Current Perspectives On Teaching The Four Skills

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
(TESOL)
Current Perspectives on Teaching the Four Skills
Author(s): Eli Hinkel
Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Mar., 2006), pp. 109-131
Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40264513
Accessed: 19-02-2016 09:07 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley and Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 190.144.171.70 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:07:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
on
CurrentPerspectives
TeachingtheFour Skills
EUHINKEL
SeattleUniversity
UnitedStates
Seattle,Washington,
This articlepresentsan overviewof recentdevelopmentsin second

the trendsthatbegan in the
language (L2) teachingand highlights
in
1990sand the 2000sand are likelyto continueto affectinstruction
are recent
L2 skillsat leastin the immediatefuture.Also highlighted
to theteaching
in instruction
as theypertainspecifically
developments
In the past 15 yearsor
of L2 speaking,listening,
reading,and writing.
so, severalcrucialfactorshavecombinedto affectcurrentperspectives
on theteachingof Englishworldwide:(a) thedeclineof methods,(b)
a growingemphasison both bottom-upand top-downskills,(c) the
creationof new knowledgeabout English,and (d) integratedand
contextualized
teachingof multiplelanguageskills.In partbecause of
shorthistoryas a discipline,TESOL has been and
its comparatively
continuesto be a dynamicfield, one in which new venues and
are stillunfolding.The growthof new knowledgeabout
perspectives
thehowand thewhatofL2 teachingand learningis certainto continue
ofTESOL's disciplinary
remainthehallmark
maturation.
andwillprobably
it is a truismto say thateach era in the historyof second

Today,
language (L2) teachinghas been markedby expansionsof knowlin disciplinary
theoryand practice.One
edge and pivotaladvancements
innovationand a search
side effectof ongoingdisciplinary
unfortunate
to as "the
forthebestteachingmethodis whatRichards(2005) referred
fashiontheoreticalflavorof the month"(n.p.), alludingto recurrently
able theoriesoflanguagelearningand use thatclaimto be based on the
ofcurrentresearch.However,implicitin a viewof theongoing
findings
developmentof L2 teachingis an expectationthatwhat is current,
innovative,and centralin L2 pedagogytodayis likelyto become a
of disciplinary
in the expansionand refinement
knowlstepping-stone
in
of
the
current
This
overview
L2
perspectives
teachinghighlights
edge.
the trendsthatbegan in the 1990s and the 2000s and are likelyto
in L2 skillsat leastin theimmediatefuture.
instruction
continueto affect
In the currentdynamicperspectives
on foundationalL2 skills,four
TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 40, No. 1, March2006
109
themescan be identified:
the declineof methods,the
overarching
the
of
both
and
skillsin L2 learning,
significance
bottom-up top-down
to
of
new
about
the
applications
knowledge
Englishlanguage L2
of
skillsin context.
and
the
and
pedagogy,
teaching integrated multiple
the
hallmarks
of
The overview
four
which
are
with
these
trends,
begins
in
instruction
in
current
all
skills.1
Recent
L2
developments
pedagogy
ofL2
are thenhighlighted
to theteaching
as theypertainspecifically
and
speaking,
listening,
reading, writing.
FOUR THEMES IN CURRENT L2 PEDAGOGY
on
current
Severalcrucialfactors
havecombined
toshift
perspectives
on
both
the
decline
of
a
L2 teaching:
methods,
(a)
(b) growing
emphasis
and
aboutEnglish,
and top-down
skills,(c) newknowledge
bottom-up
have
in
These
factors
and
skills
context.
(d) integrated multiple
taught
and curriculum
had a profoundinfluenceon classroominstruction
in
learner
all
skills
and
across
L2
proficiency
development practically
levels.
Decline of Methods
Recognition
oftheessentialrolesoftheteacherand thelearnerand oftheneed
for situationallyrelevantlanguagepedagogyhas broughtabout thedeclineof
withtheirspecific
and prescribed
setsofclassroom
methods,
procedures.
philosophies
a smallnumber
ofresearchers
andmethodAsearlyas themid-1980s,
the
worldwide
about
to
voice
ologistsbegan
growing
apprehension
of
the
enormous
of
method
to
diversity
applicability anyparticular
have
learners
andlearning
needs.Sincethattime,manyL2 professionals
andinapplias overly
cometoseespecific
methods
teaching
prescriptive
contexts
cableindivergent
2001;Kumaravadivelu,
(e.g.,Brown,
learning
skillscan occupya
communicative
2003,2005).Forexample,although
in
interact
theirL2,forEFL
ESL
who
need
to
for
students
highpriority
to
a
reduced
valuerelative
in
have
learners,
may
communicatingEnglish
The
for
entrance
exams
or
tests
for
securing
employment.
preparing
and
forcurricular
intheresponsibility
pasttwodecadeshaveseena shift
1The 25th
issuesof TESOL Quarterly
reflectedthe general trendof treatingthe
anniversary
foundationallanguageskillsseparately.A broad overviewsuch as thisone maywellrepresentan
innovationin itselfto evincethe maturationof L2 teachingas a disciplineas wellthe influential
models (discussedin the sectionIntegratedand Multiple
expansionof integratedinstructional
SkillsTaught in Context).
110
TESOL QUARTERLY
decisionsfromthe prevailingteachingmethodsto classinstructional

roomteachersand learners,whoare bestsuitedto implementappropriinstruction
ate, relevant,and effective
(e.g., Breen & Littlejohn,2000).
For instance,Larsen-Freeman
(2000) recommendsthatteacherspracand createtheirownteachingmethods"by
tice"principledeclecticism"
in
of
a principledmanner"(p. 183).
others
blendingaspects
of keylearnervariables,such as learningneeds and
The centrality
goals, as well as cognitiveprocessingand resourceshas been widely
2002; Fotos,
recognizedin researchand pedagogy(e.g., see Bialystok,
into
the
and
social,
cultural,
economic,
2001). Investigations
political
contextsofL2 learninghaveprovidedmuchinsightintopopulationsof
learnersand theirspecificlearninggoals.Whilesomemayneed to speak
and writein L2 academic and professionalsettings,othersset out to
or readingskillsfordifferent
developL2 conversational
purposes.Such
factorsas who givenL2 learnersare,whyand wherethese
fundamental
individualsundertaketo learnan L2, and whattheiravailableresources
are (e.g.,time,cognitive,
financial)shouldand oftendo determinehow
are
skills
L2
taughtand learned (e.g., Breen,2001; Breen &
particular
Littlejohn,2000).
Bottom-Upand Top-DownSkills
Based on recentresearch
on theroleofcognitionin L2 learning,L2 pedagogy
theimportance
in practically
all skillshas cometorecognize
ofbothaccuracyand
and
skills
and
both
(discussedin the
top-downlanguage
fluency
bottom-up
sectionson teachingspeaking,listening,
and
reading,
writing).
In thelate 1980sand early1990s,a numberofstudieswerecarriedout

to determinewhetherexposureto and communicative
interaction
in the
L2 enableslearnersto attainL2 speakingfacilitiesthataddressfluency
and accuracyin languageproduction(e.g., Lightbown& Spada, 1990;
Schmidt,1993; Swain,1991). Researchfindingsdemonstrate
that,without explicitand form-focused
extensive
instruction,
exposureto meannot
lead
to
the
does
of
and lexical
ing-basedinput
development syntactic
in
in
an
the
of
the
four
L2.
skills,curricula
Currently,
teaching
accuracy
and instruction
striveto achievea balancebetweenthelinguistic
and the
schematicaspectsof learnerlanguagedevelopment.At present,practically all teacher education textbookson the essentialsof language
instruction
includematerialon howto addressbothbottom-up
and topdownabilities(e.g.,Adger,Snow,& Christian,
2002;Brown,2001; Carter
& Nunan, 2001; Celce-Murcia,2001; Larsen-Freeman,
2000; Nunan,
1999,2003).
CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING THE FOUR SKILLS
111
New KnowledgeAbout English

