“IMPLEMENTING NATION’S FOUR STRANDS IN DEVELOPING

LANGUAGE SKILLS”

Shofiah Nur Azizah (22216251043 – B Class)

The English Language Education at Yogyakarta State University

Shofiahnur.2022@student.uny.ac.id

ABSTRACT

The English teaching-learning objective is important in the teaching-learning process

to create students’ communicative competence. Nonetheless, in the reality, the students

are still far from the term of communicative competence which is intended to be the

ability to receive and convey ideas and messages comprehensively. Referring to the

students’ problem, the teachers obligate to facilitate students and implement the

principle of language learning to develop their language skills for achieving

communicative competence. One of many principles to develop language skills is

implementing Nation’s four strands which balance and integrate the language skills

that involve listening, reading, speaking, and writing skills. Professor Paul Nation, an

Emeritus Professor of Applied Linguistics at Victoria University of Wellington, New

Zealand, introduced the four strands of the Nation. Nation (2007) proposed four equal

strands for language skill balance: meaning-focused input, output, learning, and

fluency. Each strand should be taught and learned equally. This report also suggested

that the Nation's four strands could help English teachers improve students' language

abilities, which are necessary for communicative competence. Furthermore, this paper
indicated that the Nation’s four strands could help English teachers in developing

students’ language skills which refer to gaining students’ communicative competence

whereas students’ language skills should appear on it.

Key Words: The Nation’s Four Strands, Developing Language Skills

1. INTRODUCTION

Due to the teaching-learning process in Indonesian as English as a foreign

language (EFL) context, the goal of the English teaching-learning process is

important in the teaching-learning process to create students’ communicative

competence. The main objective of learning English is to become communicative

competent, which requires the use of techniques and instruments that could

accurately present the language skills (Yufrizal, 2017). Hence, in the reality, the

students are still unable to communicate communicatively due to the lack of

facilitating students’ participation in listening, reading, speaking, and writing as

language skills (Damayanti et al., 2018). Referring to the learning objective of the

English teaching-learning process, the teachers obligate to facilitate students and

implement the principle of learning the language to achieve the goal and develop

students’ language skills.

In the English teaching-learning process, one of many strategies to develop

language skills is to exist the principle of language skills. As Adem and Berksessa

(2022) stated that communication encourages the integration of different language

skills. Therefore, the integration of language skills is essential for developing

language skills enhance to achieve communicative competence. Hence, concerning

developing communication language skills, applying Nation’s four strands is one of

many principles to integrate the four language skills.

The principle of the Nation’s four strands is one of many principles in

developing language skills. Nation (2007) described the balance of language ability

should involve the equality of meaning-focused input, meaning-focused output,

language-focused learning, and fluency development. Regarding the strands, the two

beginning strands referred to focus on the language meaning, which it intends to

construct, and how to produce the knowledge, or is known as the receptive and

productive skill. After focusing on the meaning, the other strand referred to focus

on learning through thoughtful attention to language and discourse features. Then,

developing fluent language item and feature with what is already known become the

next strand to appear. Besides, in the language teaching-learning process, each

strand needs to get about the same amount of time and time on task principles. It is

substantially more productive to become conscious of the importance of

implementing the principle of Nation’s four strands that fit the student’s need to

develop their language skills and achieve the objective of learning.

There several are several previous studies discussed the effectiveness of

Nations’ four strands in the teaching-learning process. As Hogain (2012) conducted

the study “Teaching and Learning Vocabulary: Putting the Four Strands to the Test”.

The study examined the Nation’s four strands at Spanish high schools with students
of twelve to fourteen ages range. Further, the study considered that the principle of

Nation’s four strands helped to incorporate all of the prior successful studies on

vocabulary teaching techniques and provided a framework that could be

straightforwardly utilized in a classroom setting without

The study considered that the Four Strands concept appeared to incorporate all of

the prior successful studies on vocabulary teaching techniques and provide a

framework that could be easily utilized in a classroom setting. Besides, the principle

of Nation’s Four Strands helped students to increase their receptive vocabulary and

helped them in using vocabulary.

