method -11

First oi all, do not try to teach
too much. The chief object of
this chart is to show children that
there are different kinds of words.
It would be foolish to bring out
all the parts of speech at once.
Here are nouns, verbs, pronouns,
adjectives, adverbs, prepositions,
and conjunctions. Don't bewilder
the child with all of them. Let your chief work be with the noun,
or na?ne-7uord, and the verb, or actioji-word. With older classes,
something may be hinted of the other kinds of words ; but it is
always better to make the start very gradual and easy.
We have a very simple series of exercises :
A pleasing picture, with two or three sentences to be read.A little work in finding words in the given table, and using
them in a written exercise.
The requirement of some talk about the picture in answer to
questions, and of writing what has been said.
Some questions and practice in review of what has been learned.
The teacher will find in the panel toward the right some hints
toward instruction in the parts of speech.
They will naturally develop about as follows :
What objects or things do you see in this picture ? (A girl, a
swing, a tree, a leaf.)


Find on this chart the words that are names of two of these
objects. (Girl, swing.)
What two words tell what the girl and the swing do ? (Goes,
comes.)
We here have two kinds of words, those that are names and
those that tell the actions of the things named.
We will call the first kind of words Nafne-words, and the second
kind Action-words.
Remember, name-words ; action-words.
There are other kinds of words here ; some that tell the kind
of girl, or hoiv the swing goes ; but we will now just be
sure that we know these two kinds. Write them on your
slate, each kind by itself :
girl goes
swing comes
Why are girl and swi?ig called name-words ? (Because they
are used to name objects.)
And why are goes and comes called action-words?(Because they
are used to name objects.)
And why are goes and comes called action-words? (Because
they are used to tell what the girl and the swing do.)
Then words are parted or grouped according to their use.
Sometimes a word may be used in one place as a nameword,
and in another as an action-word. I will write two
sentences upon the blackboard :
I see the swing.
The girl can swing.
In the first sentence, the word swing is a name-word. It is
used to name the object which I see. In the secondsenPRIMARY
LANGUAGE CHARTS
tence, swing is an action-word. It is used to tell what the
girl can do. You see, it is the use of a word that tells
what kind of a word it is.
Words can be tised also to describe things, to take the place of
the names of things, to connect other words, and in several
other ways. Altogether there are eight different uses
to which words can be put in speaking or writing. We
shall learn of all these very soon.
In the written exercise the proper copying will show the use
of the initial capitals and of two of the terminal marks. These
may be copied mechanically, or, in the option of the teacher, the
reasons for their use may be given.
The things that are said about the picture should take the
form of complete statements. The writing of what has been said
should be properly capitalized and punctuated.
Additional exercises will suggest themselves for older classes.
The little girl's name is begun with a capital letter. Why ?
In the second sentence of the reading lesson we should commonly say, " She
goes up," " She comes down ;
" but the expressions, when inverted, as in this
case, are brijjhter and stronger. Hence, too, the peculiar terminal mark.
Now test the acquirement of the class by asking
—
(i) how many name-words can be found on the chart ;
(2) how many action-words.
Taking as a lext the pair of nouns and the pair of verbs as set out at the top
of the chart, give an oral lesson upon
—
(i) the name of the thing talked about ;
(2) the word that chiefly talks about it ; and
(3) the natural (prose) order of noun and verb in our language.
Call for work with pen or pencil at every turn. Let us keep in mind that
we are trying to develop the faculty of written expression

method - 10

Approaches

Silent Way originated in the early 1970s and was the brainchild of the late Caleb Gattegno. The last line of Benjamin Franklin’s famous quote about teaching and learning can be said to lie at the heart of Silent Way. The three basic tenets of the approach are that learning is facilitated if the learner discovers rather than remembers or repeats, that learning is aided by physical objects, and that problem-solving is central to learning. The use of the word "silent" is also significant, as Silent Way is based on the premise that the teacher should be as silent as possible in the classroom in order to encourage the learner to produce as much language as possible. As far as the presentation of language is concerned, Silent Way adopts a highly structural approach, with language taught through sentences in a sequence based on grammatical complexity, described by some as a "building-block" approach.

The structural patterns of the target language are presented by the teacher and the grammar "rules" of the language are learnt inductively by the learners. Cuisenaire rods (small coloured blocks of varying sizes originally intended for the teaching of mathematics) are often used to illustrate meaning (the physical objects mentioned above). New items are added sparingly by the teacher and learners take these as far as they can in their communication until the need for the next new item becomes apparent. The teacher then provides this new item by modelling it very clearly just once. The learners are then left to use the new item and to incorporate it into their existing stock of language, again taking it as far as they can until the next item is needed and so on.

This is perhaps best illustrated by an example. Let us say that the teacher has introduced the idea of pronouns as in "Give me a green rod". The class will then use this structure until it is clearly assimilated, using, in addition, all the other colours. One member of the class would now like to ask another to pass a rod to a third student but she does not know the word "her", only that it cannot be "me". At this point the teacher would intervene and supply the new item: "Give her the green rod" and the learners will continue until the next new item is needed (probably "him"). This minimalist role of the teacher has led some critics to describe Silent Way teachers as "aloof" and, indeed, this apparently excessive degree of self-restraint can be seen as such.The prominent writer on language teaching, Earl W. Stevick, has described the role of the teacher in Silent Way as "Teach, test, get out of the way". The apparent lack of real communication in the approach has also been criticized, with some arguing that it is difficult to take the approach beyond the very basics of the language, with only highly motivated learners being able to generate real communication from the rigid structures illustrated by the rods. The fact that, for logistical reasons, it is limited to relatively small groups of learners is also seen as a weakness.

