errors down. Then in the practice
phase I write the errors on the board and help the students internalize the
correct form through inductive and deductive approaches: inductive for
children and deductive for adults.
Source of Error
One cannot start correcting errors without first differentiating the source of errors. In Audio-
lingualism teachers' recognized interlingual errors, i.e., errors that are caused by first
language habits, as the only source of errors. Today, however, such a supposition is not
accepted. Thus teachers should differentiate their approach to error correction depending on
the source of the error. Participants in this study differentiated two main sources of error:
interlingual errors and intralingual errors. This realization helped them select different
approaches for each. Ali explained:
While students are communicating, I write their errors down. Then I
classify them into interlingual and intralingual errors. For each group, I
follow a different strategy. For interlingual errors, I try to juxtapose the first
language form and the target language form on the board. Then through
explanation, I try to make students aware of the differences. As for the
second group, i.e., intralingual errors, I never correct them, since I believe
that through further exposure to the target language, learners will discover
the correct form and they will self-correct the faulty rule that produces the
faulty form.
93
Similarly Daryoosh reiterated that it is the realisation of the source of error that helps him
differentiate between which errors to correct and which errors to ignore. Sometimes students
wrap target language words in first language structures. Sometimes, however, they use the
target language structure but it is faulty or limited. He believed that the latter type does not
require any correction since through further exposure to the target language structure the
learner will realize the correct structure and self-correct his or her speech. As to the former he
added:
Some of my colleagues distrust theoretical findings but I personally believe

that if they are applied in the right time and place they pay off. For instance,
I always rely on contrastive analysis to correct errors that are rooted in their
first language. When my students do not know a target language structure,
they suppose that they can pick it up from their first language. For instance,
when a student says "I am agree" or "Reza married with Maryam" I am sure
that he is using Persian structures to speak English. By juxtaposing the first
language structure and target language structure, I make them aware of the
differences. I do believe that leaning a new language involves overcoming
the differences between first language structures and target language
structures. Although very useful, it never works for intralingual errors. I
never correct these errors since I believe that students will discover the
correct rule on their own.
Discussion and Conclusion

Alhough participants were not up-to-date with literature, years of teaching experience had led
them to the realisation that they cannot cater for a myriad of individual differences in terms of
background, age, level, purpose, etc. with one technique of error correction for all. This
realisation, although derived from a different source, i.e., practice, is in line with the latest
theoretical findings concerning instruction. Connor, Morrison, and Katch (2004) found that
students achieved more growth when their instruction was matched to their needs—different
children with different needs benefited from different opportunities. Similarly the participants
in this study realised that error correction leads to language development if it is tailored to
meet individual differences. Connor, Morrison, and Petrella (2004) found that one-size-fits-
all instruction simply will not be as effective as differentiated instruction. Along the same
lines, participants in this study reached out to individuals and small groups and varied the
'what' and 'how' of error correction in order to create the best learning experience possible.
94
Thus, they differentiated error correction in terms specified in the results section of this study
to meet the needs of individuals and groups within one and the same class or at different
levels of proficiency. In studies that have compared direct and indirect approaches, two
(Ferris & Helt, 2000; Lalande, 1982) have reported an advantage for indirect feedback, two
(Robb et al., 1986; Semke, 1984) have reported no difference between the two approaches,
and one (Chandler, 2003) has reported positive findings for both direct and indirect feedback.
Even though many findings from oral corrective feedback studies in second language
acquisition research point to an advantage for direct over indirect corrective feedback
(Carroll, 2001; Carroll & Swain, 1993; Ellis et al., 2006; Havranek & Cesnik, 2003), there
are others ( Kim & Mathes, 2001; Leeman, 2003) that claim the opposite. The contradictory
results may lie in the fact that these researchers wrongly assumed “direct- correction-fits-all”
or “indirect-correction-fits-all”. Although all of them specified the method of error
correction, none specified the conditions that determine the 'how' and 'what’ of error
correction. They wrongly presumed that one technique of error correction is applicable across
varying ages, levels, tasks, and purposes.
This data-first study, which is deeply grounded in practitioners' perspectives rather than in
top-down theories, shows that one technique that is beneficial under one set of conditions
may be inefficient and, at times, limiting under another set of conditions. Moreover, it
indicates that studies such as the ones referred to in the literature review would seem to be
futile unless they cater for classroom conditions that shape teachers' action. Rather than being
universal, knowledge of error correction is situated in nature. It is the clarification of these
determining conditions that account for differentiated error correction discussed by the
participants. Having theorized teachers' views, the study informs second language
acquisition researchers and curriculum designers by providing them with a set of hypotheses
rarely encountered in previous literature. The findings are significant to researchers in that
not only do they provide them with a new set of hypotheses about error correction, they also
help them modify their views and hypotheses in the light of the findings of this study. They
equally help curriculum designers and material developers to accommodate practitioners'
views in designing and developing content-focused and form-focused materials. The findings
are also significant in that they bridge the gap between researchers and practitioners.
However the findings are especially significant in that they give voice to an oft-silent group
in the language education circle, i.e., language teachers, in some contexts such as Iran.
Despite the significance of the findings, however, further studies need to be undertaken to
uncover more determining conditions in other contexts. Only then can the field replace
95
situated knowledge of error correction with universal knowledge which is assumed to be

applicable across a myriad of conditions.
References
Ayoun, D. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language
acquisition of the passé compose and the imparfait. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2),
226–243.
Becker, P. H. (1993). Common pitfalls in published grounded theory research. Qualitative Health
Research, 3(2), 254-260.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 17(2), 69–124.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and
international students. Language Teaching Research Journal 12(2), 409–431.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback
on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 9, 227–258.
Braidi, S.M. (2002). Re-examining the role of recasts in native-speaker/non-native speaker
interactions. Language Learning, 52(1), 1–42.
Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam,
Holland: John Benjamin.
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the
learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357–386.
Chandler, J. (2003 ). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy
and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267–296.
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of Skinner's verbal behaviour. Language, 35, 26-58.
Clifford, J. (1986). Introduction: Partial truths. In J. Clifford & G. Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture:
The poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 1-26). Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Katch, L. E. (2004). Beyond the reading wars: Exploring the effect
of child-instruction interactions on growth in early reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8,
305–336.
Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Petrella, J. N. (2004). Effective reading comprehension instruction:
Examining child × instruction interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 682–698.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners' errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics,
5(4), 162-170.
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robbinson (Ed.), Cognition and
second language instruction (pp. 206-257). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J.
Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the
acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.
Ferris, D.R., & Helt, M. (2000). Was Truscott right? New evidence on the effects of error correction
in L2 writing classes. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics
Conference, March 11–14, 2000, Vancouver, BC.
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldmann, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and
laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55 (4), 575-611.
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
96
Glaser, B. G. (2001). The grounded theory perspective: Conceptualization contrasted with

description. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. (2004). Remodeling Grounded Theory. Qualitative Social
Research, 5(2), 1-17.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago: Aldine.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday
Anchor Books.
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly,
36(4), 543–572.
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the
privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599.
Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed? International Journal of
Educational Research, 37(3–4), 255–270.
Havranek, G., & Cesnik, H. (2003). Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback. In S. Foster-
Cohen & A. Nizegorodzew (Eds.), EuroSLA Yearbook, vol. 1. Amsterdam, Holland:
Benjamin.
Hulstign, J. H. (2002). Towards a unified account of the representation, processing and acquisition of
second language knowledge. Second Language Research, 18, 193-223.
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential
effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 1–36.
Kim, H., & Mathes, G. (2001). Explicit vs. implicit corrective feedback. The Korea TESOL Journal,
4, 1–15.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the
classroom. London, UK: Prentice Hall Europe.
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66,
140-149.
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 37–63.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language
Learning, 54 (1), 153-188.
Loewen, S. (2007). Error correction in second language acquisition. Clear News, 11 (2), 1-7.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot,
R. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspectives
(pp. 39-52). Amsterdam, Holland: John Benjamin.
Long, M. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: Mapping cognition. In H. D. Brown, C., A.
Yorio & R. H. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL, 77 (pp. 278-923). Washington DC: TESOL.
Long, M. (2006). Problems in SLA. Mahvah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing, and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics,
27 (3), 405-430.
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language
development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82(3),
338–356.
McLaughlin, B. (1990). Conscious versus unconscious learning. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 617-631.
Mitchell, K. D. (2000). Knowledge management: the next big thing. Public manager, 29(2), 57-60.
97
Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL
classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 519–533.
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom.
TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573–595.
Paradis, M. (1994). Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications for
bilingualism. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of second languages (pp. 393-
419). London, UK: Academic Press.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing
quality. TESOL Quarterly 20, 83–93.
Rosa, E., & Leow, R. P. (2004b): Computerized task-based exposure, explicitness, type of feedback,
and Spanish L2 development. Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 192-216.
Russel, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2
grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing
research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133-164). Amsterdam, Holland: John
Benjamin.
Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence vs. explicit rule presentation and explicit
negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54(1), 35-78.
Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social Research: Introduction to guidelines on reporting qualitative research.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 42(6), 544-545.
Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic
behaviour. SSLA, 15, 147-163.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10(3), 33-45.
Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL
learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly 41, 255–283.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behaviour. Acton, MA: Copely Publishing Group.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidhofer
(Eds.), For H. G. Widdowson: Principles and practice in the study of language (pp. 125-144).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Trofimovich, P., & Gatbonton, E. (2006). Repetition and focus on form in processing L2 Spanish
words: Implications for pronunciation instruction. The Modern Language Learning, 90 (4),
519-535.
Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. SLA Research 14, 103-
135.
Ur, P. (2000). Teaching grammar: What can we learn from research. The TESOLANZ Journal, 8, 14-
22.
Vallette, R. M. (1991). Proficiency and the prevention of fossilization: An editorial. Modern
Language Journal, 75(3), 325-328.
Vanpatten, B. (1986a). The ACTEFL proficiency guidelines: Implications for grammatical accuracy
in the classroom? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 56-67.
Webb, C. (2003). Editor’s note: Introduction to guidelines on reporting qualitative research. Journal
of Advanced Nursing, 42(6):544-545.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
98
Title
Effectiveness of Recasts in the Teaching of EFL
Author
Bexi Perdomo
Universidad de Los Andes (ULA),
Venezuela
Bio Data:
Bexi Perdomo has been lecturer and workshops facilitator in national and international
scientific meetings and has published articles on EFL and technology in education. She has
been responsible for several sponsored research projects. She has been qualified for
Venezuela’s national program of enhancement for researchers of social sciences and
humanities since 2006.
Abstract
The present study assessed the effectiveness of oral recasts in an EFL classroom. Thirty-eight
college students and a female teacher participated in the study in a western state in
Venezuela. Students were expected to learn the right use of the auxiliary verb ‘to have’, and
the use of past participles in the present perfect tense. They were divided into two groups.
Each group was randomly assigned to one of two conditions: 1) recast or 2) explicit negative
feedback. Positive feedback was provided for both groups. Pictures were used to elicit
conversation and an oral test was performed to collect the data. Results supported the claim
of the effectiveness of recast compared to explicit negative feedback. Based upon the results,
the use of recast in college EFL classes is recommended.
Keywords: error correction, negative feedback, recasts, EFL
Introduction
The kind and amount of feedback the students should receive still remain an interesting
research question because of the pedagogical implications of the issue on FL learning and
teaching. However, there are not enough empirical data to support possible answers to that
question, even though it is a relevant issue related to language teaching and learning
practices. Most of the research on feedback has dealt with the role of negative feedback in
foreign and second language acquisition. Among the studies that have addressed this issue,
are those that have only described the kind of feedback that occurs between NS and NNS
(e.g., Oliver, 1995). In second or foreign language contexts, authors have mostly described
the kind of feedback that takes place in a second language classroom and the uptake of each
one of them (e.g., Lyster & Ranta, 1997). Recently, some studies have addressed the issue
within experimental designs in foreign or second language settings (e.g. DeKeyser, 1993;
99
Long, Inagaky & Ortega, 1998; Perdomo & Rodríguez, 2002), and some other have started
questioning about the cognitive processes related to feedback noticing (Nabei and Swain,
2002).
Negative feedback in classroom interaction can be classified into different types including
recast (Oliver, 1995). Among these types of feedback, recast seems to be the most effective
implicit negative feedback (Ayoun, 2001; Long, Inagaky& Ortega, 1998). Recast “involves
the reformulation of all parts of student’s utterance, minus the error” (Lyster & Ranta 1997,
p. 46). Long, Inagaki & Ortega (1998) refer to it as corrective recast and define it as
responses which, although communicatively oriented and focused on meaning rather than
form, incidentally reformulates all or part of the learner’s utterance, providing information
that was missing or ill-produced. Other names for recast are repetition with change, repetition
with change and emphasis; paraphrase (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995) and pedagogic corrective
feedback (Llinares, 2005).
Studying and analyzing the kind, amount and effect of feedback that students receive during
the process of language learning contribute to create an appropriate environment for language
learning, especially in EFL contexts in which classrooms are the main sources for language
learning and the teacher is (in some cases) are the only source learners expect to
communicate with, and therefore, teachers are bound to correspond to the learners
expectations in terms of questioning and feedback (Farooq, 2007). In this sense, as well as the
language teaching methodology to be used, teachers must decide about the emphasis of the
oral activities (i.e., choosing between form and content) and hence, the kind of feedback to be
given.
In Venezuela, where it is common to observe that students still depend on language classes
and the classroom is still the main environment in which they interact in English, very few
studies have been conducted on the issue of feedback and oral production. For these reasons,
this study was designed with the purpose of investigating the effectiveness of recast in an oral
EFL context in a western college in Venezuela.
Literature Review
Nicholas, Lightbow and Spada (2001) made a documental review of the main studies in
which recast was investigated. After that review, they concluded that recast is quite effective
when students relate it to form and not to meaning. In relation to non-documental studies,
Ayoun (2001) investigated the effectiveness of recast against metalinguistic information. His
study was conducted with 145-second language students. These subjects were included in one
of the conditions: Implicit, explicit and pre-emptive. He found that the hypothesis claiming
that recast was superior to other feedback types was partially supported.
Other researchers, (Long, Inagaky & Ortega, 1998) conducted a two-experiment study to
assess the utility of models and recasts in L2 Japanese and Spanish. Subjects in experiment
one were 24 young adult learners of Japanese as a second language. They were 13 males and
100
11 females. Twenty of the subjects reported having studied Japanese in high school between
one and four years. Half of the participants had visited Japan for short periods. Target
Structures to be learned in this experiment were adjective ordering and locative construction.
The researchers used a pretest, posttest, and a control group design. The results provided
some evidence that adults are able to learn from explicit negative feedback, and that recasts
can be more effective than preemptive positive feedback (models) at least for short-term
improvement in an unknown L2 structure.
Experiment number two in the aforementioned study was conducted with 30 young adults
learning Spanish. They were given a Latin American music cassette and extra credit to
participate in the study. Direct object topicalization and adverb placement were the target
structures. As in the previous one, this study used a pretest, a posttest, and a control group
design. The target structures were presented in two conditions: model and recast. Treatments
and structures were crossed and counterbalanced. Both, treatments and testing were
performed individually. The findings for the adverb placement indicated that groups in model
and recast conditions outperformed those in control group, and participants under the recast
condition did better than those in model. No learning occurred in any group regarding object
topicalization. The authors concluded from both experiments that implicit negative feedback
facilitates L2 structures acquisition.
Also Rodríguez and Perdomo (2002) investigated the effect of negative feedback on oral
production of college students. In the study, recast was the main implicit negative feedback
used by the instructor. The study was conducted with intact classes of marketing majoring
students enrolled in the second semester of English as a foreign language in a western college
in Venezuela. Participants’ oral performance from the previous semester was used as a
covariate to investigate a possible attribute by treatment interaction (ATI). The analysis
revealed a statistically significant previous oral performance by treatment interaction. Those
students with previous oral performance over 14 seemed to benefit more from implicit
negative feedback. However, explicit negative feedback appeared to be more effective for
those subjects with previous performance below that score. Inspection of the regression lines
for the treatment groups indicated that incidental error correction was superior to explicit
correction. In a different context, Tsybina, Girolametto, Weitzman and Greenberg (2006)
examined linguistic recasts provided by 16 early childhood educators to preschool children
learning English as a second language. They divided children in two groups according to
their expressive language skills: lower and higher. In this study recast seemed to be less
effective for lower expressive language skills. However, the researchers suggested increasing
the amount of simpler recast in classroom interactions in preschool contexts. Even when the
subjects in this study were children, results seem consistent with those on behalf of recast for
more proficient students like Rodríguez and Perdomo’s (2002).
Research on the role of recast in FL learning has gone beyond describing types of feedback
during interaction and the effectiveness of recast compared to other kinds of feedback. It has
also focused on the cognitive processes that occur during classroom interactions. In this
sense, Nabeu and Swain (2002) presented a case study on a 19 years old Japanese college girl
101
learning EFL. They examined how recasts were provided and the relationship between the
student’s awareness of recast feedback and her L2 learning. They concluded, based upon the
results, that recasting is a complex verbal behaviour influenced by the teaching environment,
the interaction context, and the learner’s cognitive orientation. They also highlight that
recasts are influenced not only by its linguistic elements, but also by paralinguistic elements,
as well as by the learner’s autonomous use of the learning opportunities provided by the
feedback. These results indicate that recast remain as a controversial issue in FL and SL
teaching. Hence, the need for more research on recast and the elements involved in the
interaction that can affect its effectiveness is evident.
Method
Design
The present study was conceived as an experimental research. Participants were randomly
assigned to one of two conditions (recast – explicit negative feedback). A pretest and posttest
with control group design was used. The pretest was used as a covariate in the analysis of the
data.
Subjects
Participants were 38 college students in a western state in Venezuela. The students were
enrolled in the second semester of English as a foreign language. They constituted an intact
class attending 60-minute sessions twice a week with the same female teacher; hence no
teacher effect was expected.
Materials and Procedures
The experiment was conducted during the study of Unit 2 of the official program and lasted
three weeks. The grammatical structures they were expected to acquire were: 1) the right use
of the auxiliary verb TO HAVE for present perfect tense, and 2) the use of past participles of
regular and irregular verbs in present perfect tense.
The content was studied using pictures to elicit conversation. The procedure was as follows:
The teacher asked a question based on the picture. Then, the student was expected to answer
the question using the right form of the auxiliary verb and the verbs in past participle. The
teacher provided positive feedback under both conditions and the appropriate negative
feedback for each one according to the condition.
The short dialogues had a similar structure for subjects in both conditions:
1. Initial question (by the teacher)