Moreover, Sonda (2020) conducted a study entitled, “A Four-Strand Approach

to A College Listening-Speaking Course”. The study found the effectiveness of

Nation’s four strands in the listening-speaking course. The result of the study

showed that the principal could create college effectiveness in the listening-speaking

course at University in Japan, the improvement of confidence to listen and speak

and increasing fluency has become the result of the study. Furthermore, it was

shown that the relation between fluency and accuracy activities often go hand in

hand. Thus, these two activities intertwine and benefit each other. Therefore,

students were highly motivated by the activities of meaning-focused, and also create

the learning process more enjoyable. Additionally, the Nation’s four strands gave a

way for the teacher to assess the instructional planning and determine what was

unnecessary to apply.
 Along with that, Truxal (2018) conducted the study entitled, “Using the Four

Strands to Help Students Learn the Academic Words List (AWL)” and found that

the four strands promoted receptive and productive retrieval, as well as creative use

of the word list, have been integrated into the course, and there is a good reason for

doing so. In case, the four strands could increase students’ usable academic

vocabulary size and support them to gain control over important vocabulary learning

strategies. However, the AWL learning process using four strands helped students

who are pursuing academic goals succeed more in school and improve their

comprehensive understanding of the English language.

Based on several previous studies of the Nation’s four strands, concentrated on

the effectiveness of the Nation’s four strands. Therefore, to fulfill the gap, the

researcher interested to carry out the paper about how to implement Nations’ four

strands to develop language skills intended to solve the problem of students’ abilities

in achieving the English learning goal. Besides, it desired to help English teachers

in developing students’ language skills which refer to gaining students’

communicative competence whereas students’ language skills should appear on it.

Thus, this paper would present a guideline for the teacher to implement the

principles of Nations’ four strands in developing language skills.

2. THE NATION’S FOUR STRANDS

Professor Paul Nation is an Emeritus Professor in Applied Linguistics at the

School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies (LALS) at Victoria University

 of Wellington in New Zealand. Professor offered a framework and guiding

principles to integrate the language skills for language teaching-learning in

incorporating communicative competence. As Nation (2007) proposed four strands

for language learning: meaning-focused input, meaning-focused output, language-

focused learning, and fluency development. Because language acquisition is a

continual series of learning situations, therefore these are called strands. To

maximize language learning, each strand should be given equally.

2.1 The Meaning-Focused Input

The meaning-focused input strand stands to learn through listening and

reading as a receptive skill. It focuses on what is listening and reading. The

emphasis on getting the ideas and message would be increased for the students.

Krashen (1985) argued that understanding messages or getting understandable

input is the only method that humans can learn a language.

This strand characteristically involves the activities of extensive reading,

collaborative reading, listening to stories, watching TV or movies, and participating

as the listener in the conversation. The main characteristic of this strand is having

an enjoyable situation and coherent input (Krashen, 1981).

This strand is only present under certain conditions, such as:

1) The familiarity material of what the students are listening to or reading.

2) The students are interested and motivated in comprehending the material.

 3) The students are just tremendously familiar with a small percentage of language

elements.

4) The language elements and students’ prior knowledge could help them to learn

some of the unknown language components.

5) There are numerous inputs.

If these certain conditions are not encountered, the strands of meaning-

focused input could not occur. Learning from the principle of the meaning-focused

strand is a caution for the reason that learning depends on reading and listening

quality. Further, learning is impacted by prior knowledge. As a result, a lot of input

is required to work well on meaning-focused input.

2.2 The Meaning-Focused Output

The meaning-focused output strand stands for learning through speaking and

writing as a productive skill. The strand encourages how the ideas and messages

are conveyed to one another. Participating in conversation, lecturing or speech,

writing letters or diaries, telling stories, and explaining how to do something are

examples of strand activities. Moreover, those activities are directed to raise

students’ awareness to speak and write.

Essentially, the meaning-focused input and output are subjected to the same kinds

of boundaries, such as:

1) The familiarity material of what the students write and speak

2) The students are interested to convey their messages to others as the main

objective of the strand

3) The students are just tremendously familiar with a small percentage of language

use.

4) The students could use communication techniques, dictionaries, or their prior

knowledge to fill the gaps in the practical knowledge.

5) There are many opportunities to speak and write.

In this strand, the output hypothesis would affect. Along with that Swain (1985)

argued the understanding of speaking and writing is influenced by the output

hypothesis. The output hypothesis was developed to the input hypothesis response

and inadequacy in explaining the immersion education effects (Krashen, 1985). To

put simply, the output hypothesis proposes that speaking and writing is part of the

process of learning a second language under certain condition (Krashen, 1981).