As with other methods and approaches, however, aspects of Silent Way can be observed in many lessons in the modern classroom. In the 1980s and early 90s, for example, it became fashionable in some quarters to argue that excessive "teacher talking time" was something to be discouraged. Cuisenaire rods are also popular with some teachers and can be used extremely creatively for various purposes from teaching pronunciation to story-telling. The idea of modelling a new structure or item of vocabulary just once may also have some justification as it encourages learners both to listen more carefully and then to experiment with their own production of the utterance. Lastly, the problem-solving feature of Silent Way may well prove to be its most enduring legacy as it has led indirectly both to the idea of Task-based Learning and to the widespread use of problem-solving activities in language classrooms.

An article discussing the grammar-translation approach to language learning.

---

At the height of the Communicative Approach to language learning in the 1980s and early 1990s it became fashionable in some quarters to deride so-called "old-fashioned" methods and, in particular, something broadly labelled "Grammar Translation". There were numerous reasons for this but principally it was felt that translation itself was an academic exercise rather than one which would actually help learners to use language, and an overt focus on grammar was to learn about the target language rather than to learn it.

As with many other methods and approaches, Grammar Translation tended to be referred to in the past tense as if it no longer existed and had died out to be replaced world-wide by the fun and motivation of the communicative classroom. If we examine the principal features of Grammar Translation, however, we will see that not only has it not disappeared but that many of its characteristics have been central to language teaching throughout the ages and are still valid today. The Grammar Translation method embraces a wide range of approaches but, broadly speaking, foreign language study is seen as a mental discipline, the goal of which may be to read literature in its original form or simply to be a form of intellectual development. The basic approach is to analyze and study the grammatical rules of the language, usually in an order roughly matching the traditional order of the grammar of Latin, and then to practise manipulating grammatical structures through the means of translation both into and from the mother tongue.

The method is very much based on the written word and texts are widely in evidence. A typical approach would be to present the rules of a particular item of grammar, illustrate its use by including the item several times in a text, and practise using the item through writing sentences and translating it into the mother tongue. The text is often accompanied by a vocabulary list consisting of new lexical items used in the text together with the mother tongue translation. Accurate use of language items is central to this approach.
Generally speaking, the medium of instruction is the mother tongue, which is used to explain conceptual problems and to discuss the use of a particular grammatical structure. It all sounds rather dull but it can be argued that the Grammar Translation method has over the years had a remarkable success. Millions of people have successfully learnt foreign languages to a high degree of proficiency and, in numerous cases, without any contact whatsoever with native speakers of the language (as was the case in the former Soviet Union, for example).
There are certain types of learner who respond very positively to a grammatical syllabus as it can give them both a set of clear objectives and a clear sense of achievement. Other learners need the security of the mother tongue and the opportunity to relate grammatical structures to mother tongue equivalents. Above all, this type of approach can give learners a basic foundation upon which they can then build their communicative skills.
Applied wholesale of course, it can also be boring for many learners and a quick look at foreign language course books from the 1950s and 1960s, for example, will soon reveal the non-communicative nature of the language used. Using the more enlightened principles of the Communicative Approach, however, and combining these with the systematic approach of Grammar Translation, may well be the perfect combination for many learners. On the one hand they have motivating communicative activities that help to promote their fluency and, on the other, they gradually acquire a sound and accurate basis in the grammar of the language. This combined approach is reflected in many of the EFL course books currently being published and, amongst other things, suggests that the Grammar Translation method, far from being dead, is very much alive and kicking as we enter the 21st century.

Without a sound knowledge of the grammatical basis of the language it can be argued that the learner is in possession of nothing more than a selection of communicative phrases which are perfectly adequate for basic communication but which will be found wanting when the learner is required to perform any kind of sophisticated linguistic task. 

An article discussing the benefits of translation as a language learning tool.

---

Translation has not always enjoyed a good press. Indeed, at the height of what we can call the "communicative" period, it was actively discouraged by many practitioners and regarded as a hindrance to second language fluency rather than an aid to language learning. In the brave new world of the Communicative Approach, translation (and the use of the mother tongue in general) came to be regarded as a relic of the past, a symbol of the bad old days of Grammar Translation, an echo of those long forgotten secondary school lessons when paragraphs of English prose were translated into Latin for no apparent purpose other than as an intellectual exercise. Such a view, however, takes no account of individual learning styles. Some learners appear to need to be able to relate lexis and structures in the target language to equivalents in their mother tongue. This also gives them the opportunity to compare similarities and contrast differences. Put simply, they need the reassurance of their mother tongue in order to make sense of the way the target language operates. In the case of teachers, an ability to translate into the mother tongue of the learners can offer a convenient and efficient way out of a tricky situation – why bother to spend ten minutes trying to explain the concept behind a particular utterance when a simple translation can achieve the same goal in seconds? For example, it is quite difficult to get across the meaning of useful, everyday expressions such as "As far as …. is concerned, …" or "On the other hand …. ". Learning target language equivalents to key phrases like these in the mother tongue can be an extremely effective way to build up a good working vocabulary. Translation can also be extremely creative. It is not only the translation of words from one language to another but the translation of ideas, concepts and images. Some of the resistance to translation amongst certain teachers might stem from the kind of exercise they were required to do when language learners themselves. Dull, overlong, uncommunicative texts that were difficult to translate into the target language did little for motivation. But why should translation involve whole texts? Surely it is more relevant (and practical) to start with short, communicative pieces of language. When teaching grammatical structures, it can be very useful to check with your learners that they have fully grasped the concept of the language taught by asking them to translate into their mother tongue. As a checking stage, this could usefully come at the end of the lesson. The structure used in "If I had worked harder, I would have passed the exam", for example, is relatively complex and a quick translation check can avoid misunderstandings. An illuminating exercise is to divide your class into two groups, give each group a short text (3-4 sentences) to translate into the target language. Then get the groups to exchange papers and ask them to translate the other group’s translation back into the mother tongue. The results, when compared, can be extremely interesting and often amusing!

method - 9

Error Correction 1

When it comes to error correction we are dealing with one individual's reaction to a student's piece of writing or utterance. This inevitably means that there will be some disagreement among teachers about what, when, and how to correct. Therefore the aim of this article is not to be prescriptive, but to highlight some key areas. It is in 2 parts. In the first part we look at ...