2. Students’ answer.
3. Positive or negative feedback.
The following example illustrates a dialogue in class in which positive feedback was
provided:
102
- Teacher: (after showing a picture containing a man who had fallen down on the floor) “what
has happened?”
-Student: “The man has fallen down.”
-Teacher: “That’s right.”
The next is an example illustrating a dialogue in which explicit negative feedback was
provided:
- Teacher: (after showing a picture of a man who had blown a candle) “what has happened?”
-Student: “the man have blown the candle.”
-Teacher: “That’s incorrect. You should say: The man has blown the candle.”
The forthcoming dialogue exemplifies a case in which recast as negative feedback was
supplied:
- Teacher: (after showing a picture containing a boy who had fallen down from a bike) “what
has happened?”
-Student: “The boy has fell from the bicycle”
-Teacher: “Ah, the boy has fallen from the bicycle.”
-Student: “Yes, the boy has fallen from the bicycle.”
After the classes were carried out, the data were collected through an oral interview
comprising some short dialogues similar to the ones practiced in class. To elicit conversation
the teacher brought 15 pictures. The students were asked 10 questions about five of those
pictures chosen at random. The answers were evaluated giving one mark (1) to each, the
right use of the auxiliary form, and the right use of the past participle of the verbs to form the
present perfect. Hence, the maximum possible score would be 20.
Results
Means, standard deviations, and groups’ numbers for previous and current oral performance
are presented in Table 1. As it can be observed, control group outperformed the recast group
in the pre-test, but these results were different for the post-test.
Table 1. Means and Standard deviations for both groups in Previous and Current
Performance
Proficiency
Previous (pre-test) Current (post-test)
Condition M SD n . M SD N
Control 12,05 3,94 19 12.32 2.87 19
Recast 10,65 3,60 20 15.45 3.89 20
Overall 11,33 3,79 39 13.92 3.74 39
103
The data were submitted to an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), using the General Lineal
Model (GLM) (Table 2). A pretest was used as a covariate with Type I error rate set at p<.05.
The error variance of the cued-recall data was equally distributed across the groups,
according to the test of homogeneity of variance which did not reach statistical significance,
F (2, 37) = .566, p <.723. In other words, both groups were homogeneous and could easily
be statistically compared.
Table 2. Summary of the ANOVA
Sums of df Mean F P h2
Squares Squared
Pretest 33.461 1 33.461 3.067 .067 .092
Treatment 122.434 1 122.434 13.03 .001 .271
Treat x Pretest 46.148 1 46.148 4.913 .033 .123
Error 328.727 35 9.392
A statistically significant difference was found for treatment F (2, 37) = 13.03, p <.001.
These results seem to support the effectiveness recast as negative feedback in comparison to
explicit negative feedback. However, a significant difference was also found for the
interaction between treatment and pretest, p < .033. This interaction means that students who
showed better performance on the pretest were more benefited by the recast condition. In
other words, recast seems to benefit more those students with more previous knowledge of
the language.
Discussion
This study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of recast in an oral EFL context in a
western college in Venezuela. In this study, students were expected to acquire two
grammatical structures: 1) the right use of the auxiliary verb TO HAVE for present perfect
tense, and 2) the use of past participles of regular and irregular verbs in present perfect tense.
Results in general show recast as an effective negative feedback when learning those
structures. According to the results, students in the recast condition did better than the control
group, even thought they have been outperformed by controls in the pre-test. On the other
hand, control group did not show differences between the pre-test and the post-test. The
results indicate that students perform better when they receive recast as negative feedback. In
other words, recast has an effect on students’ performance. However, that difference tends to
be higher for more proficient students.
The results of the present study are consistent with those reported by Nicholas, Lightbow and
Spada (2001) in which recast happened to be more effective than explicit negative feedback.
They also seem to be consistent with the studies of Ayoun (2001) and Long, Inagaky, and
Ortega (1998) who compared recast to other kinds of feedback. The findings of the present
research also match with the results of Lightbow and Spada (1990) who although did not
study recast separately suggested that recast might be beneficial in a foreign language setting.
104
As it can be observed, although few studies have tested recast within experimental designs to
provide empirical evidence of its effectiveness, in most of them, recast seems to be more
effective than other kinds of negative feedback and preemptive feedback. However, its short
and long-term effectiveness has scarcely been investigated; hence, more research in needed
on this issue. Results in the current study indicated a statistically significant interaction
between previous knowledge and treatment, indicating that recast tends to benefit more
proficient students. These results are consistent with Rodríguez and Perdomo’s (2002)
findings who found implicit negative feedback as more effective for highly proficient
students. In the present research, students with higher scores for previous knowledge
(indicated here by the pretest) also did better under recast condition (a type of implicit
negative feedback).
These findings together suggest the use of recast with more proficient students. Results in
both studies let the author to believe that more advanced students are able to focus on form
rather than just on meaning, condition in favor of the effectiveness of recast according to
Long, Inagaki & Ortega (1998). In this sense, it is recommended to consider Marcosim’s
(2003) claim that teachers must take into account their students’ level of L2 proficiency when
making decisions about feedback.
It is possible to think that the results of this research could have been influenced by the kind
of interaction in class. In this sense, this study seems to support Lyster’s (1998) claim that the
type of interaction between teachers and students would determine if students notice recasts
or not. As Lyster (1998) states, when the teacher does not give students the opportunity to
reformulate the utterance, the attention is given to content rather than form. In the case of the
current study, the kind of interaction let the students identify recast as negative feedback and
hence take the advantage of it. Therefore, if teachers decide to include recast as feedback in
oral activities, they must set a proper interaction environment to enhance its effectiveness.
However, there are not empirical studies that directly assess this issue, for which more
research is also needed on the kind of classroom interaction required to increase recasts
effectiveness.
Conclusion
The issue of negative feedback is highly important in language teaching. Some studies have
shown that implicit negative feedback can affect students’ attempts to communicate which is
reflected in their oral production and recommended the use of implicit negative feedback
(Rodríguez and Perdomo, 2002). Among all the choices of implicit negative feedback recast
is seen in literature as one of the best, especially for those students with higher level of
proficiency. However, several aspects of the effectiveness of recast still need to be studied.
For example, short and long term effectiveness for grammatical structures learning, the kind
of interaction in the classroom enhancing recast effectiveness, the relation between students’
learning styles and recast noticing, and the relation between students’ anxiety in oral
activities and recast noticing, among other.
Pedagogical implications
105
As teachers are expected to seek the best methods and techniques to help students to learn,
one important issue to consider is the kind of feedback students should receive in oral
activities. Giving students the appropriate kind of feedback would improve conditions for FL
learning. However, as it has been observed in this research and in previous ones (e.g.,
Rodríguez and Perdomo, 2002), students’ proficiency in the language affects recasts
effectiveness. In this sense it is recommended for teachers to explore their students’
proficiency in the language before deciding the kind of feedback to provide. Hence, it would
be useful to make some tests at the beginning of the courses, in order to determine students’
proficiency, because the use of recast is somehow determined by students’ proficiency.
References
Ayoun, D. (2001). The role of negative feedback in the second language acquisition of the
passé compose and imparfait. Modern Language Journal, 85(ii), 226-243.
DeKeyser, R. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral
proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 77(ii), 502-514.
Farooq, M. (2007). Exploring the Effectiveness of Spoken English Classes of Japanese EFL
Learners. The Journal of Liberal Arts, 3,35-57.
Lightbow, P. & Spada, N. (1999) Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative
language teaching. Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 12, 429-448.
Llinares, A. (2005). The effect of teacher feedback on EFL learners´ functional production in
classroom discourse. ANGLOGERMANICA ONLINE. Available at:
http://www.uv.es/anglogermanica/2005/llinares.pdf
Long, M., Inagaky, S. & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA:
Models and recast in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82(iii),
357-371.
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51-81
Lyster, R. & Ranta, O. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Negotiations of form
in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Marcosim, M. (2003) Teacher feedback and learner’s uptake. Revista Linguagem en
(Dis)curso 4 (1). Recuperado de http://www3.unisul.br/paginas/ensino/pos/
linguagem/0401/04.htm
Nabei, T. & Swain, M. (2002) Learner Awareness of Recasts in Classroom Interaction: A
Case Study of an Adult EFL Student’s Second Language Learning. Language
Awareness 11(1), 43.
Nicholas, H., Lightbow, P. & Spada, N. (2001). Recast as feedback to language learners.
Language Learning, 5(4), 719-758.
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS_NNS conversation. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 17, 459-481.
Rodríguez, M. & Perdomo, B. (2002). Effects of Implicit and Explicit Negative Feedback on
EFL Students’ Oral Performance. Paper presented at the annual TESOL convention,
VenTESOL, May, 2002. Nueva Esparta, Venezuela.
Spada, N. & Fröhlich, M. (1995). The Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching
Observation Scheme (COLT).
The National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research (NCELTR). Sydney:
Australia.
Tsybina, I., Girolametto, L., Weitzman, E., Greenberg, J. (2006) Recasts Used with
Preschoolers Learning English as their Second Language.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(2), 177-185.
106
Topic
Role of Motivation in Second Language Acquisition:
Factors influencing Learners and Practitioners
LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1 Introduction
Generally the term “„motivation‟ refers to a wide range of words and expressions such as
ambition – energy – persistence – achievement – inspiration – reward – goal – desire – will –
effort – incentive – impetus – driving force – enthusiasm - stimulus; etc. In our everyday life,
when we talk about likes and dislikes, interests and preferences, goals and
expectations, or when we complaint about poor salaries, distressing colleagues,
incompetent management at work, we are dealing with the issue of motivational
psychology. Thus, as Dörnyei (2001b: 1) states that „the concept of motivation is very much
part of our everyday personal and professional life and, indeed, few ignore its importance in
human affairs in general‟. This chapter define and describe the terms „motivation‟ and
“„demotivation‟ as hold in SLA research and then present an overview of the research
conducted in the field of motivation and demotivation in second language acquisition.
1.2 Definitions of Motivation
Covington (1998: 1) has rightly put that like the concept of gravity, motivation is easier to
describe – in terms of its outward, observable effects – than it is to define. However, a few
most important acceptable definitions have been provided here as follow.
1. Skehan (1989: 6) defined motivation as „the individual’s need to study the language
in question and his willingness to persevere and overcome obstacles‟.
2. Gardner (1985b: 10) defined motivation to learn the L2 as “„the extent to which the
individual works or strives to learn the language because of a desire to do so and the
satisfaction experienced in this activity‟. He further states that motivation refers to „a
kind of central mental „engine‟ or „energy-centre‟ that subsumes effort, want/will
(cognition) and task-enjoyment (affect).
3. A more elaborate, dynamic and motivation as process oriented phenomenon has been
provided by Dörnyei and Otto (1998: 64) as „the dynamically changing cumulative
arousal in a person that initiates, directs, coordinates, amplifies, terminates, and
107
evaluates the cognitive and motor process whereby initial wishes and desires are selected,
prioritised, operationalised and (successfully or unsuccessfully) acted out‟.
Motivation, being involved in every field of life, has its impact on second language
acquisition as well. Although motivation has been considered by many as one of the main
determining factors in success in the learning of the L2 (Brophy 1998; Dörnyei 1990, 1994,
2001a, 2001b, 2001c; Ellis 1994; Gardner et al. 1985; Oxford and Shearin 1994; Scarcella
and Oxford 1992; Warden & Lin 2000), Dörnyei (2001a: 1) however, considers it a broader
umbrella term that covers a variety of meaning. On the importance of motivation in L2
acquisition, Dörnyei and Csizer (1998: 203) comments:
“„L2 motivation is one of the most important factors that determine the rate and
success of L2 attainment: it provides the primary impetus to initiate learning the L2
and later the driving force to sustain the long and often tedious learning process.
Without sufficient motivation, even individuals with the most remarkable abilities
cannot accomplish long-term goals‟.
According to Trembley and Gardner (1995: 506) and Gardner (1985b: 50) motivation
involves four aspects; a goal, effortful behaviour, a desire to attain the goal and favourable
attitudes towards the activity in question.
1.3 Types of Motivation
Motivation has been identified differently by different researchers. Gardner and Lambert
(1972) have identified motivation as the integrative motivation and the instrumental
motivation. Deci and Ryan (1985) have also identified two related types of motivation, i.e.
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. However, the terms intrinsic and extrinsic have not been
found of much relevance to this study. Therefore, after a brief description of intrinsic and
extrinsic, a discussion of terms integrative and instrumental motivation will be provided.
1.3.1 Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation
According to Elyıldırım and Ashton (2006: 2) intrinsically motivated students are those
who learn a language because they are interested in learning it and it is basically a result of
internal feelings of self-determination and competence; while students who are
extrinsically motivated learn a language because of an external influence, such as earning a
reward, for instance a good grade or avoiding a punishment.
It has been argued that intrinsic motivation is the central motivator of the educational process,
and it is believed that students‟ intrinsic motivation to learn will increase when the
educational environment provides optimal challenges, rich sources of stimulation, and a
context of autonomy. Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, has been accused of
weakening intrinsic motivation; it has been argued that students might lose their intrinsic
interest in an activity if they have to do it in order to meet some extrinsic requirements
(Dörnyei 1994: 275-276).
1.3.2 Integrative and Instrumental Motivation:

108
Gardner and Lambert (1972) identified two related types of motivation, one is integrative and
the other is instrumental. Learners with an integrative motivation usually wish to learn L2 in
order to interact and identify with members from the L2 community and have also a positive
attitude towards the target community. However, learners with an instrumental motivation
learn the language in order to achieve some practical goal (social, economic), such as
furthering a career or improving social status (Noels et al., 1999: 24).
Researchers on learners‟ motivation have made two different observations. Gardner,