The analysesof large spokenand written
English language corporahave
allowedmuchinsightintohownativespeakers
ofEnglishuse languagefeaturesin
abouttheEnglish
reallifeand acrossvariousdialects.New empiricalknowledge
language has had an importantinfluenceon curriculaand contentin L2
pedagogy.
oflanguage
The findings
ofcorpusanalyseshaveidentified
variations
and acrossseveraltypesofgenres,
featuresin spokenor written
registers
suchas academicorjournalisticprose,as wellas formalor conversational
speech.These analysesof real-life
languagein use havedelvedinto,for
example, the frequenciesand patternsof syntactic,morphological,
or discoursalfeaturesthattendto occurin particular
lexical,pragmatic,
typesof text(see Conrad,2005,fora detailedoverview).
have
ofcorpusanalysesfindings
to L2 teaching,however,
Applications
not been withoutcontroversy.
Some languagecorporaare specifically
created and analyzedwith the intentto benefitL2 instructionand
of learning.For example,studiesof vocabulary
improvethe efficiency
coursesacrosssuch
university
frequenciesand rangesin introductory
and biologyare veryusefulin
diversedisciplinesas economics,history,
boundor professional
L2 learners(e.g.,Hazenberg
teachingacademically
& Hulstijn,1996; Nation,1990, 2001). Other analysesof Englishlanfocusedon theempiricalstudyoflanguage
guage corporaare primarily
to obtaindetaileddescriptions
ofitsproperties
thatcan be appliedto the
of languagetheories.Some prominentexpertsin L2 teachrefinement
havequestionedthevalueofapplyingcorpusfindings
ingand linguistics
to L2 teaching.For instance,accordingto Widdowson(1990, 2000,
who in effect
2003) and Cook (1997, 1998), learnersin EFL settings,
withnativespeakersofEnglish,do not
havefewopportunities
to interact
need to be particularly
concernedwiththe frequenciesof linguistic
featuresin nativespeakercorpora.These authorsalso argue that,in
are too cultureboundand narrowly
specific
manycases,corpusfindings
to a particularvarietyof Englishto be usefulforlearnerswho have no
the issuesof difficulty,
access to thatcultureor variety.
Furthermore,
relevance,and pedagogicalsequencinghave to
usefulness,
learnability,
be takeninto account in corpus-basedL2 teachingand instructional
materials(e.g., Aston,1995; fora discussion,see also Conrad,2005).
can make
thatcorpusfindings
believe,however,
ManyL2 methodologists
thelanguage
and efficient
L2 teachingfarmoreeffective
byidentifying
featuresthatlearnersmustknowto achievetheirlearninggoals (e.g.,
Byrd,2005; Byrd& Reid, 1998; Conrad,2000).
112
TESOL QUARTERLY
Integratedand MultipleSkillsTaughtin Context

In an age ofglobalization,
oflanguagelearningplace an
pragmaticobjectives
and
multiskill
instructional
modelswitha
increasedvalue on integrated dynamic
and thedevelopment
communication
oflearners'communifocuson meaningful
cativecompetence.
In manylocationsaround theworld,learningEnglishhas the objectiveoflearners'gainingaccessto technical,educational,or professional

(Canagarajah,2002,2005). Commonlyacceptedperspecopportunities
tiveson languageteachingand learningrecognizethat,in meaningful
communication,people employ incrementallanguage skills not in
one
isolationbut in tandem.For example,to engagein a conversation,
needs to be able speak and comprehendat the same time.To make
has to
languagelearningas realisticas possible,integratedinstruction
all ofwhichare requisitein
addressa rangeof L2 skillssimultaneously,
communication.For instance,teachingreadingcan be easilytied to
instructionon writingand vocabulary,and oral skills readilylend
and cross-cultural
to teachingpronunciation,
themselves
listening,
prag& O'Keeffe,2004).
matics(Hinkel,2001; Lazaraton,2001; McCarthy
instruction
usuallyfollowsthe principlesof
Integratedand multiskill
thecommunicative
approach,withvariouspedagogicalemphases,goals,
and proceduresplayinga centralrole
instructional
materials,activities,
in promotingcommunicative
languageuse. At present,the modelsfor
focusinclude an extensive
integratedteachingwitha communicative
models,such as content
arrayof curriculaand typesof instructional
based (includingthemebased), taskbased,textbased (also called genre
based,
based), discoursebased,projectbased,problembased,literature
based,competency
based,or standardsbased
based,community
literacy
(and thisis not a completelistbyanymeasure).In fact,Richardsand
engages learnersin
Rodgers (2001) note that,as long as instruction
meaningfulcommunicationand enables themto attainthe curricular
objectives,the rangeof modelsand teachingmaterialscompatiblewith
languageteachingis "unlimited"(p. 165).
integrated
in foreignlanguage(FL)
thatfewmovements
It is safeto say,however,
and L2 teachingtake place withoutcontest,and integratedlanguage
no exception.Currently,
task-based
and contentis certainly
instruction
are probablyamong the mostwidelyadopted intebased instruction
gratedmodels. However,some leading specialistsin L2 teachingand
havemaintainedthatthesuperiority
of,forexample,
appliedlinguistics
over traditionalteachinghas not been demontask-basedinstruction
and thatto date researchhas had littleto sayaboutits
stratedempirically
effectiveness
(e.g., Richards& Rodgers,2001; Seedhouse, 1999; Swan,
2005; Widdowson,1990,1993,2003). Criticsalso contendthatin many
113
ofcontent-based
theimplementation
ESL and EFL situations
worldwide,
and impractical
be
and task-based
instruction
may simplyinappropriate
cannot
FL
or
For
L2
Swan,
2005;
Ur,
1996).
proficiency
example,
(e.g.,
be developed when learningis limitedto 1-3 hours of classroom
& Spada, 1990).
instruction
and input(e.g.,Lightbown,
2000;Lightbown
or math,
such
as
science
in
content
instruction
when
areas,
Additionally,
to
teachersoftenfinditdifficult
is carriedout in Englishin EFL settings,
and learners
maintainexpertisein bothEnglishand thesubjectmatter,
oftenconcentrateonlyon school
whoneed to prepareforexaminations
in
much
interest
without
learningthe language.In task-based,
subjects
multiskill
withits focus on the developmentof language
instruction,
issuesof contentor linguistic
accuracyare of secondaryimporfluency,
modelforschooling
ofthetask-based
theusefulness
tance,thuslimiting
and academicpreparation(see Richards& Rodgers,2001; Widdowson,
1990,2003). Based on theirexperience,however,
manyL2 teachersand
curriculumdesignersbelieve that integratedFL/L2 instructioncan
increase learners' opportunitiesfor L2 purposefulcommunication,
real-lifelanguageuse, and diversetypesof contextualized
interaction,
all ofwhichhavethegoal ofdeveloping
discourseand linguistic
features,
and skills(fordetaileddiscussion,see,
students'language proficiency
e.g.,Ellis,2003; Fotos,2001,2002; Snow,2005).
of
The remainderof thisarticledelvesintoa moredetailedoverview
the prevailingcurrentsin the teachingof the L2 foundationalskills:
divisionhas the
Thistraditional
reading,and writing.
speaking,listening,
sole purpose of easing the reader's navigationthroughthe article's
contents,and some generallyacceptedwaysto integratetheteachingof
L2 skillswillbe addressedas a matterof course.
TEACHING SPEAKING SKILLS