• Attitudes to error correction

• Categorising errors

• A model for correcting writing

• The role of planning

• Practical techniques / ideas for correcting writingAttitudes to error correction
  Attitudes to error correction vary not only among teachers but also among students. A teacher may be influenced by:
  • The fact that English is their second language and great emphasis was placed on correctness at their teacher training college.
  • The fact that as a native speaker they have never had to worry about their English.
  • A particular methodology / approach. In the 1960s a teacher using Audiolingualism would have adopted a behaviourist approach to error. More recently a teacher following the Natural Approach (influenced by second language acquisition theory) would have adopted a wholly different approach. Other methodologies / approaches, such as Suggestopaedia and Total Physical Response, highlight the psychological effects of error correction on students.
  
  As for students, we not only have to consider their age but also their approach to learning. Some students are risk-takers, while others will only say something if they are sure it is correct. While being a risk-taker is generally positive as it leads to greater fluency, some students only seem to be concerned with fluency at the expense of accuracy. The same can be true when it comes to writing. Some students take an eternity to produce a piece of writing as they are constantly rubbing out what they have written while at the opposite extreme the writing is done as fast as possible without any planning or editing.
  
  Categorising errors
  We can categorise an error by the reason for its production or by its linguistic type.
  • What's the reason for the error?
  • It is the result of a random guess (pre-systematic).
  • It was produced while testing out hypotheses (systematic).
  • It is a slip of the tongue, a lapse, a mistake (caused by carelessness, fatigue etc.) (post-systematic).
  To be sure about the type of error produced by a student we need to know where the student's interlanguage is (the language used by a student in the process of learning a second language).
  • What type is it?
    We can classify errors simply as productive (spoken or written) or receptive (faulty understanding). Alternatively we can use the following:
  • A lexical error - vocabulary
  • A phonological error - pronunciation
  • A syntactic error- grammar
  • An interpretive error - misunderstanding of a speaker's intention or meaning
  • A pragmatic error - failure to apply the rules of conversation
  
  
  A model for correcting writing
  When writing we do not have the chance to rephrase or clarify what we are saying. Our message must be clear the first time. Written errors are also less tolerated than spoken errors outside the classroom.
  Look at this model for correcting written work and evaluate it for your teaching situation.
  • 1. Comprehensibility
  • Can you understand the output?
  • Are there areas of incoherence?
  • Do these affect the overall message?
  • Does communication break down?
  • 2. Task
  • Has the student addressed the task?
  • 3. Syntax and Lexis
  • Are they appropriate to the task?
  • Are they accurate?
  
  
  The role of planning
  Giving students time to plan not only results in a wider range of language being used, it also helps students to avoid some of the following:
  • Inappropriate layout
  • No paragraphs
  • Lack of cohesion
  • Inappropriate style
  
  
  Whichever style of plan (linear notes or a mind map) these questions will help students to plan their writing:
  • What am I going to write? (An informal letter etc.)
  • What layout do I need?
  • What information am I going to include?
  • How many paragraphs do I need?
  • What grammar / vocabulary am I going to use?
  • What linking words (because, and etc.) am I going to use?
  
  
  Practical techniques / ideas for correcting writing
  • Training students to edit
    Even though they have invested time in doing a writing task, students often don't spend a few more minutes checking their writing. The following activities not only help to develop students' editing skills in a fun way, but also enable the teacher to focus on key errors without individual students losing face.
  • Grammar auctions: (From Grammar Games by M.Rinvolucri CUP) Students receive a number of sentences taken from their written work. Some are correct, some wrong. Students in groups have to try to buy the correct ones in the auction. They have a limited amount of money. The team with the most correct sentences wins.
  • Mistakes mazes: (From Correction by Bartram and Walton Thomson Heinle). Students have a list of sentences. Their route through a maze depends on whether the sentences are right or wrong. They follow white arrows for correct sentences and black ones for incorrect ones. If they have identified all the sentences correctly they escape, if not they have to retrace their steps and find out where they went wrong.
• Correction techniques
  It can be difficult to decide on what and how much to correct in a student's piece of writing. Students can develop a negative attitude towards writing because their teacher corrects all their errors or if the teacher only corrects a few, they might feel that the teacher hasn't spent sufficient time looking at their work. Evaluate the following techniques and decide which would be appropriate for your teaching situation. Underline inappropriate language in a piece of writing using a specific colour.
• Using a different colour from above, underline examples of appropriate language.
• Correct errors by writing the correct forms in their place.
• Use codes in the margin to identify the type of error(s), for example, VOC = a lexical error. Students have to identify the error(s) and if possible make a correction.
• Alternatively put crosses in the margin for the number of errors in each line. Students then try to identify the errors and make corrections.
• Put students into pairs / groups. They correct each other's work using one or more of the techniques above.
• From time to time give students an individual breakdown of recurring problems in their written work.