Lambert and their associates consider integrative motivation to be the most important factor,
while the latter researchers gave least importance to integrative and put much emphasis on
instrumental motivation. For instance, Lambert (1974) observed integrative motivation as
more important in formal learning environment than the instrumental one, and considered it a
more powerful predictor of linguistic achievement. Falk (1978) viewed the most successful
learners of a target language as those who like the native speakers, have regard for their
culture and want to become familiar with the society in which the language is used. While
discussing the process of acquiring a second language, Gardner (1979: 193-4) is of the view
that the student is faced, not only with the task of learning new information (vocabulary,
grammar, pronunciation, etc) which is part of his own culture but rather of acquiring
symbolic elements of a different ethno linguistic community. In addition to that, he/she is
not being asked to learn about them; he/she is being asked to acquire them, to make them part
of his/her own language reservoir. As a result, „the students harmony with his own cultural
community and his willingness or ability to identify with other cultural communities becomes
important considerations in the process of second language acquisition‟ (ibid).
Further research by Gardner on the role of various individual differences in the acquisition of
L2, led Gardner (1985b) to establish a model of motivation in SLA and he called it the socio-
educational model and concluded that the learner’s attitude towards the target language and
the culture of the target language community has great impact on language learning
motivation. On the basis of socio-educational model, Gardner (1985a) developed the
Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (ATMB) and consisted of five categories: integrative
motivation, instrumental motivation, motivation, anxiety and attitude towards learning
situations. A number of studies have used Gardner’s model, such as Tremblay & Gardner
(1995), Masgoret et al., (2001), etc.
The Gardner’s model has been criticized for putting too much emphasis on integrativeness
and the learner’s attitude towards the target community culture and group. Dörnyei (1990) in
this regard stated that the instrumental motivation and the learner‟s need for
achievement are more important than the integrative motivation. Research studies, such as the
one carried out by Lukmani (1972) also suggested that integratively motivated students do
not always perform better than those who are instrumentally motivated. He based his
conclusion on Marathi-speaking high school students in India, and discovered that students
with instrumental motivation outperformed those with integrative motivation on a test of
English language proficiency.
109
A study conducted by Matsumoto and Obana (2001: 81) on elementary and intermediate-
level university students learning Japanese in Australia showed that elementary-level
students were mostly instrumentally motivated to learn the language. The reason behind this
might be the fact that Australia has many cultural, political and industrial contacts with Japan,
which usually encourages students to learn Japanese. However, this type of motivation
may differ at different levels of proficiency, for they believe that as students learn the
language and its related backgrounds, their instrumental motivation decreases considerably
and instead, the integrative motivation increases. Therefore, Matsumoto and Obana (2001:
81) believe that “instrumental motivation may ignite the starting of learning, but learning
persistence is primarily maintained by integrative and intrinsic motivation‟.
They argue that in order for learners to be able to continue learning the target language, they
must reach the stage where they enjoy interaction with the community and have pleasure in
learning the language itself.
Tremblay and Gardner (1995) incorporated other motivational variables into the socio-
educational model and they acknowledged that other factors as instrumental orientation,
attitudes toward the teacher and the course, learning strategies and self confidence might
contribute to motivation. Brown (2000) stated that second language learners rarely select one
form of motivation when learning a second language, but rather a combination of them and
he cites the examples of the international students residing in the United States of America.
A study by Oxford and Shearin (1994: 12) that took place in 1991 asking 218 students in an
American high school about the reason behind their learning Japanese as a foreign language
suggested that such a theory does not cover all possible types of L2 learning motivation. The
results of such a study indicated that many wanted to learn Japanese for future business
reason, which is instrumental motivation. Others learned the language in order to make
friends in Japan, which shows integrative motivation. However, Oxford and Shearin
concluded that more than two-thirds of the students had other reasons that did not relate to
either of these two motivations. Some of the reasons included seeking personal challenge,
showing off to friends, aiding world peace, having a private code that parents would not
know, and so on.
Motivation is a complex, social, cultural, and a psychological factor that “„influences how a
student approaches many situations in life, including second language learning‟ (Elyıldırım
and Ashton, 2006: 10). However, describing L2 learning motivation in terms of the
integrative and instrumental orientation has been criticised by many researchers.
Humphreys and Spratt, (2008: 314) considers it as being an oversimplification of a highly
complex issue. The researchers have included other components such as desire for
knowledge, need for achievement, intellectual stimulation and personal challenge can also
play important role in second language acquisition.
1.4 Previous Research on Motivation
The interest in motivation started with the works of Gardner and his associates (1959). The
development of empirical research on motivation is spread over about five decades (from
110
1959-2008), approximately. Eccles et al. (1998: 1074) argues that the view of motivation has
changed considerably over the last few decades of the 20th century, „going from a
biologically based drive perspective to a behavioural-mechanistic perspective, and then
to a cognitive-meditational/constructivist perspective‟. The research development in the
field of motivation in second language learning can be divided into three phases as discussed:
1.4.1 Three phases of Research Development on Motivation
Dörnyei (2005 and 2001b) presents an excellent overview of recent research motivation in
detail and brief, respectively, and in turn can be looked at under three headings, discussed by
Dörnyei (2005: 66) as three phases of motivation research:
a. Social psychological period, 1959-1990: (Gardner and his associates)
b. Cognitive-situated period, 1990s‟: (Dörnyei‟s 1994)
c. Process Oriented period 2000-08: (Dörnyei, Ushioda, Otto and collegues).
1.4.2 Social Psychological Period (1959-1990)
This period is mostly known for, and influenced by, the Socio Psychological Model (SPM) of
Robert Gardner, Wallace Lambert, Richard Clement and their associates which was later,
in early 90s, developed into Socio Educational Model (SEM) by Tremblay and Gardner
(1995), as a result of the “„new themes‟ (Dörnyei 2001c: 43) and the |„motivational
renaissance‟ (ibid).
Writing about Gardner and his associates Dörnyei (1994: 274) states that they were
„sensitive to the social dimension of L2 motivation‟ because the society they belonged to
considered language a „social issue‟, and the result was, Social Psychological model (ibid
p.273). This model sheds light on Gardner’s “„motivation construct‟ based on two
components; Instrumental and Integrative (orientation of) motivation (ibid and Ehrman et al.
2003: 319). Integrative motivation considers „positive attitude toward the foreign culture and
a desire to participate as a member of it‟ (Ehrman et al. 2003: 319). Instrumental
motivation refers to „goal of acquiring language in order to use it for a specific purpose
such as career advancement or entry to a Post Secondary education‟ (ibid). The dominant
theme of Gardner and his associates‟ research was the preference of integrative motivation
over instrumental motivation. They were of the view that “„integratively motivated‟
learners can be more successful language learners as compared to instrumentally motivated.
Ehrman et al. (2003: 320), while referring to Gardner, Lambert and associates, states that
these early studies which were based on social psychology „treated L2 learner motivation‟ as
a „relatively static trait‟. The preference of „integrative orientations‟ of motivation was
proved to be far less important by later researchers (Au 1988, Crookes and Schmidt 1991,
Oxford and Shearin 1994). Ehrman et al. (ibid) argues, while discussing integrative
orientations of motivation and “„highly ethnocentric‟ learners, states that even they scored
111
high grades in learning foreign language though they were not motivated integratively
(Leaver 2003), or they even did not like the target culture at all. Such studies paved the way
for „new themes‟ in the study of and in relation to the motivational research in the field of
second language learning.
Clement et al. (1994) brings forth these “„new themes‟ into focus through various studies.
Clement et al (ibid) brings forth and discusses the following five motivational factors under
the umbrella of “„new themes‟: friendship and travelling; a kind of identification with the
speakers of target language (almost same as Gardner’s concept of integrative orientation);
interest in cultures at very general level and what is happening in the world; career and
knowledge enhancement (somewhat like instrumental orientation of Gardner) and also, urge
to follow and understand media of L2 language.
As we have already seen that motivation was looked at as “„stable‟ Dörnyei (2001c: 44),
„Static‟ Ehrman et al. (2003: 320), and „restricted‟ Gardner and MacIntyre (1993: 4) learner
trait but with the recent shift in thought, according to Dörnyei (ibid), motivation is looked at
as a „more dynamic factor ‟which is changing and passing through the process of evolution
(fluctuation) because of the „various internal and external influences the learner is
exposed to‟ (Dörnyei 1994: 44 and 2001c). This change and shift of thought about
motivation from “„static‟, “„stable‟ and “„restricted‟ trait to more “„dynamic factor‟ also
influenced and encouraged Tremblay and Gardner (1995: 505) to develop a new motivational
model which is considered or taken as a response to calls for the “„adaptation of wider vision
of motivation‟ which does not give much importance to their previous (and most important)
component “„the integrative motive‟ (Dörnyei 1994:44). Dörnyei (2001b: 53) also
discusses the revised model of Tremblay and Gardner (1995) in which they have
incorporated new elements from „expectancy value‟ and “„goal theories‟.
1.4.3 Criticism on Social Psychological Model:
Gardner and his associates‟ Social Psychological approach and model was criticised for
following reasons, by later researchers:
 It was too influential that new ideas/thought could not flourish or compete with its
global popularity (Crookes and Schmidt 1991: 501).
 It was not very “„education-centred‟ though Attitude/Motivation Test Battery

(AMTB) provides it, somewhat an educational dimension but still it was not enough to call it
an education-centred approach as the “„social milieu‟ was more influential.
 “„The primary emphasis is placed on attitudes and other social psychological

aspects of SL learning‟ however, the term motivation is “„more congruent with definitions
common outside social psychology, specifically in education‟ (Crookes and Schmidt
1991: 469).
112
 Aspects of cognitive motivation were missing (Dörnyei 1994: 273).
 It depicts local views (Canadian context) rather than global.
 Later studies suggested that instrumental motivation is more influential than

integrative motivation (Gass and Selinker 2001: 352).
But whatever the case was, the “„new theoretical advances‟ “, „new approaches in research
methodology‟; and new “„motivational themes‟ are still, more or less, based on the initial
research and standard work done by social psychologists in Canada (Gardner 1985a and
1985b; Gardner and Lambert 1972 and other associates), according to Dörnyei (2001c: 43).
So we conclude this phase with the words of Dörnyei (2001a: 15) who states that “„most of
the research on L2 motivation in 1960s and 1990s focused on how‟ the perceptions of L2
learners, speakers and culture affect their aims and goals (desire) to learn the language.
1.4.4 The Cognitive-situated Period
This conclusion about the first phase of L2 motivation research brings us to the next phase or
second era of motivation research called Cognitive-situated period of 90s. This era belongs to
Dörnyei and his classroom-based framework of L2 motivation (1994), however, certain other
researchers like Brown (2001), Crookes and Schmidt (1991), Ellis (1994 and 1997), and
Skehan (1989) who put forwarded their theories. Although some of these theories were over
lapped with the same ideas, yet their significant and importance cannot be underestimated
in the understanding and development of L2 motivation research.
During this phase of motivational research, the researchers argued that the crucial aspect of
L2 motivation is the learner thinking about his/her “„abilities, possibilities, potentials,
limitations, and past performance, as well as various aspects of the tasks to achieve and /or
goals to attain‟. The researchers also aspire to confine the macro perspective of L2
motivation to a more perfect and situated analysis of motivation as it operates in actual
learning situations. (Dörnyei 2005: 74). McGroarty (2001: 86) in this regard comments:
“Existing research on L2 motivation ... has begun to rediscover the multiple and
mutually influential connections between individuals and their many social contexts,
contexts that can play a facilitative, neutral, or inhibitory role with respect to further
learning, including L2 learning‟.
Thus the process of linking motivation to contextual factors opened new horizons for
research, and the researchers started to consider the impacts of teachers, curriculum and
learning situations on learners‟ motivation as the research conducted by Dorynei (1994: 279)
classroom based framework of L2 motivation and Williams & Burden (1997) and, according
to Dörnyei (2001a: 17) the result was “„new L2 motivation construct‟. This framework
represented “„educational approach‟ which was the element missing, mainly, in Gardner’s
Socio-Psychological model. The L2 motivation in a language classroom was the particular
focus of this framework (Dörnyei 2001a: 18) and thus a conclusion can be drawn as „the
113
classroom L2 learning motivation is not a static construct as often measured in a quantitative

manner, but a compound and relative phenomenon situated in various resources and tools in a
dynamic classroom context‟ (Kimura 2003: 78).
Crookes and Schmidt (1991: 469) looked at the definition of motivation from teachers‟ point
of views which they collected through a study. They (ibid) state that the way term motivation
has been defined and used by teachers is „more congruent with definitions outside social
psychology‟ especially in the field of education. This brought the L2 motivation research
into an era where the „significance of the socio-cultural dimension‟ of L2 motivation was
still significant but researchers also started to believe that “„there is more to the
motivation‟.
This model of Dörnyei (2001a: 18-19) discusses L2 motivation at three levels: the language
level, the learner level and at the learning situation level. The language level covers the
“„traditionally established elements of L2 motivation‟ (culture, community etc.) which are
also associated with Gardner’s Socio-Psychological model. At this level the focus is on the
ideas and orientations connected to the various aspects of L2 which may decide basic
learning goals (outcomes) such as skill of using the language, the culture language conveys,
etc. (Dörnyei 1994). At the learner level “„individual characteristics‟ are considered
and discussed e.g. self-confidence, the influence of Richard Clement’s work is worth to
notice here where the need for achievement and self-confidence is realized (Dörnyei 1994).
Dörnyei (1994: 277) also states that learners with higher sense of achievement will be
interested in performance for its own sake and work with great intensity. Dörnyei (ibid,
p.276) states, while talking about setting goals, that they can stimulate the feeling of L2
learning motivation which in turn boosts learners‟ confidence and encourage them to
become autonomous learners. The level of becoming autonomous learner depends on,
states Dörnyei (ibid p.275), intrinsic rewards.
At the third level, Dörnyei (ibid) brings in the learning situation where he discusses three
components:
 „Course-specific motivational components’ which are about tasks, methodology,

materials and syllabuses.
 „Teacher-specific motivational components’ here Dörnyei (ibid) considers teacher’s

style, behaviour and personality in terms of their motivational impacts.
 „Group-specific motivational components’ is about characteristics of learner’s group.
1.4.5 The Process-Oriented Period:
From this discussion of Dörnyei‟s classroom based framework of motivation, we enter into
the third phase (Process-oriented period 2000-2005) of the L2 research in the field of
motivation. The prominent names of this era are: Dörnyei, Ushioda, Otto and
114
colleagues. Dörnyei and Otto (1998: 48) presented a model called Process Model of
Language Learning Motivation (PMLLM). Dörnyei (2001a: 19) claims that through this
model they (Dörnyei and Otto) have tried to bring in the brief overview of the various
motivation theories, which also “„reflects a new approach in L2 motivation research‟.
This model gives motivation “„a dynamic view‟ and tries to „account for the changes of
motivation over time‟. Dörnyei (ibid) believes that L2 being a „prolonged learning
activity‟ cannot be considered „stable‟ because “„motivation fluctuates‟ (varies) while
going through the long process of learning L2. This has also been mentioned by Garcia
(1999: 231) that “„... one of the prime characteristics of motivation is that it ebbs and
flows‟. The variation might be the result of different reasons such as time, with which
motivation can reduce/decrease.
The Dörnyei and Otto model of L2 motivation is based on three phases of motivation.
William and Burden (1997: 121) have also separated the three stages of the motivation
process along a continuum as: “„reasons for doing something‟ → „deciding to do
something‟ → „sustaining the effort, or persisting‟ and have also mentioned that the first two
stages involved initiating motivation whereas the third stage involved sustaining motivation.
The model as presented by Dörnyei and Otto broke down the motivational process into
several discrete temporal segments, organized along the progression that describes how initial
wishes and desires are first transformed into goals and then operationalised intentions,
and how these intentions are enacted, leading to the accomplishment of the goal and
concluded by the final evaluation of the process. The different stages of the process model are
as under:
a. Pre-actional phase (Dörnyei 2001b: 85-91) where motivation needs to be generated;