The complexity
of learningto speakin anotherlanguageis reflected
in therangeand typeofsubskillsthatare entailedin L2 oralproduction.
and
attend to content,morphosyntax
Learnersmust simultaneously
sound
and
the
and
information
discourse
lexis,
systemand
structuring,
features
and
as
well
as
pragmalinguistic
appropriateregister
prosody,
involves
that
In
an
interaction
(Tarone,2005).
speakingand
typically
so
to
self-monitor
need
at
the
same
L2
time, speakers
comprehending
and correctproductionproblemsat thefastpace of
thattheycan identify
and
a real conversationalexchange. Research on the characteristics
communicatthat
has
shown
skills
of
oral
L2
conclusively
development
notto mentionthat
demandingundertaking,
ingin an L2 is a cognitively
oftendependson productionquality(e.g.,
thesuccessofan interaction
& O'Keeffe,2004). Thus,speakingin an L2 requiresfluency,
McCarthy
114
TESOL QUARTERLY
lexicogrammatical
repertoireformeaningful
accuracy,and a sufficient
to takeplace.
communication
In the 1990s, many researchersconcluded that exposure to and
communicativeinteractionin an L2 enables learners to attain L2
speakingfluency.However,the extentof fluencydevelopmentwas not
and lexicalaccuracyin oral production
matchedby learners'syntactic
&
1990;
Schmidt,1993;Swain,1991). These and
(e.g.,Lightbown Spada,
thatalthough,forexample,immersion
demonstrated
other
studies
many
learnerscan speak fluentlyand with ease, their speech contained
errors.
numerousgrammatical,
lexical,and pragmalinguistic
to
and task-based
Withincommunicative
approaches teaching,various
in
modifications
L2
speaking pedagogy have been
methodological
an
of
that
permit integration fluencyand accuracyfoci (e.g.,
proposed
For
instance,accordingto Ellis (2003), the task-based
Fotos, 2002).
of
L2
speakingskillshas built-inopportunitiesfor online
teaching
in more accurateand complexuses of language.
result
that
planning
Ellisexplainsthatcarefully
designedtaskscan fosterthedevelopmentof
and descriptions
can be
variousaspectsofL2 oralproduction:Narratives
for
debates
and
in fluency-focused
effective
teaching,and,
example,
lexical
can
increased
and
tasks
grammatical
promote
problem-solving
in learnerlanguageuse. Anotheradvantageofusingtasksin
complexity
learners
is thatrehearsal(or taskrepetition)affords
L2 oral instruction
to accommodatethe competingcognitivedemandsof
an opportunity
For example,advanceplanand linguistic
complexity.
fluency,
accuracy,
thatis,whatto sayand
content
and
rehearsals
of
and
formulation,
ning
in
howto sayit,lead to substantial
improvements theamountofspoken
discourseand in grammatical,lexical, and articulatory
accuracy.In
contextualized
uses
ofspecific
and task-based
content-based
instruction,
the
and
can
be
to
connect
structures
vocabulary
emphasized
grammar
a
activities
and
matter
(for thoroughoverview,
languagelearning
subject
see Snow,2005).
SpeakingIntegratedWithOther Language Skills

Speakingand Pronunciation
of English has led to
The rapid pace of the internationalization
on
the
of
teaching pronunciation.In general
changingperspectives
as
Tarone
terms,
(2005) pointsout,the goal of pronunciationteaching
a nativelikeaccentto targeting
has shiftedfromtargeting
intelligibility,
that is, the degree to which the listenerunderstandsthe speaker's
utterance.In an age whenEnglishhas become a primarymediumfor
interactions
mostcross-cultural
takeplace
international
communication,
115
betweennormative
speakersof Englishratherthanbetweennativeand
nonnativespeakers (e.g., Canagarajah,2005; Jenkins,2000, and this
issue). Thus, today,L2 pronunciationpedagogyhas the objectiveof
ratherthandrasticaccent
helpinglearnersachieveoverallintelligibility
modification(e.g., McKay,2002). To thisend, teachinghas to address
of specificsounds),
theissuesof segmentaiclarity(e.g., thearticulation
wordstressand prosody,and the lengthand the timingof pauses.The
currentapproachto teachingpronunciation
is generallybased on three
Pronunciation
and
intonationare taughtin
criteria:
(a)
principled
contextand in conjunctionwith speakingskills,(b) instructionin
pronunciationservesbroader communicativepurposes,and (c) the
teachingof pronunciationand intonationis based on realisticrather
thanidealisticlanguagemodels (e.g., Chun,2002).
Speaking and PragmalingisticSkills
As an additional outcome of increased global mobilityand the

in L2 speakingskillshas been
internationalization
ofEnglish,instruction
the
featuresof communicaa
on
sociocultural
placing greateremphasis
tion and oral production.The 1990s saw a remarkablegrowthof
publicationsassociatedwiththe importanceof L2 socioculturaland
pragmalinguistic
competence.For thisreason,currentoral pedagogy
has the objective of enabling nonnativespeakers to communicate
and to negotiatecross-cultural
interactionalnormssuccesseffectively
&
Roever,
2005;
fully(Kasper
McKay,2002). The teaching of L2
skills
elucidates
the
issuesof powerin communication,
sociopragmatic
suchas theimpactofsocialstatus,socialdistance,and linguistic
register
on L2 speech.
normsof speakingtypiAt present,pedagogyon L2 sociopragmatic
discourseorganicommunication
effective
callyincorporates
strategies;
zationand structuring;
conversational
routines(e.g.,smalltalk);conversationalformulae(e.g., formsof address); and speech acts, such as
or clarification
questions(e.g., McKay,
requests,refusals,compliments,
Yule
&
2002;
Tarone,1997). Accordingto Rasper's(2001) overviewof
severalempiricalstudieson teachingL2 pragmatics,
explicitteaching
a
and directexplanationsoftheL2 form-function
connectionsrepresent
their
of
learners
means
L2
improve
highly productive
helping
skills.Forexample,turntheradiodownand couldyouplease
sociopragmatic
turntheradio downhave the same function(request) but different
forms,and, dependingon the context,one is likelyto
pragmalinguistic
in variouscommube moreeffective
thantheother.Implicitinstruction
nicationtacticsand appropriatelanguage uses (i.e., when pragmatic
and explanations)
featuresare practicedin contextwithoutdescriptions
116
TESOL QUARTERLY
than explicitexplanationsand teaching(see

can be farless effective
for
further
&
Roever,
2005,
discussion).
Kasper
LinguisticFeatures of SpokenRegister
AnalysesofEnglishlanguagecorpora,as notedearlier,havebeen able

thespecificlexicaland grammatical
featuresthatdistinguish,
to identify
for example,oral and writtendiscourse,or casual conversations
and
formalspeech. Noticingand analyzingdivergentlinguisticfeatures
frequentlyencounteredin, for example, conversationsor university
lecturesare usefulin teachingboth speakingand listeningforinteractional, academic, or vocational purposes (see also Celce-Murcia&
Olshtain,2000; Master,2005). In fact,curriculathat attend to the
distinctionsbetweenconversationaland formaloral productioncan
in EFL and ESL environpreparelearnersforreal-lifecommunication
mentsalike (Lazaraton,2001).
TEACHING LISTENING
Duringthe 1970s,listeningpedagogylargelyemphasizedthedevelopment of learners' abilities to identifywords,sentence boundaries,
individualsounds,and sound combinations,thatis, botcontractions,
tom-uplinguisticprocessing.The 1980ssawa shiftfromtheviewof L2
linguisticto a schema-basedview,and listenlisteningas predominantly
moved
awayfromits focus on the linguisticaspectsof
ing pedagogy
to
the
activationof learners'top-downknowledge.In
comprehension
aural
comprehensionhingeson listeners'abilities
top-downprocessing,
to activatetheirknowledge-based
schemata,such as culturalconstructs,
discourse
and
clues,
pragmaticconventions(e.g.,Celcetopicfamiliarity,
Rost
& Ross,1991). In thepracticeof
Murcia,1995;Mendelsohn,1994;
neither
L2
however,
teaching listening,
approach- a focuson bottom-up
- provedto be a resoundingsuccess:Learners
or top-downprocessing
who relyon linguisticprocessingoftenfailto activatehigherorderL2
schemata,and thosewho correctly
applyschema-basedknowledgetend
to neglectthe linguisticinput(e.g., Tsui & Fullilove,1998;Vandergrift,
2004).
Advancesin the studiesof spokencorporaand conversation
analysis
have illuminatedthe complexityof oral discourseand language.The
findingsof these analyseshave made it evidentthat,in manycases,
can be of limited
employingauthenticlanguagein listeninginstruction
ofconstraints,
suchas thefastpace ofspeech,
benefitbecauseofa variety
ofspokengrammarand lexicon(e.g.,incomplete
specificcharacteristics
117
sentencesand ellipses,as in he did what), culturalreferencesand

schemata,and dialectalcolloquial expressions.AlthoughL2 pedagogy
continuesto underscorethe value of authenticteachingmaterials,the
of L2 listeninginstruction
researchon the effectiveness
broadlyrecommends learner trainingin metacognitivestrategiesto facilitatethe
developmentof L2 aural abilities.
In L2 listeningpedagogy,two complementary
approaches reflect
One
currentperspectiveson more effective
emphasizesthe
learning.
in conjunction
and
communication
of
for
integratedteaching listening
and
withotherL2 skills,such as speaking,sociopragmatics,
grammar,
use
of
the
learner's
the
The
other
moves
to
foreground
vocabulary.
the
to
bolster
and
learningprocess
metacognitive cognitivestrategies
1999,2004).
(Mendelsohn,1994;Rost,2005; Vandergrift,
ListeningIntegratedWithOther Language Skills