Basic Concepts:
When and how to correct students errors in the EFL classroom is an issue of concern for every EFL teacher.  What should we correct, when should we correct it, and how should it be corrected?
How do we give students the feedback they need and want to improve, without damaging fluency and motivation?
Research tends to indicate that three types of errors should be addressed: high frequency errors, stigmatizing errors, and errors that block meaning or the understanding by the listener.  We might add another – errors in using the target language of the lesson.
When and how should these errors be corrected?
There is, unfortunately, no conclusive evidence/research about these issues.
Research seems to indicate that the most effective ways to deal with errors
and offer corrections include:
When hearing an error – speak the corrected statement
Listen for errors – and make a general review of them at the end of the activity segment
Encourage peer correction
(be cautious here as some peer correction,
given by students with stronger personalities, might also be incorrect!)
Correct the student personally (use this less than the other methods)
EFL teachers always need to be careful of the balance between fluency (ability to speak quickly and smoothly without much thought) and accuracy (ability to speak in a grammatically correct manner).  There is a tension between fluency and accuracy where too much desire or struggle for accuracy denies a student fluency.  And too much emphasis on fluency can result in spoken gibberish that follows no rules at all.
Teachers need to stay tuned in to how their students are doing and attempt to keep a good balance of fluency vs. accuracy in the classroom.  Not an easy task – but generally, in a speaking or conversation class, it is better to err on the side of fluency.
Expanded Concepts:
Error Correction and Language Improvement
Read all three pages – good explanation of methods for correction

Second Language Acquisition: Learners' Errors and Error Correction in Language Teaching

It is to S.P. Corder that Error Analysis owes its place as a scientific method in linguistics. As Rod Ellis cites (p. 48), "it was not until the 1970s that EA became a recognized part of applied linguistics, a development that owed much to the work of Corder". Before Corder, linguists observed learners' errors, divided them into categories, tried to see which ones were common and which were not, but not much attention was drawn to their role in second language acquisition. It was Corder who showed to whom information about errors would be helpful (teachers, researchers, and students) and how.