it is about „choice motivation‟ which helps learner in the choice or the selection of the
goal/task (Dörnyei 2001a: 21).
b. Actional phase (Dörnyei 2001b: 85-91) here, the generated motivation, according
to Dörnyei (2001a: 21), should stay active, “„maintained and protected‟. This phase is
called „executive motivation‟ which is relevant to the learning of L2 in a typical “„classroom
setting‟ where students can be distracted easily due to various reasons (anxiety, physical
conditions) which can make task difficult for the learner.
c. The postactional phase (Dörnyei 2001b: 85-91) or the third phase is termed as
„motivational retrospection‟ (Dörnyei 2001a: 21). During this phase learners think and
evaluate, „how things went‟. Dörnyei (ibid) further add that the retrospective phase will
determine the kind of activities learners would like to pursue in their futures.
Dörnyei states that during these three phases of motivation the motives of learners could be
different and fluctuating. A very good example of how a learner might pass through these
three phases of motivation is given by Lightbrown and Spada (2006: 64) where they give an
115
example of „a secondary school learner in Poland who is excited about‟ a trip to Spain and
decides to take a Spanish course (choice motivation) and passes through all the three phases
with a very positive outcome and level of self-confidence plus satisfaction.
1.6 Demotivation:
Motivation has been considered as an important factor in the process of second language
acquisition. However, it has been found that students in the due course of time are either
dropped out of language study, withdraw from the course or look for strategies to pass the
required exam with a minimum of effort. This is the result of various factors such as
disheartening test results, public humiliation or even conflict with peers. And these
negative influences cancel the existing motivation and the students fall into the
demotivated state.
Demotivation has been defined by Dörnyei (2001b: 143) as „specific external forces that
reduce or diminish the motivational basis of a behavioural intention or an ongoing action‟.
Research has also made the distinction between “„demotivation‟ and “„amotivation‟ (a term
that has been introduced by Deci and Ryan, 1985). Dörnyei (2001b: 143) has clarified the
difference between the two terms as „Amotivation refers to a lack of motivation brought
about by the realisation that “there is no point…” or “it’s beyond my ken…”. Thus,
amotivation is related to general outcome expectations that are unrealistic for some reason,
whereas demotivation is related to specific external causes‟.
1.7 Previous Research on Demotivation:
Researchers such as Chambers (1993), Gorham and Millette (1997), Oxford (1998),
Ushioda (1998) and Dörnyei (1998b) consider demotivation to be an important
phenomenon in L2 studies. Generally it has been considered to be related to the teacher’s
interaction with the students, failure in the study of language, etc. However, it will be
noteworthy to mention that some of those early studies, such as the one conducted by Ho
(1998), have connected low motivation to demotivation, and thus were unable to present a
clear picture. A brief description of some of the research finding made by some of these
researchers has been given below:
Chambers (1993) examined the student demotivation in the L2 classroom using

questionnaires to gather both student and teacher perspectives and claimed that his
research is fully devoted to demotivation in L2 learning. The results achieved from
teachers responses were interesting in nature and were also different from the reasons
perceived by students. Teachers perceived the causes of demotivation to be related to social,
psychological, historical, attitudinal and geographical reasons, although they clearly excluded
themselves. The students also perceived various reasons for demotivation such as teachers‟
negative behaviours and attitudes, classroom size, criticizing students, etc. But Chambers has
been criticized by later researchers for simple listing the students views and not determining
what the demotives were really and thus a full understanding of demotivation cannot be
drawn from his study.
116
Oxford (1998) measured the learners demotivation by involving the time factor in her study,
as she was of the view that demotivation can be best understood by taking into account the
learners‟ experiences in the past (over a period of five years in her study). The students were
asked to write an essay about their learning experiences, using a variety of prompts such as
„Describe a situation in which you experienced conflict with a teacher‟, and „Talk about a
classroom in which you felt uncomfortable‟. The results showed that the teacher’s personal
relationship with the student (teachers‟ criticism, lack of caring and favouritism); the
teacher’s attitude towards the course or the material (their lack of enthusiasm or passion,
weak management of the classroom); style conflicts between teachers and students and
the nature of the classroom activities (repetitions, overloaded home assignments and
irrelevant activities) are the major sources of demotivation. The study was not proved to be
comprehensive in nature, as it did not touched on other potential sources of demotivation and
dealt only with the prompts referring only to the teacher’s role as a source of demotivation.
Later Ushioda (1998) performed a study by asking the participants to identify what they
found to be demotivating in their L2-related learning experience without giving any
prompts. The finding of her study identified demotives to be related to negative aspects of the
learning situation such as particular teaching methods and learning tasks. But her study was
considered to be only part of a broader picture of demotivation.
Dörnyei (1998b) conducted a study on demotivated students (students who have

experienced demotivation in their learning experience) and the reason for his choice of
subjects was based upon his idea that those who have experienced demotivation can specify
the genuine reasons for the cause of demotivation. And that also brought a difference
in results from the previous studies. However, his study has been criticized for selecting
interviews as an only tool for finding the causes of demotivation as some researchers
consider the data collected from interviews alone to be insufficient and incomplete in
dealing with such a sensitive problem, particularly in different cultural situations.
1.8 Summary of the Chapter
The chapter has reviewed the past research on L2 motivation and demotivation. Different
types of motivation such as integrative and instrumental motivation have been discussed with
their effects on students‟ achievement in L2. Empirical research on motivation which is
spread over about five decades (from 1959-2008) approximately has been discussed in three
phases as social-psychological period, cognitive-situated period and process-oriented period.
In the later parts, the chapter has looked at the demotivation and the research conducted in
that regard.
2.1 Motivating and Demotivating Factors
By and large, the scholars and researchers in the field of second language motivation agree
that there exists a complex network of relationships between the learners, the teachers,
method of teaching, social context, exposure, encouragement from parents, and that all these
have a significant impact upon the learner’s motivation. In order to observe and analyse the
117
impact of different factors, the subjects were asked questions about the factors that they
consider are motivating and also the factors that cause demotivation for them in the process
of learning English. A significant number of the subjects considered teacher, course book and
classroom environment to be important for motivating learners. However, some of them were
also concerned about the demotivating role of these factors as well. Therefore, the analysis
and discussion of these factors will be dealt with under the same heading. It must also be
noted that most of the subjects were practitioners, and their views encompass on one hand
their own views about the motivation in language learning, and on the other hand, they will
be commenting on behalf of their students’ that they have been teaching. Thus a more
comprehensive view of the practitioners will provide a strong and reliable basis for this
study. During the interviews the subjects’ reference was to their current as well as past
teachers, course books and classrooms.
2.1.1 Role of the Teacher and Teacher’s Motivation:
Teaching is a complex process. Traditionally, language teaching was described in terms of

what teachers did in the classroom and the effects of these strategies on the learners.
However, recently we have reached a deeper understanding about the teaching-learning
enterprise that what is taught is learnt in different ways because of primarily learning factors
mediating in the process along with several other factors. Nevertheless, the role of a teacher
should never be underestimated. Reflective and sensitive teachers can be so powerful in a
classroom that they can make the teaching learning tasks come alive, making the experience
pleasant and dynamic for both the learners and themselves. And this has been mentioned by
subjects as P9, P11 and P14 described:
‘A teacher should motivate his/her students because the students take any word that comes
out of the teacher and work by it’.
‘A good teacher is determined to motivate their students at all times’.
‘I think the teacher’s job is to provide a link between the text book and the real world. And
motivation plays a vital role in this job’.
Most of the practitioners considered the „motivational characteristics of the language