Skills
Discourse,and Linguistic
Listening,
oftechniquesin L2 listeninginstruction
Generallyspeaking,a variety
for
havewithstood
thetestoftimeand are largelyrecognizedas essential,
or
the
for
the
gist
listening
makingpredictions,
example,prelistening,
These teaching
and makinginferences.
mainidea, listeningintensively,
can be usefulin a broad rangeof teachingcontextsand can
strategies
can be
activities
diverse
meet
learningneeds. For instance,prelistening
raise
schema
and
to
cultural
in
learners
to
notice
the
employed teaching
discourse
culture
on
their awarenessof the effectof
organization,
and pragmatics
information
(see,e.g.,Rost,2005;Vandergrift,
structuring,
2004). In addition,learningto listento conversations
providesa fruitful
lexical
venueforfocusingon morphosyntax,
parsing,and phonological
dimensions
to
the
variables,thusaddingnew
teachingof grammarand
of
conversations
can
similarlyemphasizeL2
vocabulary.Analyses L2
to
socioculturalnormsand pragmatics expand learners'repertoireof
As has been mentioned,
commonspeechactsand discoursestructuring.
with
also
the teachingof pronunciationskillsis
integrated
ubiquitously
bothspeakingand listeninginstruction.
The linguisticand schema-driven
staplesof teachinglisteninghave
foundapplicationsin currentintegrated
approaches,suchas task-based
. The design
or content-based
instruction
(see Snow,2005,foroverviews)
oflisteningpracticecan incorporatea numberoffeaturesthatmakethe
abilitiesrelevantand realistic.Listen-and-do
ofL2 listening
development
tasks,for instance,representa flexiblesource of listeninginput for
beginningor intermediatelearners.Accordingto Ellis (2003), the
118
TESOL QUARTERLY
and
contentoftaskscan be easilycontrolledin regardto theirlinguistic
and
schematicvariables,suchas frequentoccurrencesoftargetsyntactic
task(also referred
in thecontextofa meaning-focused
lexicalstructures
wordsand phrases,
to as enriched
input), such as grammarconstructions,
Academic
tasks
and note-taking
or conversational
listening
expressions.
are an age-oldtechniqueforteachingmore advancedlearners.Taped
(or live) listeningselections,suchas academiclectures,can be designed
to concentrateon specifictopicsand contentswithdirectedgrammar
and vocabularyloads, and culturaland discourseschemata,integrated
and speakingpractice.
withreading,writing,
TeachingListeningand TeachingStrategies
in
and schematicconsiderations
In the 1990s,in additionto linguistic
learners
L2 listening,a numberof studiesidentifiedthe difficulties
experiencewhen coping withcomprehensionproblemsand making
Researchershave also been interestedin the metacognitive
inferences.
ofsuccessful
and cognitive
L2 listeners(e.g.,Rost& Ross,1991;
strategies
The
oftheseinvestigations
haveled L2
1999,2004).
findings
Vandergrift,
the
and
advocate
of
to
teaching metacognitive cognitive
listening
experts
The mostimporforL2 listeningcomprehension.
strategies
specifically
is thatstrategies
are under
tantdifference
betweenskillsand strategies
learners'consciouscontrol,and listenerscan be taughtto compensate
missedlinguisticor schematicinput,or
forincompleteunderstanding,
clues (see Rost,2005,fora discussion).
misidentified
Thus, currentL2 listeningpedagogy includes the modeling of
and strategy
trainingin tandemwithteaching
strategies
metacognitive
is moreeffective
A consistent
use ofmetacognitive
L2 listening.
strategies
in improving
learners'L2 listeningcomprehensionthanworkon listenstrate2004). The keymetacognitive
ing skillsalone (e.g., Vandergrift,
in
instruction
include
L2
listening
planningfor
gies widelyadopted
the
self-monitoring comprehension
processes,evaluatingcomlistening,
difficulties
and
(e.g., see Rost,
identifying
comprehension
prehension,
and
Learners
at
intermediate
levelsof
for
a
2005,
discussion).
beginning
from
instruction
that
concentrates
on
benefit
bottom-up
may
proficiency
trainand top-downlisteningprocesses,togetherwithselectivestrategy
of
an
addition
more
advanced
For
learners,
cognitivestrategies,
ing.
such as discourseorganization,inferencing,
elaboration,and summation,also representan effective
approach to teachinglistening(Rost,
Rost
&
Ross,1991).
2001;
119
TEACHING L2 READING
Recentresearchhas sheda greatdeal oflighton theprocessesand the
L2 readingentailsboth
learningof L2 reading.Similarto L2 listening,
bottom-upand top-downcognitiveprocessing,and in the 1980s,the
prevalentapproachto teachingsoughtto activatelearners'LI reading
schemataand priorknowledgeto fosterthedevelopmentof L2 reading
skills.Overtime,however,
ithas becomeevidentthat,despitemanyyears
of schoolingand exposure to L2 reading and text,not all learners
of
overview
succeedin becomingproficient
L2 readers.In hisimportant
topreadingresearch,Eskey(1988) examineswhathe called "a strongly
downbias" (p. 95) in L2 readingpedagogyand neglectoflearners'weak
linguisticprocessingskills.Eskey's analysisexplainsthatL2 readersare
distinctfromthose who read in their Lis and that
fundamentally
essential"knowledgeof the language of the text"(p. 96) is required
beforelearnerscan successfully
processthe L2 readingschema.The
primacyof the bottom-upprocessingin L2 readingand the need for
notedbyParan (1996),
teachingthelanguagein L2 readingare similarly
Birch(2002), and Koda (2005), whoviewthe top-downreadingskillsas
additiveor compensatory
once fluentbottom-up
processingis achieved.
Reading IntegratedWithOther Language Skills