There are many major concepts introduced by S. P. Corder in his article "The significance of learners' errors", among which we encounter the following: 1) It is the learner who determines what the input is. The teacher can present a linguistic form, but this is not necessarily the input, but simply what is available to be learned. 2) Keeping the above point in mind, learners' needs should be considered when teachers/linguists plan their syllabuses. Before Corder's work, syllabuses were based on theories and not so much on learners’ needs. 3) Mager (1962) points out that the learners' built-in syllabus is more efficient than the teacher's syllabus. Corder adds that if such a built-in syllabus exists, then learners’ errors would confirm its existence and would be systematic. 4) Corder introduced the distinction between systematic and non-systematic errors. Unsystematic errors occur in one’s native language; Corder calls these "mistakes" and states that they are not significant to the process of language learning. He keeps the term "errors" for the systematic ones, which occur in a second language. 5) Errors are significant in three ways: - to the teacher: they show a student’s progress - to the researcher: they show how a language is acquired, what strategies the learner uses. - to the learner: he can learn from these errors. 6) When a learner has made an error, the most efficient way to teach him the correct form is not by simply giving it to him, but by letting him discover it and test different hypotheses. (This is derived from Carroll's proposal (Carroll 1955, cited in Corder), who suggested that the learner should find the correct linguistic form by searching for it. 7) Many errors are due to that the learner uses structures from his native language. Corder claims that possession of one’s native language is facilitative. Errors in this case are not inhibitory, but rather evidence of one’s learning strategies. The above insights played a significant role in linguistic research, and in particular in the approach linguists took towards errors. Here are some of the areas that were influenced by Corder's work: STUDIES OF LEARNER ERRORS Corder introduced the distinction between errors (in competence) and mistakes (in performance). This distinction directed the attention of researchers of SLA to competence errors and provided for a more concentrated framework. Thus, in the 1970s researchers started examining learners’ competence errors and tried to explain them. We find studies such as Richards's "A non-contrastive approach to error analysis" (1971), where he identifies sources of competence errors; L1 transfer results in interference errors; incorrect (incomplete or over-generalized) application of language rules results in intralingual errors; construction of faulty hypotheses in L2 results in developmental errors. Not all researchers have agreed with the above distinction, such as Dulay and Burt (1974) who proposed the following three categories of errors: developmental, interference and unique. Stenson (1974) proposed another category, that of induced errors, which result from incorrect instruction of the language. As most research methods, error analysis has weaknesses (such as in methodology), but these do not diminish its importance in SLA research; this is why linguists such as Taylor (1986) reminded researchers of its importance and suggested ways to overcome these weaknesses. As mentioned previously, Corder noted to whom (or in which areas) the study of errors would be significant: to teachers, to researchers and to learners. In addition to studies concentrating on error categorization and analysis, various studies concentrated on these three different areas. In other words, research was conducted not only in order to understand errors per se, but also in order to use what is learned from error analysis and apply it to improve language competence. Such studies include Kroll and Schafer's "Error-Analysis and the Teaching of Composition", where the authors demonstrate how error analysis can be used to improve writing skills. They analyze possible sources of error in non-native-English writers, and attempt to provide a process approach to writing where the error analysis can help achieve better writing skills. These studies, among many others, show that thanks to Corder's work, researchers recognized the importance of errors in SLA and started to examine them in order to achieve a better understanding of SLA processes, i.e. of how learners acquire an L2. STUDIES OF L1 INFLUENCE ON SLA Various researchers have concentrated on those errors which demonstrate the influence of one’s native language to second language acquisition. Before Corder’s work, interference errors were regarded as inhibitory; it was Corder who pointed out that they can be facilitative and provide information about one’s learning strategies (point 7, listed above). Claude Hagège (1999) is a supporter of this concept and he mentions it in his book "The child between two languages", dedicated to children’s language education. According to Hagège, interference between L1 and L2 is observed in children as well as in adults. In adults it is more obvious and increases continuously, as a monolingual person gets older and the structures of his first language get stronger and impose themselves more and more on any other language the adult wishes to learn. In contrast, as regards children, interference features will not become permanent unless the child does not have sufficient exposure to L2. If there is sufficient exposure, then instead of reaching a point where they can no longer be corrected (as often happens with phonetics features), interference features can be easily eliminated. Hagège stresses that there is no reason for worry if interference persists more than expected. The teacher should know that a child that is in the process of acquiring a second language will subconsciously invent structures influenced by knowledge he already possesses. These hypotheses he forms may constitute errors. These errors, though, are completely natural; we should not expect the child to acquire L2 structures immediately (p. 81). In addition to studies of L1 transfer in general, there have been numerous studies for specific language pairs. Thanh Ha Nguyen (1995) conducted a case study to demonstrate first language transfer in Vietnamese learners of English. He examined a particular language form, namely oral competence in English past tense making. He tried to determine the role of L1 transfer in the acquisition of this English linguistic feature as a function of age, time of exposure to English, and place and purpose of learning English. The influence of L1 on L2 was also examined by Lakkis and Malak (2000) who concentrated on the transfer of Arabic prepositional knowledge to English (by Arab students). Both positive and negative transfer were examined in order to help teachers identify problematic areas for Arab students and help them understand where transfer should be encouraged or avoided. In particular, they concluded that "an instructor of English, whose native language is Arabic, can use the students' L1 for structures that use equivalent prepositions in both languages. On the other hand, whenever there are verbs or expressions in the L1 and L2 that have different structures, that take prepositions, or that have no equivalent in one of the languages, instructors should point out these differences to their students". Not only was L1 influence examined according to language pair, but according to the type of speech produced (written vs. oral). Hagège (p. 33) discusses the influence of L1 on accent; he notes that the ear acts like a filter, and after a critical age (which Hagège claims is 11 years), it only accepts sounds that belong to one’s native language. Hagège discusses L1 transfer in order to convince readers that there is indeed a critical age for language acquisition, and in particular the acquisition of a native-like accent. He uses the example of the French language, which includes complex vowel sounds, to demonstrate that after a critical age, the acquisition of these sounds is not possible; thus, learners of a foreign language will only use the sounds existing in their native language when producing L2 sounds, which may often obstruct communication. STUDIES OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK Corder elaborated on Carroll’s work to show that the most efficient way to teach a student the correct linguistic form is to let him test various hypotheses and eventually find the right form (point 6, listed above). In these steps, Hagège points out the importance of self correction (p. 82-83). According to Hagège, it is useful to always perform an error analysis based on written tests administered by the teacher, but without informing the student of the purpose of the test. On that basis, self-correction is preferable to correction by the teacher, especially if the latter is done in a severe or intimidating way. Self correction is even more efficient when it is done with the help of children’s classmates. According to teachers, the younger the children, the greater the cooperation among