teacher‟ to be important and having fundamental „bearings on the students motivational
disposition and ... on their learning achievement‟ (Dörnyei 2005: 115). But the results of this
study were to some extent different from the study conducted by Dörnyei and Csizer (1998)
where the participants considered the teachers own behaviour to be the single most important
motivational tool. But the participants agreed to the results of the same study (ibid) which
exposed that this „tool‟ has been one of the most under-utilised motivational resources in the
teacher’s classroom practice. An important comment in this regard was made by P8, where
she states that:
‘After many years of teaching and after using varied ways, often successful and at
times not very successful, I have come to realize that if the teachers actually want to
motivate their students, they first need to motivate theirself. If they keep their
118
self updated, strengthen their lesson plans and make their students feel their need and
desire for them to learn, the students will rise to the occasion and will want to learn’.
Thus the role of the teacher seems very crucial in second language acquisition and more than
half of the practitioners agreed that the teacher motivation can change the fate of the learners.
However, some of the practitioners observed this that it is not the teachers‟ responsibility to
motivate the learners, as they are paid for completing the teaching curriculum, preparing and
checking exam papers, keeping attendance, etc, and as such motivating is not
mentioned in their job description. Some of the language learners also shared the same point,
although with a different perspective as L5 mentioned:
‘I think that motivating students is not teachers’ job. Teacher only can tell you the
right way. And if you really want to achieve some aims in life then you don’t wait for
someone to motivate you’.
To analyse the teachers‟ lack of motivation, the practitioners were also provided the
opportunity to comment briefly on the factors that can be demotivating for them. Out of 11,
seven practitioners considered the following factors to be important to enhance their level of
motivation: i) Increasing professional opportunities for teachers; ii) Autonomy in classroom;
iii) Good pay; iv) Less work load; and v) Favourable environment
2.2.2 The Demotivating Role of a Teacher
Krashen (1982: 32) has rightly said that „the effective language teacher is someone who can
provide input and help make it comprehensible in a low anxiety situation‟. In general the
participants of the study did not blame the teacher to be the only demotivating factor in the
process of second language acquisition. Some of them however, referred to a number of the
traits of their teachers‟ personality to be demotivating such as the teacher’s style (including
way/method of teaching), his/her lack of competency and their negative behaviour. As
P9 mentioned:
‘Motivation is something that comes from within, not from outside. Scolding or
rebuking fills a learner with anger. He/she might do well in anger for once, but it
doesn't last long. Similarly, rewarding a student with something that s/he doesn't
actually deserve will make him/her satisfied and he will not be able to understand the
charm of real successes.”
While critically analysing the participants’ views the following conclusions can be drawn:
i. In most of the developing countries (where most of the participants of this study belonged
to), the education standards are not too high. The selection criteria for language teachers are
not predetermined, based on strong competency, skills and knowledge of the subject.
ii. The teaching methods are mostly teacher-centred.
119
iii. The teachers use activities for learners, such as speaking in front of their classmates
and/or correcting their mistakes directly
iv. The weak students who can’t keep up with the class behave poorly, pay less attention
and talk to each other which is generally considered a serious challenge for the teacher in a
teacher-centred classroom, and thus the teacher behaviour can spoil the motivation of the
good students as well
v. The current age is the age of technology and the use of technology in education is also
widespread. However, the teacher’s rare use of technology has also demotivating
effects on the students. Different reasons have been mentioned by some practitioners for the
rare use of technology such as the teachers less familiarity with the modern
technological tools, the institution policy, lack of funds and other related factors.
vi. Furthermore, three out of eleven practitioners mentioned that English teachers in their
home countries are having poor listening and speaking skills, are thus relying more on
their vocabulary and grammatical understanding of the English language. But at the same
time also acknowledge the fact that the younger teachers now entering this profession
appears to place greater emphasis on developing competency in all areas of the language.
These young teachers can motivate learners in a better way, as they are against the belief of
teaching English in mother’s tongue.
2.2.3 Role of Course book:
Based on their responses from the previous questions, the subjects were asked to comment
specifically on the role of the course book in the process of motivation in second language
acquisition. Out of seventeen, 11 subjects, including practitioners and learners, considered the
course book to be an important element in the process of motivating language learners.
However, the practitioners also put forth the problem that during their teaching experience
they have found that the majority schools‟ curricular topics and learning activities are
selected mostly on the basis of the society beliefs about learning and not on the basis of what
students would choose if given the opportunity to do so and thus agreed to Brophy (1998: 10)
when he states that „schools are established for the benefits of students, but from the
students ‟point of view their time in classroom is devoted to enforced attempts to meet
externally imposed demands‟.
A number of reasons were declared when the subjects mentioned the importance of course
book for learners‟ motivation. The responses made by P16 and P17 pointed out to some of
these reasons:
“I think that the course book play an important role in learners’ L2 motivation. I teach
English to business students in a private university in Slovakia. The course book
designed for these include lessons topics related to cultural awareness. Most of these
students, who I am teaching now, will have to deal with people from many different
parts of the world and thus the course book help me a lot to keep them motivated’
120
In my view, motivating and teaching are two different things. We need to motivate our
students particularly if the course book is boring and there's resistance to learning it, but it
definitely isn't indispensable to the teaching process. Some of my friends, in other colleges
are enjoying successful teaching careers because the course book they teach is interesting by
itself and they do not need much motivational strategies to apply in the classroom’.
But some of the practitioners were of the view that the course book is not important for
motivating, it is how you use the material to motivate them and also your behaviour, as P14
mentioned:
“Motivation is what students need. During my teaching career I have observed a lot of
students in my country who are still lacking motivation, although the curriculum is
full of songs and games. In my point of view, motivating students doesn't depend on
what do you use. It depends on the way you use it and the way you treat your
students’.
2.2.4 Demotivating Role of the Course book:
While recognizing the fact that the course book can play an important role in learners’
motivation, some of the practitioners referred to the course book/ curriculum designers and
state policy makers for education as completely unaware of the students’ need and desires
and thus some of the text in course books and even some books failed to fulfil the aims and
objectives of the course designed and also the students‟ needs. Thus, as mentioned by
practitioners that along with the demotivation it causes for learners, it has an impact on
teachers motivation as well, as P11 mentioned:
‘How would you teach something with motivation about which you yourself
are uncertain... sometimes you have to make your principal happy and that’s all you
need’.
2.2.5 Role of Classroom Environment/ Group Tasks:
The classroom has been defined by Van Lier (1988: 47) as „the gatherings for a given period
of time, of two, or more persons (one of whom generally assumes the role of instructor) for
the purpose of language learning‟. Gaies (1980) has mentioned that the classroom is the
„crucible‟, where the teachers and learners come together and due to their combined efforts
language learning takes place. Allwright and Bailey (1991: 18) has mentioned that the
language learning depends on „how they react to each other (learner to learner as well as
teacher to learner) when they will get together in the classroom, though they also bring
their experiences of life and teaching syllabus into the classroom. According to
Hadfield (1992: 134) “„It is fundamental to the successful working of a group to have a
sense of direction and a common purpose. Defining and agreeing aims is one of the hardest
tasks that the group has to undertake together‟
Nearly half of the participants of the study agreed that if the teacher attitude towards the
learner is positive, and motivating, they in turn will not get bored and will thus go ahead
121
confidently. Similarly if the learners‟ attitude towards each other is positive and
motivating, they will enjoy the activities and will thus proceed in the process of language
acquisition. Thus the classroom environment has a greater impact upon the learners mind,
and the present study has supported the Dörnyei’s (2005: 89) view that “to create a
motivating classroom environment group issues need to be taken into account just as much as
more traditional motivational concerns‟. It was mentioned by P12 as:
‘In my point of view, flexibility and frankness not only keep my students motivated
but also myself as well. I always try to attend to my students’ needs and be open to
hear them. While preparing for the class I try to put myself as a student and ask if I
would enjoy it! If not, I throw my plan away and start from scratch!’
Generally, the participants linked the relationship of group size to learner motivation (oral
participation). When the learners interact in relatively small groups, their participation is
different from the interaction patterns they experienced in large groups. More participation
thus brings more achievement and thus the learners are more motivated as also mentioned by
Allwright and Bailey (1991: 147) “„the learning opportunities that do arise in language
lessons results from both the planned methods in use and other variables not entirely under
the teacher’s control‟.
But unlike the practitioners‟ point of view, the language learners give no or less
importance to classroom environment and thus we can conclude that the classroom
environment has an indirect impact upon the learners mind, but is directly involved in
language learning process.
2.2.6 Other related factors:
Most of the participants of the study were of the view that the teacher, course book and
classroom environment play significant roles in motivating and demotivating language
learners in the classroom. A few of the participants mentioned other factors equally
important in this regard. The following factors have been mentioned by three or more than
three participants of the study, in order of their description.
2.2.7 The language learner:
Considerable research on second language learning the world over has shown that a learner
needs to be psychologically keen to learn another language just the way s/he approaches the
task of learning other skills. Her/his attitudes, motivation, personality, aptitude and her/his
age, socio-economic status, exposure, schooling along with the teachers‟ beliefs and
expectations can contribute significantly to her/his success in learning a second
language. Only when our learners are ready to experience the excitement of learning a second
language will they have a positive attitude towards English, a motivation to learn and
willingness to adopt yet another identity in the process. The remarks made by
participant P12 about the learner’s self motivation are as under:
122
‘I think it is not only the teacher who is responsible for motivating language learners,
as I had plenty of friends who weren’t able to motivate themselves even if our teacher
spent all his time to motivate them. The student should also be ready for motivation’.
2.2.8 Role of parents:
Some of the practitioners mentioned the role of the parents, family and community to be
equally important for motivating language learners, as mentioned by P17:
‘I think motivation certainly plays a very crucial role in learning and teaching a
foreign language and not only the teachers but also the community and the family can
help increase motivation. If the parents and community contribute towards their
part, the process of learning and teaching will bring positive results’.
2.2.9 Involvement of other languages
Some of the practitioners also mentioned the involvement of too many languages in their
society and educational curriculum to be a strong source of demotivation for their students, as
the students are fed up with language learning and they therefore, don’t feel any
motivation for further language learning.
3.0 Conclusion
To conclude, no matter what the underlying motivation to study a second language, what
cannot be disputed is the fact that motivation is an important variable when examining
successful second language acquisition. The most important step is realizing learners to
identify a real need to accomplish learning goals and providing them with the motivation to
learn possibly will in fact facilitate learning success.
Allwright, D. and Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction to

Classroom Research for language Teachers. Cambridge: CUP
Al-Mutawa, N. (1994). Factors Influencing English Language Teaching and Learning in the
Secondary Schools of Kuwait. Educational Sciences 1 (2), 33-62
Au, S.Y. (1988). A Critical Appraisal of Garnder's Social-Psychological Theory of Second
Language (L2) Learning. Language Learning, 38, 75-100
Brophy, J. E. (1998). Motivating Students to Learn. Boston: McGraw-Hill, MA. Brown, H. D.
(2000). Principles of Language Teaching and Learning. 4
Edition. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall
Brown. H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles. New York: Pearson Education. Chambers, G. N.
(1993). Talking the „de‟ out of Demotivation. Language Learning, 7, 13-
16 Clement, R., Dörnyei, Z., Noels, K. A. (1994). Motivation, Self-Confidence, and
Group Cohesion in a Foreign Language Classroom. Language Learning 44, 417–448. Cohen,
L, Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education. 5th Edition London:
Routledge Falmer
Convington, M. (1998). The Will to Learn: A Guide for Motivating Young People. Cambridge:
CUP
Crooks, G. and Schmidt, R. (1991). Motivation Reopening the Research Agenda. Language
Learning 41(4), 469-512
Crystal, D. (1992). The Penguin Dictionary of Language. 2nd Edition. London: Penguin ooks
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: CUP Davidson, L. A. (2002)
Grounded Theory. Essortment.Accessed from:
123
http://az.essortment.com/groundedtheory_rmnf.htm (15/02/09)
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985). Instrinsic Motivation and Self-motivation in Human Behaviour.
London: Plenum Press
Dörnyei, Z. (1990) Conceptualizing Motivation in Foreign Language Learning. Language
Learning, 40, 45-78.
Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and Motivating in the Foreign Language Classroom. The Modern
Language Journal, 78/3, pp. 273-284
Dörnyei, Z. (1998a). Motivation in Second and Foreign Language Learning. Language Teaching
31, 117-135
Dörnyei, Z. (1998b). Demotivation in Foreign Language Learning. Paper Presented at the
TESOL ’98 Congress, Seatle, WA, March
Dörnyei, Z. (2001a). Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge:
CUP Dörnyei, Z. (2001b). Teaching and Researching Motivation. Harlow: Longman
Dörnyei, Z. (2001c). New Themes and Approaches in Second Language Motivation. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics 21, 43-59
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second
Language Acquisition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erbium
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: OUP Dörnyei, Z. And
Csizer, K. (1998). Ten Commandments for Motivating Language Learners: Results of an
Empirical Study. Language Teaching Research, 2, pp 203-29
Dörnyei, Z. and I. Otto (1998). Motivation in Action: A Process Model of L2 Motivation. Working
Paper in Applied Linguistics. London: Thames Valley University 4, 4369
Eccles, J.S., Wigfield, A. and Schiefele, A. (1998). Motivation to Succeed. In Damon, W.
And Eisenberg, N. (eds). Handbook of Child Psychology. 5th
Edition, Vol. 3: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development. John Wiley & Sons, New
York pp 1017-95
Ehrman, M. E., Leaver, B. L. and Oxford, R. L. (2003). A Brief Overview of Individual Differences
in Second Language Learning. System 31, 313-330
Elyıldırım, S. and Ashton, S. (2006). Creating Positive Attitudes Towards English as a Foreign
Language. English Teaching Forum, 44(4), 2-21.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP Ellis, R. (1997). Second
Language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP
Ely, C. M. (1986a). An Analysis of Discomfort, Risk taking, Sociability, and Motivation in the L2
classroom. Language Learning 36, 1-25.
Ely, C. M. (1986b) Language Learning Motivation: A Descriptive and Causal Analysis. The Modern
Language Journal 70, 28-35
Falk, J. (1978). Linguistics and Language: A Survey of Basic Concepts and Implications. 2nd Edition.
New York: John Wiley
Ford, M. (1992). Motivating Humans: Goals, Emotions and Personal Agency Beliefs. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage
Gaies, S. J. (1980). Classroom-cantered Research: Some Consumers Guidelines. Paper presented at
the second Annual TESOL Summer Meeting, Al buquerque, N. M. Garcia, T. (1999).
Maintaining the Motivation to Learn: An Introduction to the Special Issue of „Learning
and Individual Differences‟. Learning and Individual Differences, 11 (3), 231-232
Gardner, R.C. (1979). Social Psychological Aspects of Second Language Acquisition. In Giles, H.
and St. Clair, R. (eds) Language and Social Psychology. Blackwell: Oxford, pp 193-220
Gardner, R.C. (1985a). The Attitude/Motivation Test Battery: Technical Report. London: University
Of Western Ontario
Gardner, R.C. (1985b). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The role of Attitudes and
Motivation. London: Edward Arnold
Gardner, R.C. (2001). Integrative Motivation: Past, Present and Future. A public lecture given on 24-
02-2001. Retrieved on November 13, 2008 at
http://publish.uwo.ca/~gardner/docs/GardnerPublicLecture1.pdf
Gardner, R. C. and Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning.
124
Rowley, MA: Newbury house