Thus, the probability to learn that comes with output is not the same as those that

comes with input. Swain (1985) suggested three functions for output such as the

noticing or triggering function, the hypothesis testing function, and the

metalinguistic function.

Second language production tasks activate the noticing/triggering function

because they force students to confront their misunderstanding. In other words,

they are unable to properly describe their thoughts and feelings. When comparing

the impact on learning of recognizing a deep trench or gap thru all the input versus
output, the latter was found to be significantly more powerful. The differences

between passive learning and active learning, as well as between generating new

ideas and retrieving old ones, account for this impact. Word forms are sought and

produced in productive learning, while word meanings are sought in receptive

learning. When compared to receptive learning, productive learning results in more

and better-acquired knowledge. Language items can be learned more thoroughly

through generative use, which involves meeting or using them in novel contexts in

which they have not been used or encountered before. When students are given the

chance to make up for a deficiency, only then will the noticing/triggering function's

full potential become apparent. This can occur in many ways, including when

students, having become aware of a discrepancy between input and output,

suddenly become aware of previously unsuspected connections between the two.

While writing, students may become aware of concepts they do not fully grasp but

can learn to read with an author's perspective later. aware of how other people

express their ideas. This is semantic-to-syntactic processing. Second, learners can

fill output gaps by guessing, trying, analogizing, transferring, or problem-solving.

Finally, when students become aware of a gap in their output, they may actively

seek to fill it by enlisting the help of adults, such as educators, peers, or dictionaries.

The hypothesis-testing function is Swain's second output function. This entails the

learner attempting something and then retaining or modifying it based on perceived

success and feedback. This hypothesis-testing function is especially important in

 interaction, but unlike in writing, this interaction does not have to be immediate.

Negotiation can be used to obtain understandable input as well as to modify the

output. This learning can take place through receiving corrective feedback,

successfully modifying output, and achieving successful unmodified

communication. That is, hypotheses can be modified or confirmed as a result of the

output.

The third output function is metalinguistic (reflective). This involves solving

language problems with others using spoken output. Students collaborate to build

or reconstruct a text in activities such as strip stories and dictogloss (Gibson, 1975).

Language learning could benefit from language talk activities (Swain & Lapkin,

1998). Such activities require deliberate reflection on language, usually in the

context of the language used. Interaction makes this more likely, but not

exclusively. Interaction makes this more likely, but not exclusively. Simcock

(1993) in Nation (2007) argued that whiteboards or group content, where students

work together to write a single piece and ask and answer, where students retell a

text in an interview format, promote metalinguistic reflection. These activities

combine meaning-focused output and language-focused learning by focusing on

language features.

2.3 The Language-Focused Learning

Language-focused learning is called form-focused instruction, deliberate study,

deliberate teaching, learning rather an acquisition, intentional learning, and others.

Learning pronunciation, spelling, vocabulary, grammar, and dialogue. Language-

focused learning is better than form-focused training since it can focus on meaning

as well as form and be done independently. This learning is short- and long-term.

This strand covers pronunciation, replacement tables and drills, word card

vocabulary, intensive reading, translation, dialogue memorization, and writing

feedback. This strand teaches context-based guessing and dictionary use. Most

language-focused learning activities promote learning and language use, but they

need not be the entire course. Only 25% of the course should be language-focused.

Meaning-focused input and output require similar conditions to language-focused

learning.

1) Students focus on language.

2) Students should process language features carefully.

3) Repetition of the same features should be possible.

4) Features should be basic and independent of students' growth.

5) The other three strands should have language-focused learning features.

There is ample evidence, especially in vocabulary learning, that deliberate

learning can significantly contribute to a student's language proficiency, though

some language-focused learning activities, such as dictation, come and go.

Deliberately expanding one's vocabulary has long been linked to significant gains

in knowledge that stick with one after its acquisition (Nation, 2001). Additionally,

William (2005) provided a perceptive and helpful analysis of what might be

 necessary for efficient purposeful learning of grammatical structures (focus on

form). Although there is abundant proof that this approach improves language

acquisition, there is some disagreement as to whether it must take place within the

larger framework of an emphasis on communication or can be decontextualized

(William, 2005). Vocabulary learning demonstrates that substantial learning can

occur in a short time, though it is much more effective if the emphasis on the

process is spaced out over time.