Skills
and Top-Down
Bottom-Up
The bottom-up
processingofreadinginvolvesa broadarrayofdistinct
such as wordrecognition,
spellingand phonological
cognitivesubskills,
and access
and
lexical
recognition
morphosyntactic
parsing,
processing,
from
information
needs
to
visual
The
reader
gather
(e.g., Eskey,2005).
themeaningsofwords,
text(e.g.,lettersand words),identify
thewritten
and then move forwardto the processingof the structureand the
meaning of larger syntacticunits,such as phrases or sentences.A
numberof studies,such as thoseby Koda (1999), Chikamatsu(1996),
and Shimronand Savon (1994), have shownthatvisualprocessingof
a cognitively
wordsand lettersrepresents
complextask.These and other
researchersfoundthatreaderswhoseLI orthographies
(e.g., Chinese,
from
the
distinct
L2
are
or
orthography
markedly
Japanese, Hebrew)
maybe sloweddown in theirreadingprogressby the need to attain
skills.
beforetheycan acquiretext-processing
fluentL2 wordrecognition
not
occur
does
skills
of
transfer
Ll-to-L2
Furthermore,
reading
positive
when the writingsystemsin the two languages are fundamentally
different
(e.g., Birch,2002; Koda, 1999,2005). On the otherhand,L2
120
TESOL QUARTERLY
skillsdevelopsignificantly
fasterwhenLI and
readers'word-processing
are similar(as in Englishand Spanish).
L2 orthographies
The findingsof L2 readingresearchon the keyrole of bottom-up
processing,word recognitionfluency,and the recognitionof the
ofwordsand phraseshaveled to substantive
structure
morphophonemic
instruction
to youngand adultL2 learners
shiftsin readingand literacy
NationalLiteracyStrategy
alike.For example,in 1999,the far-reaching
in theUnitedKingdomintroducedworkon phonics,wordrecognition,
and graphicknowledgepriorto sentenceand textlevelsof instruction.
In teacher education,currentmethodologytextbooksreflectthe
on teachingL2 reading,literacy,
and writing
changein theperspectives
Such
influential
also
section
the
(see
TeachingWriting).
publicationsas
thosebyCelce-Murcia(2001), Carterand Nunan (2001), McKay(1993),
Nunan (1999, 2003), and Wallace (1992) containat leasta chapteron
in topreadingskillsusuallyfollowedbyinstruction
teachingbottom-up
LI
For
that
cautions
downand strategic
reading. example,Ediger(2001)
In
not
transfer
to
an
the
case
of
skills
do
L2.
readily
young
reading
school-ageand olderlearnersalike,teachersneed to beginwithworkon
thevisualappearanceofwords(e.g.,a sight-word
p. 157), soundapproach,
the
and
the developletterrelationships
p. 157),
(e.g.,
look-say
approach,
mentofwordrecognitionfluencybeforedelvingintotop-downskillsin
Wallace (2001) reviewsresearchon
bothreadingand writing.
Similarly,
to
decode
words as a prerequisiteto
the
learner's
ability
fostering
the
conclusions
of
various
Based
on
studies,Wallaceexplains
reading.
thata stronglink exists"betweenphonemicawareness,the abilityto
and rapidly,
and readingachievement"(p.
processwordsautomatically
In
book
for
Birch
her
teachers,
(2002) advocatesteaching
23).
practical
thenmovingforward
to
L2 readingbybeginningwithprocessingletters,
and vocabularylearnthe Englishspellingsystem,morphophonemics,
ing. Accordingto Birch,althoughboth bottom-upand top-downprocessingskillsare necessaryto learn to read in an L2, the reading
mustbe in place beforetop-downinstruction
can benefit
fundamentals
learners.
Readingand Vocabulary
In other venues, the foundations-first
perspectiveon L2 reading
to
views
on
extends
also
today's
teachingand learningvocabupedagogy
out in thepasttwodecades
amounts
of
research
carried
Enormous
lary.
havebeen devotedto the role ofvocabularyin L2 readingas wellas to
vocabularylearningand acquisition.Althoughin the 1970s and 1980s
the teachingand learningof vocabularywas consideredto be largely
secondaryto theteachingofotherL2 skills,at presenta greatdeal more
121
is knownabout the connectionsbetweenL2 readingand vocabulary

knowledge(e.g., Nation, 1990, 2001). For instance,Hu and Nation
(2000) indicatethatan L2 readerneeds to understandapproximately
98% of the unique wordsin such textsas shortnovelsor academic
materials.In real terms,thisrepresentsabout 5,000 word families(a
is a base wordwithitsrelatedwordsand theirinflected
forms,
e.g.,
family
to
On
the
other
hand,
child,children,
childhood).
according Hazenberg
and Hulstijn (1996), the vocabularyrange in introductory
university
textbookslargelyoverlapswiththatin the generalcorpusof frequent
words.Therefore,irrespective
of theiraspirationsto enteruniversities,
L2 learnersneed to acquire a substantial
vocabularyto achievecompeand
tenciesin practically
all L2 skills,suchas reading,writing,
listening,
of
a
&
In
terms,
Huckin,
1997). general
vocabulary
speaking(e.g.,Coady
for
base
needed
serve
as
an
essential
words
2,000
may
approximately
dailyinteractionand speaking,whereas5,000 base wordsare typically
consideredto be a minimalL2 learninggoal to comprehendtexts
intendedfora general,nonspecialistaudience (Nation,1990; see also
Hulstijn,2001,foran overview).
The techniquesforteachingvocabularyhave also been thoroughly
Nation's(2001, 2005)
examined.Amongotherprominentpublications,
in
and
workhighlights
trends
vocabulary
productive efficient
significant
In
a
the
two
vast
decades,
teaching.
bodyofresearchhas established
past
means
and efficient
thatexplicitteachingrepresentsthe mosteffective
of vocabularyteaching. Researchershave also voiced caution that
incidentallearning leads to significantly
lower rates of vocabulary
retentionand thata wordneeds to be encountered12-20 timesto be
learnedfromcontext(e.g., Coady,1997). Accordingto Nation (2005)
and Hulstijn(2001), researchhas not supportedthe contentionthat
use and encounterswithnewwordsin contextare the
meaning-focused
These authorsunderscorethattheconverse
bestwayto learnvocabulary.
todecontextualized
that
is
approach probablytrue, is,deliberateattention
can
wordsis farmorelikelyto lead to learning,althoughnewvocabulary
In
in
of
skills.
be
the
context
other
reinforced
L2
terms,
general
certainly
to resultin learning,activitieswithnew words,such as reading or
repetition,
listening,have to meet the followingconditions:"interest,
deliberateattention,and generativeuse (the use of a word in a new
context)"(Nation,2005, p. 585). Teachingwordfamiliesratherthan
increasethe rateof learning.
individualwordscan dramatically
ExtensiveReading and Reading FluencyDevelopment

A pedagogicalapproach usuallyreferredto as extensive
reading(or
silentreading)has been verypopularamong readingteachers
sustained
122
TESOL QUARTERLY
Extensive
isbasedon theprinciples
andmethodologists.
reading
adopted
itcanbe appealin LI readingand literacy
instruction,
and,intuitively,
for
ingbecauseof itsemphasison readinglargeamountsof material
out
that
In
"the
fact,
(2005)
Eskey
points
relationship
enjoyment.
andreciprocal"
iswelldocumented
between
readingandvocabulary
(p.
567), and the moreone reads,the largerhis or her languagebase
and
becomes.The goalofextensive
readingis toreadrelatively
quickly
than
to
focus
on
the
details.
ideas
rather
It
is
to understand
general
that
extensive
can
learners
with
reading provide
recognized
generally
thedevelopment
and facilitate
of
exposureto newand old vocabulary
Accord2005;
1997;
Nation,
2001).
Eskey,
(e.g.,Coady,
readingfluency
of extensive
readingis
ing to Hu and Nation(2000), theusefulness
of
unknown
which
should
not
exceed1
on
the
words,
density
contingent
shouldrecuratfairly
50wordsoftext.Also,vocabulary
forevery
regular
Forlessproficient
to promoteretention.
intervals
learners,
gradedor
loadsmaybe theoptimal
readerswithcontrolled
vocabulary
simplified
teachers
dislike
As
even
choice,
gradedreadingmaterials.
thoughmany
for
"Without
a
second
Nation(2005)mentions,
readers,
reading
graded
struggle
againstan overlanguagelearnerwouldbe one continuous
level"
(p. 588).
whelming
vocabulary
TEACHING L2 WRITING
ofL2 writing
in the1980smuchin theteaching
wasbased
Although
a
number
in
the
two
of
onLI writing
research,
publications
past decades,
differences
thatexistbetween
haveemergedto addresstheimportant
in one'sLI andin one'sL2 (e.g.,Hinkel,2002;McKay
towrite
learning
of 72 studies,
Silva
& Wong,1996;Silva,1993).Basedon hissynthesis
differences
exist
between
all
concludes
that
(1993)
significant
practically
He
that
the
needs
of
of
LI
and
L2
writing. emphasizes
learning
aspects
LI
distinct
fromthoseof basicor proficient
are crucially
L2 writers
and thatL2 writing
writers
pedagogyrequiresspecialand systematic
account
thecultural,
andlinguistic
that
take
into
rhetorical,
approaches
Hinkel's
LI and L2 writers.
between
differences
(2002) largeSimilarly,
ofLI andL2 textshowedthatevenafter
scaleempirical
yearsof
analysis
text
writers'
continues
to
differ
ESL and composition
L2
training,
in
of
novice
LI
writers
to
most
from
that
regard
linguistic
significantly
Evenadvancedand trained
continue
features.
andrhetorical
L2 writers
that
limitedlexicaland syntactic
to havea severely
repertoire enables
to the mostcommon
themto produceonlysimpletextrestricted
in conversational
features
encountered
dislanguage
predominantly
course(Hinkel,2003).
123
WritingIntegrated With Other Language Skills