them and the less aggressive or intimidating the corrections. Hagège dedicates a section in his book to the importance of treating errors in a positive way. In this section, titled "The teacher as a good listener", he notes that it is useless, if not harmful, to treat errors as if they were “diseases or pathological situations which must be eliminated”, especially if this treatment becomes discouraging, as occurs when teachers lose their patience because of children’s numerous errors. This, of course, does not mean that corrections should be avoided; after all it is the teacher’s duty to teach the rules of the L2. But the correction of every error as soon as it occurs is not recommended. The justification that Hagège offers is the following: the linguistic message that the child tries to produce is a sequence of elements which are interdependent; immediate corrections which interrupt this message tend to produce negative consequences, even to the less sensitive children; such consequences include anxiety, fear of making an error, the development of avoidance strategies, reduced motivation for participation in the classroom, lack of interest for learning, reduced will for self correction, and lack of trust towards the teacher. Esser (1984, cited in Hagège) also made a similar point: repetitive and immediate corrections, he noted, may cause sensitive children to develop aggressive behavior towards their classmates or teacher. Thus, Hagège concludes, correction must not be applied by the teacher unless errors obstruct communication. This is the main criterion for error correction (i.e. obstruction of communication) presented by Hagège; however there have been studies which examined such criteria in greater detail, such as Freiermuth's "L2 Error Correction: Criteria and Techniques" (1997). Freiermuth accepts Corder's view (point 6) and proposes criteria for error correction in the classroom. These criteria are: exposure, seriousness, and students' needs. In the case of exposure, Freiermuth claims that when a child creates language (for example, when he tries to express an idea by using a linguistic form he has not yet acquired), he will most likely make errors; correcting these errors will be ineffective because the learner is not aware of them. Thus, error correction would result in the acquisition of the correct form only if the learner has been previously exposed to that particular language form. As regards the seriousness criterion, Freiermuth claims that the teacher must determine the gravity of an error before deciding whether he should correct it or not. Here Freiermuth sets a criterion which agrees with that of Hagège's: "the error, he states, must impede communication before it should be considered an error that necessitates correction". But what constitutes a serious error? Which errors are those which should not be corrected? As an examples of non-serious errors, Freiermuth mentions those errors which occur due to learners’ nervousness in the classroom, due to their stress or the pressure of having to produce accurately a linguistic form in the L2. These errors can occur even with familiar structures; in that case, they are not of serious nature and are similar to what Corder called "mistakes". Here again we see Corder’s influence in error analysis, and in particular in the distinction between errors and mistakes. Freiermuth goes on to suggest a hierarchy of errors (according to seriousness) to help teachers decide which errors should be corrected: "Errors that significantly impair communication [are] at the top of the list, followed by errors that occur frequently, errors that reflect misunderstanding or incomplete acquisition of the current classroom focus, and errors that have a highly stigmatizing effect on the listeners". He also clarifies what can cause stigmatization: profound pronunciation errors, or errors of familiar forms. Another important criterion that must be considered by the teacher is individual students' needs. The importance of this factor is mentioned in Corder, who in turn notes that this idea had been suggested previously by Carroll (1955, cited in Corder 1967) and Ferguson (1966, cited in Corder 1967). Each student is different and thus may react differently to error correction. We infer from Freiermuth's claim that the teacher must perform two main tasks: first, assess some specific character traits of students, such as self-confidence and language acquisition capability. Freiermuth agrees with Walz (1982, cited in Freiermuth) that self-confident, capable students can profit from even minor corrections, while struggling students should receive correction only on major errors. This claim agrees with Esser and Hagège's claim that repetitive corrections are likely to decrease motivation; it is reasonable to accept that students who lack self-confidence will be "stigmatized" to a greater degree than confident students. The teacher's second task, according to Freiermuth, is to listen to learners' L2 utterances in order to determine where errors occur (i.e. which linguistic forms cause students difficulties), their frequency, and their gravity (according to the severity criteria mentioned above). Then the teacher can combine the outcome of these tasks and decide on correction techniques for individual students. A different approach to error correction was suggested by Porte (1993), who stressed the importance of self-correction. Porte refers to Corder's distinction of errors and mistakes and points out that many students do not know the difference. It is important, Porte notes, that students know how to identify an error in order to avoid it in the future. She agrees with Corder that it is more efficient for learners to correct themselves than be corrected by the teacher, and goes on to suggest a four-step approach for self-correction. This approach consists of questions that the teacher provides to students. After writing an essay, students should read it four times, each time trying to answer the questions included in each of the four steps. Thus, in each re-reading task (each step) they concentrate on a different aspect of their essay. In brief, the first task asks them to highlight the verbs and check the tenses; in the second task students concentrate on prepositions; the third task requires them to concentrate on nouns (spelling, agreement between subject and verb); finally in the fourth task students should try to correct potential personal mistakes. Porte also offers some clarification of what is meant by personal mistakes, in order to help the students identify them. The studies mentioned above are only a few examples that demonstrate how S. Pit Corder's work influenced the area of error analysis in linguistics. The concepts that Corder introduced directed researcher’s attention to specific areas of error analysis; they helped linguists realize that although errors sometimes obstruct communication, they can often facilitate second language acquisition; also they played a significant role in training teachers and helping them identify and classify students' errors, as well as helping them construct correction techniques. REFERENCES Corder, S. P. 1967. "The significance of learners’ errors”. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5: 161-9. Dulay, H., and Burt, M., “Errors and strategies in child second language acquisition”, TESOL Quarterly 8: 129-136, 1974. Ellis, R., “The Study of Second Language Acquisition”, Oxford University Press, 1994. Esser, U., “Fremdsprachenpsychologische Betrachtungen zur Fehlerproblematic im Fremdsprachenunterricht”, Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 4:151-159, 1984, (cited in Hagège 1999). Freiermuth, M. R., “L2 Error Correction: Criteria and Techniques”, The Language Teacher Online 22.06, http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pub/tlt/97/sep/freiermuth.html, 1997. Hagège, C. “L’enfant aux deux langues” (The child between two languages), Greek translation, Polis editions, Athens 1999. (Original publication: Editions Odile Jacob, 1996). Kroll, Barry, and John C. Schafer. "Error-Analysis and the Teaching of Composition", College Composition and Communication 29: 242-248, 1978 Lakkis, K. and Malak, M. A.. “Understanding the Transfer of Prepositions”. FORUM, Vol 38, No 3, July-September 2000. (Online edition: http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol38/no3/p26.htm) Mager, R.F. “Preparing Instructional Objectives”, Fearon Publishers, Palo Alto, CA 1962. Nguyen, Thanh Ha. “First Language Transfer and Vietnamese Learners' Oral Competence in English Past Tense Marking: A Case Study.”, Master of Education (TESOL) Research Essay, La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia1995. Porte, G. K., “Mistakes, Errors, and Blank Checks”, FORUM, Vol 31, No 2, p. 42, January-March 1993. (Online edition: http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol31/no1/p42.htm) Richards, J., “A non-contrastive approach to error analysis”, English Language Teaching 25: 204-219, 1971. Stenson, N. “Induced errors” in Shumann and Stenson (eds.), 1974, cited in Ellis (p. 60). Taylor G., “Errors and explanations”, Applied Linguistics 7: 144-166, 1986.