2.4 The Fluency Development

All four of these abilities listening, speaking, reading, and writing should be

included in the fluency development strand. This focus helps students make the

most of their prior knowledge. Such as meaning-focused and output, the fluency

development strand aims to improve the speaker's understanding. The student's

objective here is to act as a conduit for incoming and outgoing communications.

Common practices include things like speed reading, skimming, and scanning,

reading passages multiple times, reading passages in 4/3/2 format, retelling

passages multiple times, writing short essays in ten minutes, and listening to short,

simple stories. There are prerequisites for the existence of the fluency strand, such

as:

1) The large majority of what the students are listening to, reading, speaking, and

writing is already familiar to them. In other words, the content and discourse

contain no foreign words or features.

 2) The students are primarily concerned with either understanding or conveying

meaning.

3) There is a push or expectation to complete tasks more quickly than usual.

4) There is a large quantity of either input or output.

Fluency does not involve mispronouncing words. The activity should not

focus on language qualities but rather on fluency. Fluency activities require

incentives to work quickly. Fluency should take 25% of the course. It is a respite

from learning and a chance to practice. In addition, survival vocabulary and

sentences and phrases like those found in Nation and Crabbe (1991) could be useful

to have in one's back pocket from the start of language study. Palmer (1925) argued

the most important rule of thumb for those learning a language for conversation is

learning as many sets of frequently used words as possible. Additionally, Palmer

(1925) defined perfect as extremely fluent. Most language courses fail to devote

enough time to help students improve their fluency, perhaps because doing so does

not require the acquisition of new vocabulary or grammar structures.

2.5 Balancing the Nation’s Four Strands

In a course, both listening and speaking should be emphasized. There needs

to be time set aside for both classroom and extracurricular language study. Over

two weeks or a month, a teacher can evaluate whether or not students have achieved

a healthy balance between the four strands by recording the students' language

activities, classifying them into one or more strands, and recording how long each
activity took. 25% of class time should be devoted to each component. Why should

we treat each strand equally?

Ellis (2005) argued these guidelines for language instruction, such as:

Students must be taught to prioritize meaning.

Instruction must ensure students focus on form.

Specifically, the ability to input, output, and express oneself fluently in a

context centered on meaning is threading. Students are constantly sending and

receiving messages in all of these activities. Learning a language is largely

incidental, but this type of meaning-focused communication challenges students'

understanding and ability in both the input and output domains. Activities designed

to improve fluency emphasize the use of easy, everyday language. As a result, the

majority of time spent studying the language (three of the four strands) is devoted

to acquiring an understanding of its meaning, while the last strand concentrates on

the language's form.

Three-to-one is justified. Deliberate language-focused learning outperforms

accidental meaning-focused learning in the same timeframe. Waring and Takaki

(2003) found that graded readers learned four words well and 12 partially in 56

minutes of meaning-focused reading. When students study word pairs (2L-1L),

they learn 35 words per hour, four times the incidental incidence (Nation, 2007).

Meaning-focused activities improve language, content, skill, and enjoyment, so this

 comparison is unfair. Language-focused learning is efficient. Three meaning-

oriented strands must balance this concentrated efficiency.

Despite those statements, giving each strand equal time is arbitrary. Based on

the student’s proficiency increases, strand time should change. Language learning

may precede fluency development. Fluency development may take longer at higher

proficiency levels. Therefore, language history, etymology, and pragmatics can

also help advanced learners.

2.6 Integrating The Nation’s Four Strands

Different kinds of education are represented by the four strands. When it

comes to the ideal environment for learning, they are rather different from one

another. Multiple activities are possible. Different classes may be devoted to

reading, writing, and studying the language, as well as to listening and speaking in

an intensive English program. For this reason, it is essential that classes focusing

on spoken languages, such as English, incorporate not only input and output

activities that emphasize meaning but also fluency development exercises and very

little language-focused learning. Across the entirety of the program, the sum of the

four components should be approximately equal.