and Top-Doum
Skills
Bottom-Up
As withL2 reading,L2 writing
pedagogyhas begun to payincreasing
attentionto the integrationof bottom-upand top-downskillsbecause
learnersneed both if theyare to become proficientL2 writers.Many
such as Cope and Kalantzis(1993, 2000) and
prominentresearchers,
have
(1997),
Johns
pointedout thatlearnerscan achievesocial access
and inclusionthrougha facility
withlanguageand writing.
Achieving
in
and lexis
in
grammar
proficiency writingrequiresexplicitpedagogy
and is importantbecause one's linguisticrepertoireand writingskills
oftendetermineone's social, economic,and politicalchoices. Such
expertsin L2 teachingas Celce-Murcia(2001), Christie(1998), and
in L2
Martin(1992) have similarlyargued thata lack of instruction
in
their
acaand
lexis
learners
L2
vocational,
grammar
disadvantages
reduces theiroptions.
demic,and professionalcareersand ultimately
These researchershave continued to emphasize the importanceof
languagequalityin L2 writingbecause grammarand lexis are inextricable frommeaningin writtendiscourseand because L2 writersare
evaluatedbased on theircontrolof languageand textconultimately
in theirwritten
struction
discourse.
To addressthe shortfalls
of the writingpedagogywidelyadopted in
instruction
has begunto takea more
the1980s,thepracticeofL2 writing
balanced viewof learningto writein an L2 (Silva & Brice,2004). For
instance,Frodesen (2001) statesthat "the wholesaleadoption of LI
compositiontheoriesand practicesfor L2 writingclasses seems misguided in light of the many differencesbetween firstand second
language writers,processes,and products"(p. 234).2 Accordingto
for L2 writersis most
Frodesen,the neglectof language instruction
to believe that
in
continue
the
United
where
States,
many
prevalent
for
is
sufficient
language acquisition.Frodesen
comprehensibleinput
and otherexperts,such as Birch (2005), Byrd(2005), Byrdand Reid
(1998), and McKay (1993) point out that curriculumdesign in L2
instruction
has to includegrammarand vocabularyto enable L2
writing
Withthisobjecand appropriately.
to communicatemeaningfully
writers
of
tivein mind,prominentcurrentpositionsadvocatethe integration
instruction.
with
and
curricula
L2
writing
grammar vocabulary
2 In the
teachingof rhetoricand writing,the process/productdebate originatedin the late
19th and early 20th century,when English departmentswere formallyseparated from,for
example, philosophydepartmentsin many U.K. and U.S. universities.These debates have
continuedunabated formore thana centurynow,but in the 1970sand 1980s,theyaided in the
of compositionstudiesin the United States- but not in othercountries.
institutionalization
124
TESOL QUARTERLY
New insightsinto the propertiesof writtenand spoken texts,comthatL2 writing