Gardner, R.C. and MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). A Student‟s Contribution to Second Language Learning.
Part II: Affective Variables. Language Teaching 26, 1-11
Gardner, R. C., Lalonde, R. N., Moorcroft, R. and Evers, F. T. (1985). Second Language Attrition:
The Role of Motivation and Use. London, Ontario: University of Western Ontario,
Department of Psychology
Gass, S. M. and Selinker, L. (2001). 2nd Edition. Second Language Acquisition. London: Lawrence
Erlbanm Associates
Gillham, B. (2005). Research Interviewing: The Range of Techniques. Open University Press
Good, T. L. and Brophy, J. E. (1994). Looking in Classrooms. 6th Edition, New York: HarperCollins
Gorham, J. and Millette, D. M. (1997). A Comparative Analysis of Teacher and Student Perceptions
of Sources of Motivation and Demotivation in College Classes, Communication
Education, 46 (4), 245-261.
Hadfield, J. (1992). Classroom Dynamics. Oxford: OUP
Ho, Meng-Ching (1998) Cultural Studies and Motivation in Foreign and Second Language Learning
in Taiwan. Language, Culture and Curriculum 11 (2), 165-182.
Humphreys, G. and Spratt, M. (2008). Many Languages, Many Motivations: A Study of Hong Kong
Students‟ Motivation to Learn Different Target Languages. System, 36(2), 313-335.
Kimura, Y. (2003). English Language Learning Motivation: Interpreting Qualitative Data Situated in
a Classroom Task. Annual review of English language education in Japan, 14, 71-80
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in second Language Acquisition. Oxford. Pergamon
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman
Lambert, W. E. (1974). Culture and Language as factors in learning and education. In F. E.Aboud &
R.D. Meade (Eds). Culture Factors in Learning and Education. (pp 91-122). Bellingham, WA:
Fifth Western Washington Symposium on Learning
Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. H. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition
Research. Second Edition. Essex: Longman.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Individual Cognitive/affective Learner Contributions and Differential
success in Second Language Acquisition. In Breen, M. P. (Ed.). Learner Contributions
to Laguage Learning: New Directions in Research. Longman: London, pp. 12–24.
Leaver, B.L. (2003). Motivation at Native-like Levels of Foreign Language Proficiency: A Research
Agenda. Journal for Distinguished Language Studies 1 (1).
Lightbrown, P.M. and Spade, N. (2006). 3rd Edition. How Languages Are Learned. Oxford:
OUP
Lukmani, Y. (1972). Motivation to Learn and Language Proficiency. Language Learning, 22, 261-
73.Mackey, A. and Gass, S. M. (2005). Second Language Research: Methodology and
Design. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates publishers
Masgoret, A. M., Bernaus, M. & Gardner, R. C. (2001). Examining the Role of Attitudes and
Motivation outside of the Formal Classroom: A test of the mini-ATMB for children. In In Z.
Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.). Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. Honolulu, H:
University of Hawaii Press, pp 281-295 (Technical Report # 23).
Matsumoto, M. and Obana, Y. (2001). Motivational Factors and Persistence in Learning Japanese as
a Foreign Language, New Zealand Journal of Asian Studies, 3(1), 59-
Matsuura, H. (2007). Intelligibility and Individual Learner Differences in EIL Context, System 35,
293-304
Matthews, P. H. (1997). Oxford Concise Dictionary of English, Oxford: OUP
McCombs, B. L. and Pope, J. E. (1994). Motivating Hard to Reach Students, Wasnington, DC:
American Psychological Association
McGroarty, M. (2001). Situating Second Language Motivation. In Z. Dörnyei & R.
Schmidt (Eds.). Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. Honolulu, H: University
of Hawaii Press, pp 69-90
Miles, M. B. and A. M. Huberman (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. 2nd Edition. Thousand
Oaks, Calif: Saga
Noels, K. A., Clément, R. and Pelletier, L. G. (1999). Perceptions of Teachers‟
125
Communicative Style and Students‟ Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. The Modern
Language Journal, 8(1), pp. 23-34.
Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. London:
Continuum
Oxford, R. L. and Shearin, J. (1994). Language Learning Motivation: Expanding the Theoratical
Framework. The Modern Language Journal. 78(1), pp. 12-28
Oxford, R. L. and Shearin, J. (1996) Language Learning Motivation in a New Key. In R. Oxford (ed.)
Language Learning Motivation: Pathways to the New Century. Manoa, HI: Second
Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii, pp. 121-60
Oxford, R. L. (1998). The Unravelling Tapestry: Teacher and Course Characteristics Associated
with Demotivation in the Language Classroom. Demotivation in Foreign Language
Learning. Paper presented at the TESOL‟98 Congress, Seattle, WA, March
Robson, C. (2000). Small-Scale Evaluation: Principles and Practice. London: Sage Publications
Scarcella, R. and Oxford, R. L. (1992). The Tapestry of Language Learning: The Individual
in the Communicative Classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Scheidecker, D. and Freeman, W. (1999). Bringing out the Best in Students: How Legendary
Teachers Motivate Kids. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning, London: Edward Arnold
Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for Second Language Learning. Oxford: OUP.
Tremblay, P. F. and Gardner, R. C. (1995). Expanding the Motivation Construct in Language
Learning. Modern Language Journal 79, 505-520
Ushioda, E. (1994). L2 Motivation as a Qualitative Construct. Teanga 14, 76-84
Ushioda, E. (1996). Developing a Dynamic Concept of Motivation. In Hickey, T. and Williams, J.
(Eds) Language Education and Society in a Changing World. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters, pp 239-45
Ushioda, E. (1998). Effective Motivational Thinking: A cognitive Theoretical Approach to the Study
of Language Learning Motivation. In Soler, E. A. and Espurz, V. C. Current Issues in English
Language Methodology. Spain: Universitat Jaume I, Castello de la Plana, pp. 77-89
Van Lier, L. (1988). The Classroom and the Language Learner: Ethnography and Second Language
Classroom Research. London: Longman
Warden, C. A. and Lin, H. J. (2000). Existence of Integrative Motivation in an Asian EFL Setting.
Foreign Language Annals, 33 (5), 535-547.
Williams, M. (1994). Motivation in Foreign and Second Language Learning: An Interactive
Perspective. Educational and Child Psychology, 11, 77-84
Williams, M. & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for Language Teachers. Cambridge: CUP
Zughoul, M. (2002). The Power of the Language and the Language of Power in Higher Education in
the Arab World. College of Islamic and Arab studies Journal, 23.
126
Topic 14
Title
Taking Advantage of Cognitive Difference of
Asians and Westerners in the Teaching of English
Author
Todd Vercoe
Abstract:
Recent developments in cognitive psychology have suggested definite differences in the way
Westerners and North-East Asians perceive and think about the world. This information
suggests major reasons for L1 interference in L2 learning and also dictates how some
teaching methodology may, in fact, hamper the way a student learns English. This paper will
examine some of the findings of Nisbett (2003) and others in a way that can be applied to the
EFL classroom demonstrating ways to use this difference in thinking to enhance student
understanding of English and eliminate common errors.
1. Introduction
How a student views the world could influence the perceptions and learning strategies that a
student adopts in the classroom and in their personal studies. Though much has been made
over the years to discuss, debate, refute and support the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis of the
intertwined nature of language and culture with proponents and detractors on both sides of
the argument (Kramsch, 1998; Hall, 1990; Nisbett, 2003; Sapir, 1929), recent developments
in cognitive psychology have shown that there are at least some very dramatic differences
between the way Westerners and Easterners conceive of the world we live in and approach
that world.
It is not the intention of this paper to re-argue the question: Does language influence culture
or does culture influence language? The author is content to assume that they are somehow
related and to approach cultural/linguistic differences with the intension of exposing possible
pedagogical errors in current teaching methodology in the teaching of English to Asian
students. In what is certain to become a seminal work, The Geography of Thought, Nisbett
(2003) has laid out a convincing argument for the cognitive differences between North East
Asians and Westerners. How teachers and textbook writers learn to interpret these differences
in a positive way that can enhance learning is the focus of this paper.
There are detractors (Dash, 2003; Guest, 2000) to teaching with culture, of course:
127
Reducing culture to a few generalized propositionally-stated 'pegs', while ignoring

features of genre, parallels an outdated teaching methodology. Thus, it would seem
that a cultural anthropology-based contrastive approach may be unsuited to the
EFL/ESL classroom. (Guest, 2000)
However, this researcher believes that the recent cognitive psychological findings bear
scrutiny as applied to second language acquisition. Drawing upon both existing research and
practical classroom experience I hope to suggest some enhancements that can be made in
current pedagogy and suggest other areas for future classroom based research.
2. How are you prepared for the world?
When a Japanese mother sits down to play with her child, she speaks mostly in relationship
words (Fernald & Morikawa, 1993; Nisbett 2003), "I give the vroom vroom to you. Now,
give it to me. Thank you." An American parent would be more inclined to talk with object
words "Here's the car. It has nice wheels" (Nisbett, 2003). Relationships become very
fundamental in Asian thinking and influence a great deal of the way their world is created,
where European/Americans tend to be prepared for a world of objects.
Most Americans over a certain age well remember their primer, called Dick and Jane. Dick
and Jane and their dog, Spot, were quite the active individualists. The first page of an early
edition from the 1930s (the primer was widely used until the 1960s) depicts a little boy
running across a lawn. The first sentences are "See Dick run. See Dick play. See Dick run
and play." This would seem the most natural sort of basic information to convey about kids---
to the Western mentality. But the first page of the Chinese primer of the same era shows a
little boy sitting on the shoulders of a bigger boy. "Big brother takes care of little brother. Big
brother loves little brother. Little brother loves big brother." It is not individual action but
relationships between people that seem important to convey in a child's first encounter with
the printed word. (Nisbett, 2003)
In tests (Ji et al, 2004; Nisbett, 2003) both Western and Eastern subjects were shown pictures
of a chicken and grass and were asked to group them with a cow. Most westerners have
tended to group the chicken and the cow, and justifying their answers by thinking
taxonomically, (both are animals); yet most Eastern subjects would group the cow and grass,
thinking via relationships (cows eat grass).
3. What is the world made of, Verbs or Nouns?
It is the opinion of this researcher that this verb/noun tendency of the two linguistic groups
can be exploited in the teaching of English as "considerable evidence supports the hypothesis
that is enhanced through matching learning style to type of instruction" (Hansen-Strain,
1993). Currently most common EFL/ESL textbooks and lesson plans are filled with
taxonomic teaching methodology, since, it could be assumed most textbook writers and
EFL/ESL teachers are experienced speakers of English and therefore tend to think
128
taxonomically. Yet research has shown that if language is instructed via relationships there
are greater opportunities for vocabulary retention (Nation, 2000). At present, for example,
when students encounter colours in English textbooks they are often taught all at one time, a
wonderful taxonomical grouping. It should come as no surprise that days after instruction
students sort-of know that "red" is a "colour" and "green" is a "colour" but which colour is
red and which is green is hard to remember. By the instruction of one colour and another
noun with a relationship "Green frogs live in a river," there is a far greater chance that
students will retain the vocabulary (Nation, 2000) both of the target colour as well as the
nouns frog and river, as opposed to collectively grouping "Animals" and "Bodies of water" or
"Places to live" in another lesson.
Grouping things in a textbook or lesson is perhaps still useful in form of review and this is
not to suggest that Eastern learners can't be instructed taxonomically however;
There is direct evidence that Eastern children learn how to categorize objects at a later
point than Western children. Developmental psycholinguists Alison Gopnik and
Soonja Choi studied Korean-, French-, and English-speaking children beginning when
they were one and a half years old. They found that object-naming and categorization
skills develop later in Korean speakers than in English and French speakers. (Nisbett,
2003, p 152).
It would seem clear that using a "relationship-based instruction model" would have far
greater success in the teaching of English to Asian students. That North East Asian languages
tend to be driven by verbs can be demonstrated in Koreans ending a dinner out with friends
with the single word "Go." To the more noun conscious Westerner, the phrase "Home, boys."
would be equally comfortable.
A difference in language practice that startles both Chinese speakers and English speakers
when they hear how the other group handles it concerns the proper way to ask someone
whether they would like more tea to drink. In Chinese (as well as Korean and Japanese) one
asks "Drink more?" In English, one asks "More tea?" To Chinese speakers, it's perfectly
obvious that it's tea that one is talking about drinking more of, so to mention tea would be
redundant. To English speakers, it's perfectly obvious that one is talking about drinking the
tea, as opposed to any other activity that might be carried out with it, so it would be rather
bizarre for the question to refer to drinking. (Nisbett, 2003, p158 italic addition, mine)
This verb dominated linguistic structure can lead to L2 errors in Asian students (Moon &
Vercoe, 2003). Although errors of accuracy not fluency (and ESL/EFL teachers would be
well advised to allow the errors during fluency exercises) considerable student confusion can
be cleared up by pointing out this different thought process. "Because the verb precedes the
object in English but follows it in Korean, errors involving incorrect verb-object order arise
in the production of the English learner, e.g., *Cigarette give me and *(You) pizza like?
(Shaffer, 2002).
129
Most research indicates that toddlers can learn nouns at the rate of up to two per day, much
faster than they learn verbs. However, "developmental psycholinguist Twila Tardif and others
have discovered that East Asian children learn verbs at about the same rate as nouns and, by
some definitions of what counts as a noun, at a significantly faster rate than nouns" (Nisbett,
2003). It would be logical to assume that viewing the world via relationships would present
an advantage in the acquisition of verbs in an L2, but more research needs to be done to
confirm this.
4. Receiver vs. Transmitter
L2 listening can be one of the most frustrating and stressful parts of language learning.
Though normally considered a passive language skill, explaining to students: that they may
possess a different way of listening than the language they are learning requires; could do
much to affect student study methods. The relative degree of sensitivity to others' emotions is
reflected in tacit assumptions about the nature of communication. Westerners teach their
children to communicate their ideas clearly and to adopt a "transmitter" orientation, that is,
the speaker is responsible for uttering sentences that can be clearly understood by the hearer--
-and understood, in fact, more or less independently of the context. It's the speaker's fault if
there is a miscommunication. Asians, in contrast, teach their children a "receiver" orientation,
meaning that it is the hearer's responsibility to understand what is being said. If a child's
singing annoys an American parent, the parent would likely just tell the kid to pipe down. No
ambiguity there. The Asian parent would be more likely to say, "How well you sing a song."
At first the child might feel pleased, but it would likely dawn on the child that something else
might have been meant and the child would try being quieter or not singing at all. (Nisbett,
2003, p.61)
Having explained to my students this transmitter/ receiver role difference in our ways of
seeing the world I have observed a far greater sense of relaxation in my students during
listening activities. Similarly, I have noticed far greater production in pair work when the
speaker is given greater responsibility in making themselves understood The transmitter/
receiver role may also be seen in writing styles of Easterners and Westerns for Duncan has
found that "East-Asian compositions may comprise a "reader-responsible" organizational
style of writing, while English composition constitutes a "writer-responsible" organizational
style." (Duncan, 2003).
5. Seeing the Individual vs. Seeing the Group
To the Asian, the world is a complex place, composed of continuous substances,