In a content-based class that did not divide courses based on skills, all four

strands of learning could occur inside the same unit of instruction. When students

study a language, they may focus on the meaning of what they hear or read, which

could lead to a practice of fluency based on the same topic. Once again, a competent
 educator would swiftly verify whether or not each thread was given roughly equal

attention over a week or two. Within the framework of meaning-oriented labor,

linguistic instruction could be integrated as required. Many factors, including

teachers’ abilities and preferences, students' and the school’s expectations, time-

tabling limits, and prevailing attitudes about language education and learning, all

play a role in determining how much time should be spent on each of the four

strands. The key is to make sure that each strand is consistently given equal

attention.

2.7 Developing Language Skills

Language skills development is a higher level of increasing the four language

skills such as listening, reading, speaking, and writing abilities to communicate. In

terms of developing language skills, the four languages should be trained to

increase and integrate to gain language communicative competence. As

Widdowson (1978) described the phenomenon of skill integration, the entire

teaching-learning process and the integration of skills and sub-skills would make

up a language. It means the integration of the four skills strategy is common to the

typical approach within the communicative and interactive strategy.

Furthermore, developing language skills should be directed by the approach.

As Brown (2007) argued that in the era of globalization, the practical goals of

language learning are engaging, increasing value on integrated and dynamic multi-

skill learning approach with a focus on meaningful communication and the

 development of learner's communicative competence. However, the principles of

the Nation’s four strands could direct well-balanced language in developing

language skills.

3. DISCUSSION

When teaching English, teachers need to foster their students’ communication

skills as a primary learning goal. Learning a new language primarily serves the goal

of establishing communicative competence in that language (Namaziandost et al.,

2020). Although this is the case in theory, in practice students still struggle to

communicate effectively due to a lack of linguistic competence. This issue was

created with the educator in mind, and the purpose is to provide a method for

fostering student language growth. Many studies have discussed their efforts to

address the problem, and how they were ultimately successful in increasing

language skills by adhering to the four pillars of the Nations framework: meaning-

focus input, meaning-focus output, language-focused learning, and fluency

development (Hogain, 2012; Sonda, 2020; Truxal, 2018). Therefore, the purpose of

this study was to propose a framework for educators to foster students’ language

development according to the four principles of the Nation's values to foster

communicative competence.

Here is a basic set of guidelines for instructors to follow. The guideline is

structured on the four principles of the Nation, and the last two principles focus on

what should be taught and learned. Each guiding concept is then followed by a short
set of recommendations for putting that principle into practice within each of the

four principles of Nation, such as:

1) Make a large amount of intelligible information available in a well-organized

manner (through reading and listening). Possible strategies include providing

students with access to a robust reading program, reading aloud to them,

encouraging them to give presentations for the benefit of their peers, organizing

activities that emphasize oral communication, and encouraging participation in

online forums and chat rooms.

2) Add a determining element to make the information more comprehensible and

hence more conducive to learning. Keep a running glossary while you listen,

do some pre-communication awareness exercises, have students think about

unfamiliar ideas they come across in their reading, and address any

misunderstandings that crop up as you engage in conversation.

3) Support students as they work to improve their communication skills across a

variety of mediums and styles. To meet each student where they are, you should

tailor your teaching of communication skills by using a wide range of activities,

role-playing games, and writing and speaking tasks.

4) Allow students to engage in social activities. Encourage students to work

together on writing and reading assignments to bridge the gap between separate

pieces of information, differing points of view, and other knowledge gaps.

5) Allow students to consciously acquire knowledge of linguistic building blocks

and structures such as phonemes, morphemes, semantic chunks, and syntactic

structures. Adopt a strategy of guided reading with the aid of a teacher, offer

written comments, systematically cover language topics, and help students set

up independent language study.

6) Educate students in a way that encourages them to actively participate in the

teaching and learning process. Practice making educated guesses and analyses,

contextual word guessing, using dictionaries, and learning new words by

memorizing flash cards.

7) Offer opportunities to practice and hone all four language abilities: listening,

talking, reading, and writing. Include a speed-reading course, combine reading

over and over, provide a comprehensive reading program, play 4/3/2 games,

schedule a daily ten-minute writing session, and read and listen to stories.

8) Provide a balance between the four principles of meaning-focused input,

meaning-focused output, language-focused learning, and fluency development.

Be sure to keep track of the assignments you finish, the unit to which it belongs,

and how much time you spend on them.

9) Make a plan to review the most important linguistic concept multiple times.

You should zero in on the most often occurring events, make use of controlled

and streamlined content, and provide a flood of input all at once.