binedwiththegrowingrecognition
requiresa substantial
lexical
led
to
of
and
have
considerable
modificaskills,
range grammar
instruction.
At present,the grammatical
tionsin L2 writing
and lexical
formalacademicwriting
and discourseare
featuresneeded to construct
discussedand foregrounded(oftenunder the umbrellatermacademic
in manyteachereducationtextbooks,such as thosebyAdger,
literacy)
Snow,and Christian(2002), Birch(2005), Brown(2001), Byrdand Reid
(1998), Carterand Nunan (2001), Celce-Murcia(2001), Celce-Murcia
and Olshtain(2000), Ferrisand Hedgcock (2005), Hinkel (2004), Liu
and Master(2003), and Weaver(1996).
TeachingWritingto YoungLearners
to
Alongtheselines,the currentapproachesforteachingL2 writing
are
based
on
the
children
that
learners
similarly
premise
school-age
in spellingand in letterand word
need to attainfundamental
proficiency
followedbya focuson thesyntactic
parsingofmorphemes,
recognition,
Celce-Murcia
&
and
sentences
Olshtain,
2000). Duringthe
(e.g.,
phrases,
of
learners'
more
writing
development,
subsequentstages
complextasks
forexample,
are introducedto include emotive(or personal)writing,
thattell about personalexperiences,lettersto friends,and
narratives
diaries.Then instructionbegins to advance to school-basedwriting,
withreadingas wellas withgrammarand vocabulary
usuallyintegrated
learning(Adger,Snow,& Christian,2002; Birch,2005; Schleppegrell,
2004).
Integratedand Content-BasedTeachingof Writing
in L2 writing,
Much of the currentintegratedinstruction
grammar,
and vocabularytakesplace in conjunctionwithreading,content-based,
to improvethe overallqualityof L2 prose
instruction
and form-focused
&
(e.g., Cope, Kalantzis,1993; Hedgcock,2005; Williams,2005). For
example,to promotelearners'noticingof howparticulargrammarand
textand discourse,teacherscan
lexisare employedin authenticwritten
selectreadingsfroma widearrayofgenres,suchas narrative,
exposition,
or argumentation.
Based on readingcontent,practicein textanalysis
can become a usefulspringboardfor an instructional
focus on the
structures
and
uses
of
contextualized
grammar
specific
vocabulary.
instructioncan address the featuresof writtenregisterby
Similarly,
bringinglearners'attentionto the situationalvariablesof languagein
context,such as e-mailmessages,news reports,or writtenacademic
prose, and their attendantlinguisticand discoursefeatures(CelceCURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING THE FOUR SKILLS
125
Murcia& Olshtain,2000;Hinkel,2002,2003,2004;Larsen-Freeman,
& DeCarrico,
2002;Nattinger
1992).
Another
withreadintegrated
together
writing
approachto teaching
in
of
and
is
rooted
the
foundations
the
functional
linguistics
ing
systemic
in
for
the
uses
of
texts
written
that
examines
genretheory
language
instrucGenre-based
academic
and
particular,
mostly
specific,
purposes.
while
tionseeksto enableL2 learnersto analyzeacademicdiscourse
to
the
socioculand
to
academic
that
adheres
reading
produce
writing
turalnormsof a particular
academic(or professional)
genre(e.g.,
Christie,
1993,2000;Martin,
1998;Cope & Kalantzis,
1992).However,
hasnotbeen
use ofa genre-centered
contexts
approachin educational
and
their
without
believe
that
linguistic
controversy.
Manyexperts
genres
or evenirrelevant
features
defined,
unstable,
maybe subjective,
vaguely
to diversetypesofESL/EFLlearners(fordetaileddiscussion,
see,e.g.,
Silva& Brice,2004;Widdowson,
2003).
A FINAL WORD
TESOL
In partdue to itscomparatively
shorthistory
as a discipline,
and
in
new
venues
continues
tobe a dynamic
one
which
field,
perspecIn thepasttwodecadesor so,toa greatextent,
tivesarestillunfolding.
in theteaching
ofL2 skillshavebeendriven
theinnovations
by(a) new
about
the
learner
and
the
knowledge
Englishlanguage,(b) a greater
and
and top-down
balancein theteaching
ofbothbottom-up
L2 skills,
for
The
a
of
instructional
models.
(c) proliferationintegrated
purposes
and
whichpeoplelearnEnglishtodayhavealsoevolvedfroma cultural
The
communication.
educationalenterprise
to thatof international
the
what
of
of
new
about
the
how
and
L2
teaching
growth
knowledge
and learningare certainto continueand willprobablyremainas
ofTESOL'sdisciplinary
maturation.
hallmarks
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
For theirinsightful
and helpfulcommentson earlydraftsof thisarticle,I expressmy
of California,Los Angeles,
sincere gratitudeto Marianne Celce-Murcia,University
of San Francisco,Sandra Fotos, Senshu University,
Sandra McKay,State University
whosesuggestionsforrevisionswereinstrumental
and Ken Benoit,SeattleUniversity,
in fine-tuning
the finalversion.Additionally,Suresh Canagarajah and two anonymous reviewersprovidedveryusefulfeedbackand commentsthathelped develop
the finalversion.
126
TESOL QUARTERLY
THE AUTHOR
Eli Hinkel has taughtESL and applied linguistics,as well as trainedteachers,for
more than 20 years and has published numerous books and articleson learning
second culture,and second language grammar,writing,and pragmatics.She is also
the editorof LawrenceErlbaum's ESL and Applied LinguisticsProfessionalSeries.
REFERENCES
needtoknowaboutlanguage.
Adger,C, Snow,C, & Christian,D. (2002). Whatteachers
McHenry,IL: CenterforApplied Linguistics.
Aston,G. (1995). Corpora in language pedagogy:Matchingtheoryand practice.In
and practicein appliedlinguistics
G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer(Ed.), Principles
(pp.
Press.
257-270). Oxford:OxfordUniversity
E. (2002). CognitiveprocessesofL2 user.In V.J. Cook (Ed.), Portraits
ofthe
Bialystok,
L2 user(pp. 145-165). Clevedon, England: MultilingualMatters.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Birch, B. (2002). EnglishL2 reading:Gettingto thebottom.
Erlbaum.
K-12. White Plains, NY:
Birch, B. (2005). Learningand teachingEnglishgrammar,
PrenticeHall.
to languagelearning:New directions
in
Breen, M. (Ed.). (2001). Learnercontributions
research.
Harlow,England: Pearson.
Breen, M., & littlejohn, A. (Eds.). (2000). Classroomdecision-making.
Cambridge:
Press.
CambridgeUniversity
Brown,H. D. (2001). Teachingbyprinciples
(2nd d.). WhitePlains,NY: Pearson.
in second
Byrd,P. (2005). Instructedgrammar.In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbookofresearch
and learning(pp. 545-562). Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
languageteaching
in thecomposition
classroom.
Boston: Heinle &
Byrd,P., & Reid,J. (1998). Grammar
Heinle.
Canagarajah, S. (2002). Globalization,methods,and practice in peripheryclassand languageteaching
rooms.In D. Block 8cD. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization
(pp.
134-150). London: Routledge.
Canagarajah, S. (Ed.). (2005). Reclaimingthelocal in languagepolicyand practice.
Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Carter,R., & Nunan, D. (Eds.). (2001). The Cambridge
guide to teaching
Englishto
Press.
ofotherlanguages.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
speakers
Celce-Murcia,M. (1995). Discourseanalysisand the teachingoflistening.In G. Cook
in appliedlinguistics:
and practice
Studiesin honorof
8cB. Seidlhofer(Eds.), Principle
Press.
H. G. Widdowson
(pp. 363-377). Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Celce-Murcia,M. (Ed.). (2001). TeachingEnglishas a secondorforeignlanguage(3rd
d.). Boston: Heinle 8c Heinle.
in languageteaching.
and context
New
Celce-Murcia,M., 8cOlshtain,E. (2000) . Discourse
Press.
York:CambridgeUniversity
Chikamatsu,N. (1996). The effectsof LI orthographyon L2 word recognition.
Studiesin SecondLanguageAcquisition,
18, 403-432.
Christie,F. (1998). Learning the literaciesof primaryand secondaryschooling.In
and schooling:
Newdirections
F. Christie8c R. Misson (Eds.), Literacy
(pp. 47-73).
London: Routledge.
in L2. Amsterdam:
Chun, D. (2002). Discourseintonation
John Benjamins.
Coady,J. (1997). L2 vocabularyacquisitionthroughextensivereading.InJ. Coady 8c
T. Huckin (Eds.), Secondlanguagevocabulary
acquisition
(pp. 225-237). Cambridge:
Press.
CambridgeUniversity
CURRENTPERSPECTIVESON TEACHINGTHE FOUR SKILLS
127
A rationale
Coady,J., & Huckin,T. (1997). Secondlanguagevocabulary
acquisition:
for
Press.
pedagogy.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Conrad,S. (2000). Willcorpuslinguisticsrevolutionizegrammarteachingin the 21st
34, 548-560.
century?TESOL Quarterly,
Conrad, S. (2005). Corpus linguisticsand L2 teaching.In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook
in secondlanguageteachingand learning(pp. 393-410). Mahwah, NJ:
of research
LawrenceErlbaum.
Cook, G. (1997). Language play,language learning.ELT Journal,51, 224-231.
Cook, G. (1998). The uses of reality:A replyto Ronald Carter.ELT Journal,
52, 57-63.
A genreapproachto
Cope, B., & Kalantzis,M. (Eds.). (1993). Thepowersof literacy:
PA: University
of PittsburghPress.
teaching
writing.
Pittsburgh,
and thedesign
learning
Cope, B., & Kalantzis,M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies:
Literacy
New York:Routledge.
ofsocialfutures.
Ediger,A. (2001). Teaching childrenliteracyskillsin a second language.In M. CelceMurcia (Ed.), Teaching
Englishas a secondorforeign
language(3rd d., pp. 153-169).
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Ellis,R. (2003). Task-based
languagelearningand teaching.
Press.
Eskey,D. (1988). Holding in the bottom:An interactiveapproach to the language
problemsof second language readers.In P. Carrell,J. Devine, & D. Eskey(Eds.),
Interactive
approachesto secondlanguagereading(pp. 93-100). Cambridge: CamPress.
bridgeUniversity
Eskey,D. (2005). Reading in a second language. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbookof
researchon secondlanguageteachingand learning(pp. 563-580). Mahwah, NJ:
LawrenceErlbaum.
Ferris,D., & Hedgcock,J. (2005). TeachingESL composition
(2nd d.). Mahwah,NJ:
LawrenceErlbaum.
Fotos,S. (2001). Cognitiveapproaches to grammarinstruction.In M. Celce-Murcia
(Ed.), TeachingEnglishas a secondorforeignlanguage(3rd d., pp. 267-284).
interactivetasksforthe EFL grammarlearner.In
Fotos, S. (2002). Structure-based
in secondlanguage
E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), Newperspectives
ongrammar
teaching
classrooms
(pp. 135-154). Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Frodesen,J. (2001). Grammarin writing.In M. Celce-Murcia(Ed.), Teaching
English
as a secondorforeign
language(3rd d., pp. 233-248). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Hazenberg,S., & Hulstijn,J. (1996). Denning a minimalreceptivesecond language
students:An empiricalinvestigation.
Applied
vocabularyfornon-nativeuniversity
17, 145-163.
Linguistics,
Hedgcock, J. (2005). Taking stock of research and pedagogy in L2 writing.In
and learning(pp.
E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbookofresearch
in secondlanguageteaching
597-614). Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
communiHinkel,E. (2001). Buildingawarenessand practicalskillsforcross-cultural
cationin ESL/EFL. In M. Celce-Murcia(Ed.), Teaching
Englishas a secondorforeign
text.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Hinkel,E. (2002). Secondlanguagewriters'
Hinkel, E. (2003). Simplicitywithoutelegance: Featuresof sentencesin L2 and LI
academic texts.TESOL Quarterly,
37, 275-301.
in vocabulary
and
Practicaltechniques
Hinkel,E. (2004). TeachingacademicESL writing:
grammar.
Hu, M., & Nation,P. (2000). Unknownvocabularydensityand readingcomprehension. Readingin a Foreign
Language,13, 403-430.
Hulstijn,J. (2001). Intentionaland incidentalsecond language vocabularylearning:
128
TESOL QUARTERLY
In P. Robinson (Ed.),
A reappraisalof elaboration,rehearsaland automaticity.
instruction
and
second
258-287).
language
(pp.
Cambridge: Cambridge
Cognition
Press.
University
ofEnglishas an international
Jenkins,
J. (2000). Thephonology
language.Oxford:Oxford
Press.
University
Developingacademicliteracies.
Cambridge:
Johns,A. (1997). Text,role,and context:
Press.
CambridgeUniversity
Kasper,G. (2001). Four perspectiveson pragmaticdevelopment.AppliedLinguistics,
22, 502-530.
Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmaticsin second language learning. In
E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbookofresearch
on secondlanguageteaching
and learning(pp.
317-334). Mahwah,NT:LawrenceErlbaum.
and decoding
Koda, K. (1999). DevelopmentofL2 intrawordorthographicsensitivity
skills.ModernLanguageJournal,83, 51-64.
intosecondlanguagereading.NewYork:CambridgeUniversity
Koda, K. (2005). Insights
Press.
New
Kumaravadivelu,B. (2003). Beyondmethods:
Macrostrategies
forlanguageteaching.
Press.
Haven, CT: Yale University
B. (2005). Understanding
Frommethod
topostmethod.
Kumaravadivelu,
languageteaching:
and principles
in languageteaching(2nd d.).
Larsen-Freeman,D. (2000). Techniques
Press.
D. (2002). The grammarof choice. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.),
Larsen-Freeman,
Newperspectives
on grammarteachingin secondand foreignlanguageclassrooms
(pp.
103-118). Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Lazaraton,A. (2001). Teaching oral skills.In M. Celce-Murcia(Ed.), Teaching
English
as a secondorforeign
Lightbown,P. (2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching.
21, 431-462.
AppliedLinguistics,
Lightbown,P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-formand correctivefeedback in
communicativelanguage teaching:Effectson second language learning.Studiesin
SecondLanguageAcquisition,
12, 429-448.
in teacher
education.
Alexandria,VA:
Liu, D., 8c Master,P. (2003). Grammar
teaching
TESOL.
and structure.
Martin,T. (1992). Englishtext:System
Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Master,P. (2005). Research in English for specificpurposes. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),
in secondlanguageteaching
and learning(pp. 99-116). Mahwah,
Handbookofresearch
NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
McCarthy,M., & O'Keeffe,A. (2004). Researchin the teachingof speaking.Annual
ReviewofAppliedLinguistics,
24, 26-43.
NewYork:CambridgeUniversity
McKay,S. (1993). Agendas
forsecondlanguageliteracy.
Press.
language.Oxford: Oxford
McKay, S. (2002). TeachingEnglishas an international
Press.
University
McKay, S., & Wong, S. L. C. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities:
Investmentand agencyin second-languagelearningamong Chinese adolescent
immigrantstudents.HarvardEducationalReview,66, 577-608.
Mendelsohn, D. J. (1994). Learningto listen:A strategy-based
approachfor thesecondSan Diego: Dominie Press.
languagelearner.
New York:NewburyHouse.
Nation,I. S. P. (1990). Teachingand learningvocabulary.
in another
Nation,I. S. P. (2001). Learningvocabulary
language.Cambridge:Cambridge
Press.
University
129
Nation, I. S. P. (2005). Teaching and learning vocabulary.In E. Hinkel (Ed.),