understandable in terms of the whole rather than in terms of the parts, and subject more to
collective than personal control. To the Westerner, the world is a relatively simple place,
composed of discrete objects that can be understood without undue attention to context, and
highly subject to personal control. Very different worlds indeed. (Nisbett, 2003, p.100).
130
In a rather fascinating cognitive psychological test, Muttsumi Imae and Dedre Gentner
(Nisbet 2003) presented Eastern and Western subjects with objects composed of particular
substances and described them in neutral ways. For example, subjects were presented with a
pyramid made from cork and subjects were asked to "look at this 'dax'." The subjects were
then asked to choose another 'dax' from two trays. One tray would have similar shapes yet
different materials (e.g. a pyramid made from plastic); and one tray would have different
shapes yet the same substance (e.g. pieces of cork). Asian subjects were more likely to chose
a piece of cork as their 'dax' yet Americans were more likely to chose the same shape. This
indicates that Americans are coding for objects yet Asians were coding for what they saw as
substance (Nisbett, 2003).
In a perhaps more telling example of the processes in the Asian compared to the Western
mind, subjects were presented with an underwater scene involving fish, plant life rocks etc.
and were asked to describe what they see. Most Western subject would begin their
description by identifying a large individual fish and orienting their description around the
fish (viewing the world from an individual perspective) where as most Asian subjects would
begin their descriptions by declaring "it's a river (or pond etc.)." They view the collective
whole as a starting point. (Nisbett, 2003). That Asians have a more holistic view of events,
taking into perspective the orientation of other people, is also indicated by a study by social
psychologists Dov Cohen and Alex Gunz. They asked North American students (mostly
Canadian) and Asian students (a potpourri of students from Hong Kong, China, Taiwan,
Korea, and various South and Southeast Asian countries) to recall specific instances of ten
different situations in which they were the center of attention: for example, "being
embarrassed." North Americans were more likely than Asians to reproduce the scene from
their original point of view, looking outward. Asians were more likely to imagine the scene
as an observer might, describing it from a third-person perspective. (Nisbett, 2003, p.88)
This collective vs. individual model of cognitive processes can be seen to influence error
production in Asian students of English (Moon & Vercoe, 2003). Shaffer (2002) has
identified specific areas of languacultral influences on error production in Korean students of
English which he describes as the Macro-to-micro Principle and the Most-to-least Principle
(Shaffer, 2002). Though these two different principles may be separate, it is the opinion of
this researcher that both error productions stem from the collective vs. individual cognitive
perspective. These errors can be demonstrated:
Names:
Kim (surname) Sung-Chul (given name)
(collective) ------------- (individual)
vs.
Todd (given) Vercoe (surname)

(individual) ------------ (collective)
131
Error: "It is nice to meet you, Mr. Todd."
Addresses:
Gyeongnam (province) Gimhae (city) Obang Dong (ward) Siyoung Apartments (Building)
Apt. #343 (apartment number)
(collective) ------------------------------ (individual)
vs.
Apt. 343, Siyoung Apartments, Obang Dong, Gimhae, Gyeongnam

(individual) ---------------------------------- (collective)
Error: "I come from Gimhae in Obang Dong."
Dates:
2005 Nyeon (year) 10 Weol (month) 15 il (day)

(collective) -------------------------- (individual)
vs.
15th of October, 2005

(individual) '' (collective)
Error: "I was born in 1975, February."
Sales:
seil (sale) 80-50% halin (off)

(collective) -------------- (individual)
vs.
50% to 80% off

(individual) '' (collective)
Error: "It is an 80 to 50% discount sale."
Time:
O-Jeon (a.m.) 10 shi (hour) or O-Hoo (p.m.) 10 shi (hour)

(collective) ---- (individual) __(collective) ---- (individual)
vs.
132
10 o'clock a.m. or 10 o'clock p.m.

(individual) --- (collective) (individual) --- (collective)
Error: "It's a.m. 10 o'clock."
Salutations:
Sinsa suknyeo yeoreobun (Gentlemen, ladies, everyone)
Error: "Gentlemen and ladies…"
Shaffer (2002) notes,

In Korean society there has long been a tradition of respect for teachers, so the Most-
to-least Principle predictably also applies to the formation of the lexical item, with
internal bound morphemes, meaning "teacher(s) and students" Since the teacher has
been thought of as the object of respect and as being in a position of more importance
than that of the student, the morpheme sa (teacher) precedes the morpheme jae
(student) in the lexical item sajae.
Korean: sa-jae (teacher-student)

English: Students and teachers
It has been my experience that by simply making students aware of our individual to
collective (Western) vs. collective to individual (Eastern) cognitive styles I have been able to
reduce the number of these types of errors that my students produce. By indicating that
producing language from a different cultural group may require a shift in perspective is
difficult to achieve (Boroditsky, 2001), but students have commented that understanding this
difference has opened the door to understanding how to properly produce sentences in
English.
Conclusion
Though understanding the cognitive differences between Easterners and Westerners may still
be in its infancy, considerable advantage can be applied to the teaching of English, and
modern ESL/EFL pedagogy would be wise to take advantage of the cognitive styles that
Asian students have. Educators should make themselves aware of the verb/noun difference,
transmitter/receiver difference, and collective vs. individual difference. By tapping into these
processes it is my contention that better language instruction and retention can be achieved
and a reduction in the production of errors would be a natural outcome of properly instructed
cognitive differences.
References
Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does Language Shape Thought?: Mandarin and English Speakers'
Conceptions of Time. Cognitive Psychology 43, 1-22
Dash, P. (2003, June). Culture Rejected as an Individual Difference in the SLA Process: Not
Significant Separate and Appropriate, Overall-nor for Northeast Asia. Asian EFL
Journal 5(2) Retrieved March 1, 2005 from
133
http://www.asian-efl- journal.com/june2003subpd.php
Duncan, B. (2003). Reader-and Writer-Responsible and the In-between: A Cross-cultural
Comparison of East Asian and English Writing. In D. Shaffer, D. Berry and David
D.I. Kim (Eds.), Proceedings From the 11th Annual KOTESOL International
Conference (pp. 157-167) Seoul: Korea TESOL
Fernald, A., & Morikawa, H. (1993). Common themes and cultural variations in Japanese and
American mothers' speech to infants. Child Development, 64, 637-656
Guest, M. (2002). A Critical 'Checkbook' for Culture Teaching And Learning. ELT Journal.
56(2) 154-161
Hall E. T. (1990). The silent language. New York: Anchor Books.
Hansen-Strain, L. (1993). Educational Implications of Group Differences in Cognitive Style:
Evidence From Pacific Cultures. Pacific Studies, 16(1) 85-97
Ji, L.J., Zhang, Z., & Nisbett R. (2004). Is it Culture or Is It Language? Examination of
Language Effects In Cross-Cultural Research on Categorization. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 87(1), 57-65
Kramsch C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moon, S.W., & and Vercoe, T. (2003). "I was boring so I played with myself: First language
interference in Korean students of English." Paper presentation 9th Jeolla KOTESOL
Regional Conference, Chosun University, April 19, Gwangju, Republic of Korea
Nation, P. (2000). Learning Vocabulary in Lexical Sets: Dangers and Guidelines. TESOL
Journal, 9(2), 6-10
Nisbett, R. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think
differently…and why. New York: The Free Press.
Sapir, E. (1929). The status of linguistics as a science. Language, 207-14. Reprinted in D.G.
Mandelbaum (Ed.) [1958], The Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language,
Culture and Personality, pp. 160-166. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Shaffer, D. (2002). Erring In English: Korean L1 and cultural interference. In G. Lasche
(Ed.), Proceedings From the 10th Annual KOTESOL International Conference (pp.
219-231) Seoul: Korea TESOL
134
>
135
Professor Rod Ellis discussing Task Based Learning at the 2011
Clark Education City International TESOL Conference
Professor Ellis and Dr Robertson relaxing between tutorials
2010
Korea
136

Japan TESOL Course Book

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Japan TESOL Course Book

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TESOL Course Certificate 2011 – Japan August 2011

Asian EFL Journal

TESOL Theory Course Book

Published by TESOL Asia

Articles permission of the Asian EFL Journal

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception no reproduction of any

Editor: Dr. Paul Robertson

Principal Lecturer. Maria Binder (Philippines)

The TESOL Certificate

combined with an understanding of the last 50 years of changing methodologies.

requirements and employer’s curriculums.

journal publishing’s on TESOL second language acquisition research.

Paul Robertson. TESOL Division

2. Important tasks of English education. Asia wide and beyond 7-11

3. The methodology of task based teaching 12-29

4. Educational Settings and Second Language Learning 30-43

5. Understanding EFL Learners’ Strategy Use and Strategy Awareness 44-62

6. Effective Reading 63-72

7. Learning Vocabulary Through Games. 73-80

8. Error Correction .A Grounded Theory 81-98

9. Effectiveness of Recasts in the Teaching of EFL 99-106

10. The Role of Motivation 107-126

11.Taking Advantage of Cognitive Difference of Asians and 127-134

Important Tasks of English Education:

Professor Nunan has published books on language teaching curriculum development,

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

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

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

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

Phase Examples of options

* Framing the activity (e.g. establishing the outcome

Figure 1: A framework for designing task-based lessons

The pre-task phase

Performing a similar task

Non-task preparation activities

Strategic planning options Description

The students were introduced to the idea of a

The students were introduced to the idea of a

The students were introduced the idea of a

Summary and final comment

The during-task phase

Task performance options

Rigid discourse structure consisting of IRF Loose discourse structure consisting of

Teacher controls topic development Students able to control topic development

Turn-taking is regulated by the same rules that

Students function in both initiating and

Little need or opportunity to negotiate Opportunities to negotiate meaning when

Scaffolding directed primarily at enabling Scaffolding directed primarily at enabling

Repetition (i.e. a student elects to repeat

Figure 3: Stereotypical classroom processes in traditional form-focussed pedagogy and task-

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

Type of Technique Interactional device Description

A task participant seeks

A task participant draws explicit

The post-task phase

Reflecting on the task

1.Review of learner errors

3. Production practice activities

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

Using the framework for designing a lesson

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

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

Types of educational settings

Category Type Description Example