method - 8

Teaching Culture

Of all the changes that have affected language teaching theory and method in recent years, the greatest may be the transformation in the role of culture. This change reflects a broader transformation in the way that culture itself is understood.

Traditionally, culture was understood in terms of formal or "high" culture (literature, art, music, and philosophy) and popular or "low" culture. From this perspective, one main reason for studying a language is to be able to understand and appreciate the high culture of the people who speak that language. The pop culture is regarded as inferior and not worthy of study.

In this view, language learning comes first, and culture learning second. Students need to learn the language in order to truly appreciate the culture, but they do not need to learn about the culture in order to truly comprehend the language. This understanding can lead language teachers to avoid teaching culture for several reasons:

• They may feel that students at lower proficiency levels are not ready for it yet
• They may feel that it is additional material that they simply do not have time to teach
• In the case of formal culture, they may feel that they do not know enough about it themselves to teach it adequately
• In the case of popular culture, they may feel that it is not worth teaching

In contemporary language classrooms, however, teachers are expected to integrate cultural components because language teaching has been influenced by a significantly different perspective on culture itself. This perspective, which comes from the social sciences, defines culture in terms of the knowledge, values, beliefs, and behaviors that a group of people share. It is reflected in the following statement from the National Center for Cultural Competence:
NCCC defines culture as an integrated pattern of human behavior that includes thoughts, communications, languages, practices, beliefs, values, customs, courtesies, rituals, manners of interacting and roles, relationships and expected behaviors of a racial, ethnic, religious or social group; and the ability to transmit the above to succeeding generations. The NCCC embraces the philosophy that culture influences all aspects of human behavior. (Goode et al., 2000, p. 1)
In this understanding of "deep culture," language and culture are integral to one another. The structure of language and the ways it is used reflect the norms and values that members of a culture share. However, they also determine how those norms and values are shared, because language is the means through which culture is transmitted.
The communicative competence model is based on this understanding of the relationship between language and culture. Linguistic, discourse, sociolinguistic, and strategic competence each incorporate facets of culture, and the development of these competences is intertwined with the development of cultural awareness. "The exquisite connection between the culture that is lived and the language that is spoken can only be realized by those who possess a knowledge of both" (National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project, 1999, p. 47).

Section Contents
Goals and Techniques for Teaching Culture
Strategies for Learning About Culture
Developing Culture Learning Activities
Using Textbook Culture Activities
Assessing Knowledge of Culture
Resources

Material for this section was drawn from “The teaching of culture in foreign language courses” by Dale L. Lange, in Modules for the professional preparation of teaching assistants in foreign languages (Grace Stovall Burkart, ed.; Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1998).

method - 7.

Teaching Writing

Section Contents (will be available soon)

Goals and Techniques for Teaching Writing
Strategies for Developing Writing Skills
Developing Writing Activities
Using Textbook Writing Activities
Assessing Writing Proficiency
Resources

 Material for this section was drawn from “Writing in the foreign language curriculum: Soup and (fire)crackers” by Diane Musumeci, in Modules for the professional preparation of teaching assistants in foreign languages (Grace Stovall Burkart, ed.; Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1998.
nclrc.org/essentials/writing/wrindex.htm

method - 6

Teaching Speaking

Many language learners regard speaking ability as the measure of knowing a language. These learners define fluency as the ability to converse with others, much more than the ability to read, write, or comprehend oral language. They regard speaking as the most important skill they can acquire, and they assess their progress in terms of their accomplishments in spoken communication.

Language learners need to recognize that speaking involves three areas of knowledge:

• Mechanics (pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary): Using the right words in the right order with the correct pronunciation
• Functions (transaction and interaction): Knowing when clarity of message is essential (transaction/information exchange) and when precise understanding is not required (interaction/relationship building)
• • Social and cultural rules and norms (turn-taking, rate of speech, length of pauses between speakers, relative roles of participants): Understanding how to take into account who is speaking to whom, in what circumstances, about what, and for what reason.
  ·         In the communicative model of language teaching, instructors help their students develop this body of knowledge by providing authentic practice that prepares students for real-life communication situations. They help their students develop the ability to produce grammatically correct, logically connected sentences that are appropriate to specific contexts, and to do so using acceptable (that is, comprehensible) pronunciation.
  Section Contents
  ·         Goals and Techniques for Teaching Speaking
  Strategies for Developing Speaking Skills
  Developing Speaking Activities
  Using Textbook Speaking Activities
  Assessing Speaking Proficiency
  Resources
  ·          
  ·         Material for this section was drawn from “Spoken language: What it is and how to teach it” by Grace Stovall Burkart, in Modules for the professional preparation of teaching assistants in foreign languages (Grace Stovall Burkart, ed.; Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1998)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Goals and Techniques for Teaching Speaking

  The goal of teaching speaking skills is communicative efficiency. Learners should be able to make themselves understood, using their current proficiency to the fullest. They should try to avoid confusion in the message due to faulty pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary, and to observe the social and cultural rules that apply in each communication situation.
  To help students develop communicative efficiency in speaking, instructors can use a balanced activities approach that combines language input, structured output, and communicative output.
  
  Language input comes in the form of teacher talk, listening activities, reading passages, and the language heard and read outside of class. It gives learners the material they need to begin producing language themselves.
  Language input may be content oriented or form oriented.
  • Content-oriented input focuses on information, whether it is a simple weather report or an extended lecture on an academic topic. Content-oriented input may also include descriptions of learning strategies and examples of their use.
  • Form-oriented input focuses on ways of using the language: guidance from the teacher or another source on vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar (linguistic competence); appropriate things to say in specific contexts (discourse competence); expectations for rate of speech, pause length, turn-taking, and other social aspects of language use (sociolinguistic competence); and explicit instruction in phrases to use to ask for clarification and repair miscommunication (strategic competence).
  ·         In the presentation part of a lesson, an instructor combines content-oriented and form-oriented input. The amount of input that is actually provided in the target language depends on students' listening proficiency and also on the situation. For students at lower levels, or in situations where a quick explanation on a grammar topic is needed, an explanation in English may be more appropriate than one in the target language.
  ·         For more on input, see Guidelines for Instruction.
  ·         Structured output focuses on correct form. In structured output, students may have options for responses, but all of the options require them to use the specific form or structure that the teacher has just introduced.
  ·         Structured output is designed to make learners comfortable producing specific language items recently introduced, sometimes in combination with previously learned items. Instructors often use structured output exercises as a transition between the presentation stage and the practice stage of a lesson plan. textbook exercises also often make good structured output practice activities.
  ·         In communicative output, the learners' main purpose is to complete a task, such as obtaining information, developing a travel plan, or creating a video. To complete the task, they may use the language that the instructor has just presented, but they also may draw on any other vocabulary, grammar, and communication strategies that they know. In communicative output activities, the criterion of success is whether the learner gets the message across. Accuracy is not a consideration unless the lack of it interferes with the message.
  ·         In everyday communication, spoken exchanges take place because there is some sort of information gap between the participants. Communicative output activities involve a similar real information gap. In order to complete the task, students must reduce or eliminate the information gap. In these activities, language is a tool, not an end in itself.
  In a balanced activities approach, the teacher uses a variety of activities from these different categories of input and output. Learners at all proficiency levels, including beginners, benefit from this variety; it is more motivating, and it is also more likely to result in effective language learning.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Strategies for Developing Speaking Skills

  Students often think that the ability to speak a language is the product of language learning, but speaking is also a crucial part of the language learning process. Effective instructors teach students speaking strategies -- using minimal responses, recognizing scripts, and using language to talk about language -- that they can use to help themselves expand their knowledge of the language and their confidence in using it. These instructors help students learn to speak so that the students can use speaking to learn.
  