Handbookof researchon secondlanguage teachingand learning(pp. 581-596).
Oxford:
J., 8c DeCarrico,J. (1992). Lexicalphrasesand languageteaching.
Nattinger,
OxfordUniversity
Press.
and learning.
Nunan, D. (1999). Secondlanguageteaching
New York:McGraw-Hill.
Nunan, D. (Ed.). (2003). PracticalEnglishlanguageteaching.
Paran, A. (1996). Reading in EFL: Facts and fictions.EnglishLanguage Teaching
Journal,50, 25-34.
and influences
Richards,J. C. (2005, March). How research
teachingmaterials.
informs
Paper presented at the 39th Annual TESOL Convention and Exhibit, San
Antonio,TX.
and methods
in languageteaching
Richards,J., 8c Rodgers,T. (2001). Approaches
(2nd
Press.
d.). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
London: Longman.
Rost,M. (2001). Teachingand researching
listening.
on second
Rost, M. (2005). L2 listening.In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbookof research
languageteaching
Rost,M., 8c Ross, S. (1991). Learner use of strategiesin interaction:Typologyand
teachability.LanguageLearning,41, 235-273.
Schleppegrell,M. (2004). Thelanguageofschooling.
Schmidt,R. (1993). Awarenessand second language acquisition.Annual Reviewof
13, 206-226.
AppliedLinguistics,
Seedhouse, P. (1999). Task-basedinteraction.ELT Journal,53, 149-156.
Shimron,J., & Savon, T. (1994). Reading proficiencyand orthography:Evidence
fromHebrew. LanguageLearning,44, 5-27.
Silva,T. (1993). Toward an understandingof the distinctnatureof L2 writing:The
ESL researchand itsimplications.TESOL Quarterly,
27, 657-677.
Silva,T., & Brice, C. (2004). Research in teachingwriting.AnnualReviewofApplied
24, 70-106.
Linguistics,
Snow, M. A. (2005). A model of academic literacyfor integratedlanguage and
content instruction.In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbookof research
in secondlanguage
teaching
Swain,M. (1991). Manipulatingand complementingcontentteachingto maximize
second languagelearning.In E. Kellerman,R. Phillipson,L. Selinker,M. Sharwood
research
secondlanguagepedagogical
Smith,8cM. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/
(pp. 234-50).
Clevedon,England: MultilingualMatters.
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis:The case of task-basedinstruction.
26, 376-401.
AppliedLinguistics,
Tarone, E. (2005). Speaking in a second language. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbookof
researchin secondlanguage teachingand learning(pp. 485-502). Mahwah, NJ:
LawrenceErlbaum.
Tsui,A. B., 8cFullilove,J. (1998). Bottom-upor top-downprocessingas a discriminatorof L2 listeningperformance.AppliedLinguistics,
19, 432-451.
Practice
and theory.
Ur, P. (1996). A coursein languageteaching:
Cambridge:Cambridge
Press.
University
L. (1999). Facilitatingsecond language listeningcomprehension:AcVandergrift,
quiringsuccessfulstrategies.EnglishLanguageTeaching
Journal,53, 168-176.
L. (2004). Listeningto learn or learning to listen?Annual Reviewof
Vandergrift,
24, 3-25.
AppliedLinguistics,
Press.
Wallace, C. (1992). Reading.Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Wallace, C. (2001). Reading. In R. Carter8cD. Nunan (Eds.), TheCambridge
guideto
130
TESOL QUARTERLY
ofotherlanguages(pp. 21-28). Cambridge:Cambridge

Englishtospeakers
teaching
Press.
University
in context.
Portsmouth,NH: Boynton/Cook.
Weaver,C. (1996). Teachinggrammar
Press.
Widdowson,H. (1990). Aspects
oflanguageteaching.
Widdowson,H. (1993). Perspectiveson communicativelanguage teaching:Syllabus
Round Tableon
University
design and methodology.In J. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown
and social meaning(pp.
Languageand Linguistics1992: Language,communication,
Press.
501-507). Washington,DC: GeorgetownUniversity
Widdowson,H. (2000). On the limitationsof linguisticsapplied. AppliedLinguistics,
21, 3-25.
Oxford: Oxford
Widdowson,H. (2003). Definingissuesin Englishlanguageteaching.
Press.
University
in secondandforeign
Boston:
Williams,J. (2005). Teachingwriting
languageclassrooms.
McGraw-Hill.
L2 reference:Prosand cons. In G. Kasper
Yule, G., & Tarone, E. (1997). Investigating
research
& E. Kellerman(Eds.), Advancesin communication
strategy
(pp. 17-30). New
York:Longman.
131

Current Perspectives On Teaching The Four Skills

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Current Perspectives On Teaching The Four Skills

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

This articlepresentsan overviewof recentdevelopmentsin second

it is a truismto say thateach era in the historyof second

decisionsfromthe prevailingteachingmethodsto classinstructional

In thelate 1980sand early1990s,a numberofstudieswerecarriedout

CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING THE FOUR SKILLS

New KnowledgeAbout English

Integratedand MultipleSkillsTaughtin Context

In manylocationsaround theworld,learningEnglishhas the objectiveoflearners'gainingaccessto technical,educational,or professional

CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING THE FOUR SKILLS

TEACHING SPEAKING SKILLS

SpeakingIntegratedWithOther Language Skills

As an additional outcome of increased global mobilityand the

than explicitexplanationsand teaching(see

AnalysesofEnglishlanguagecorpora,as notedearlier,havebeen able

sentencesand ellipses,as in he did what), culturalreferencesand

ListeningIntegratedWithOther Language Skills

CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING THE FOUR SKILLS

Reading IntegratedWithOther Language Skills

is knownabout the connectionsbetweenL2 readingand vocabulary

ExtensiveReading and Reading FluencyDevelopment

WritingIntegrated With Other Language Skills

New insightsinto the propertiesof writtenand spoken texts,comthatL2 writing

Nation, I. S. P. (2005). Teaching and learning vocabulary.In E. Hinkel (Ed.),

ofotherlanguages(pp. 21-28). Cambridge:Cambridge

CURRENTPERSPECTIVESON TEACHINGTHE FOUR SKILLS

You might also like