 10) Using analysis, observation, and assessment to better meet students’ language

and communication needs.

Teachers could enhance more activities, develop a more novel teaching-

learning process, and more easily attain communicative competence within the

constraint of the principles guidelines to meet the language activities. Therefore, a

teacher must assume that the purpose of the teaching-learning process is to build

language abilities and then tailor the activities to that end, using the Nation's four

strands as a foundation. A well-balanced approach to the teaching-learning process

of a language, on the other hand, would be geared toward the achievement of that

goal.

4. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

The principles of Nation’s four strands could be a guideline for developing

language skills to create communicative competence. The reason is that in the term

of communicative competence, the ability to receive and convey a message should

be present with all language skills. Therefore, the practice to train language skills

should be on the time-task principle. However, the Nation’s four strands introduced

the strands to develop language skills to achieve communicative competence

through several strands such as meaning-focused input, meaning-focused output,

language-focused learning, and development fluency.

In this paper, the researcher taught that the provision of teaching-learning

activities based on the Nation’s four strands is still a limited amount. While the
more activities informed, the more insight would be gained for implementing

Nation’s four strands to develop language skills. Hence, another researcher who is

interested in the same topic might provide broader activities based on each strand

of Nation’s principles to develop language skills.

REFERENCES
Adem, H & Berksessa, M. (2022). A case study of EFL teachers’ practice of teaching
speaking skills vis-à-vis the principles of Communicative Language Teaching
(CLT). Cogent Education, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2087458

Brown, H. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. In Encyclopedia of the

Sciences of Learning (5th edition). Longman.

Damayanti, I., Wardhana, D.E.C., Haridah, M.,& Wulandari, Y. (2018). An analysis

of language skills’ proportion in the English textbook grade XII published by
kemendikbud 2014. Advances in Social Science, Education, and Humanities
Research (ASSEHR), 115, 226–230. https://doi.org/10.33369/jeet.3.4.438-451

Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. A system, 33(2), 209–224.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.12.006

Gibson, R. E. (1975). The strip story: a catalyst for communication. TESOL Quarterly,
9(2), 149. https://doi.org/10.2307/3585481

Hogain, B. (2012). Teaching and learning vocabulary: Putting the four strands to the
test (Issue July). http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/48298/1/Brian O
Hogain - July 2012.pdf

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. In

Language Education (1st ed.). Pergamon Press Inc.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003054368-4

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.

Namaziandost, E., Homayouni, M., & Rahmani, P. (2020). The impact of cooperative
learning approach on the development of EFL learners’ speaking fluency. Cogent
Arts and Humanities, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2020.1780811

Nation, P., & Crabbe, D. (1991). A survival language learning syllabus for foreign
travel. In System (Vol. 19, Issue 3, pp. 191–201). https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-
251X(91)90044-P

Nation, P. (2001). Teaching vocabulary. The Routledge Handbook of Second Language

Acquisition and Speaking, 273–284. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003022497-24

Nation, P. (2007). The four strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching,
1(1), 2–13. https://doi.org/10.2167/illt039.0
Palmer, E. (1925). The writings of Harold E. Palmer: An overview. R.C. Smith. In
Hon-no-Tomosha Publishers (2nd edition). https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.1.89

Sonda, N. (2020). A four-strand approach to a college listening-speaking course.

JACET Selected Papers, 7, 160–173.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two
adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language
Journal, 82(3), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input

and comprehensible output in its development. In Input in Second Language
Acquisition. In S. Gass and C. Madden (eds) I.

Truxal, D. (2018). Using the four strands to help students learn the academic word list
overall plan of the vocabulary course language-focused Learning. The Journal of
Rikkyo University Language Center, 40, 67–76.

Waring, Rob & Takaki, M. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain new
vocabulary from reading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(2),
130–163.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&do
pt=Citation&list_uids=17003467

Widdowson, H. (1978). Teaching language as communication. In System (Vol. 7, Issue

3). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(79)90008-3

William, J. (2005). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. In

E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and
Learning (pp. 671–691). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410612700

Yufrizal, H. (2017). Teachers and students' perceptions of communicative competence

in English as a foreign language in Indonesia. Educational Research and Reviews,
12(17), 867–883. https://doi.org/10.5897/err2017.3243
Turnitin Report (Exclude Bibliography)