  1.      Using minimal responses

  2.      Language learners who lack confidence in their ability to participate successfully in oral interaction often listen in silence while others do the talking. One way to encourage such learners to begin to participate is to help them build up a stock of minimal responses that they can use in different types of exchanges. Such responses can be especially useful for beginners.
  3.      Minimal responses are predictable, often idiomatic phrases that conversation participants use to indicate understanding, agreement, doubt, and other responses to what another speaker is saying. Having a stock of such responses enables a learner to focus on what the other participant is saying, without having to simultaneously plan a response.
  2. Recognizing scripts Some communication situations are associated with a predictable set of spoken exchanges -- a script. Greetings, apologies, compliments, invitations, and other functions that are influenced by social and cultural norms often follow patterns or scripts. So do the transactional exchanges involved in activities such as obtaining information and making a purchase. In these scripts, the relationship between a speaker's turn and the one that follows it can often be anticipated.
  Instructors can help students develop speaking ability by making them aware of the scripts for different situations so that they can predict what they will hear and what they will need to say in response. Through interactive activities, instructors can give students practice in managing and varying the language that different scripts contain.
  3. Using language to talk about language
  Language learners are often too embarrassed or shy to say anything when they do not understand another speaker or when they realize that a conversation partner has not understood them. Instructors can help students overcome this reticence by assuring them that misunderstanding and the need for clarification can occur in any type of interaction, whatever the participants' language skill levels. Instructors can also give students strategies and phrases to use for clarification and comprehension check.
  By encouraging students to use clarification phrases in class when misunderstanding occurs, and by responding positively when they do, instructors can create an authentic practice environment within the classroom itself. As they develop control of various clarification strategies, students will gain confidence in their ability to manage the various communication situations that they may encounter outside the classroom.
  
  
  

  Developing Speaking Activities

  Traditional classroom speaking practice often takes the form of drills in which one person asks a question and another gives an answer. The question and the answer are structured and predictable, and often there is only one correct, predetermined answer. The purpose of asking and answering the question is to demonstrate the ability to ask and answer the question.
  In contrast, the purpose of real communication is to accomplish a task, such as conveying a telephone message, obtaining information, or expressing an opinion. In real communication, participants must manage uncertainty about what the other person will say. Authentic communication involves an information gap; each participant has information that the other does not have. In addition, to achieve their purpose, participants may have to clarify their meaning or ask for confirmation of their own understanding.
  To create classroom speaking activities that will develop communicative competence, instructors need to incorporate a purpose and an information gap and allow for multiple forms of expression. However, quantity alone will not necessarily produce competent speakers. Instructors need to combine structured output activities, which allow for error correction and increased accuracy, with communicative output activities that give students opportunities to practice language use more freely.
  Structured Output Activities
  Two common kinds of structured output activities are information gap and jigsaw activities. In both these types of activities, students complete a task by obtaining missing information, a feature the activities have in common with real communication. However, information gap and jigsaw activities also set up practice on specific items of language. In this respect they are more like drills than like communication.
  Information Gap Activities
  
  • Filling the gaps in a schedule or timetable: Partner A holds an airline timetable with some of the arrival and departure times missing. Partner B has the same timetable but with different blank spaces. The two partners are not permitted to see each other's timetables and must fill in the blanks by asking each other appropriate questions. The features of language that are practiced would include questions beginning with "when" or "at what time." Answers would be limited mostly to time expressions like "at 8:15" or "at ten in the evening."
  • Completing the picture: The two partners have similar pictures, each with different missing details, and they cooperate to find all the missing details. In another variation, no items are missing, but similar items differ in appearance. For example, in one picture, a man walking along the street may be wearing an overcoat, while in the other the man is wearing a jacket. The features of grammar and vocabulary that are practiced are determined by the content of the pictures and the items that are missing or different. Differences in the activities depicted lead to practice of different verbs. Differences in number, size, and shape lead to adjective practice. Differing locations would probably be described with prepositional phrases.
  These activities may be set up so that the partners must practice more than just grammatical and lexical features. For example, the timetable activity gains a social dimension when one partner assumes the role of a student trying to make an appointment with a partner who takes the role of a professor. Each partner has pages from an appointment book in which certain dates and times are already filled in and other times are still available for an appointment. Of course, the open times don't match exactly, so there must be some polite negotiation to arrive at a mutually convenient time for a meeting or a conference.
  Jigsaw Activities
  Jigsaw activities are more elaborate information gap activities that can be done with several partners. In a jigsaw activity, each partner has one or a few pieces of the "puzzle," and the partners must cooperate to fit all the pieces into a whole picture. The puzzle piece may take one of several forms. It may be one panel from a comic strip or one photo from a set that tells a story. It may be one sentence from a written narrative. It may be a tape recording of a conversation, in which case no two partners hear exactly the same conversation.
  
  • In one fairly simple jigsaw activity, students work in groups of four. Each student in the group receives one panel from a comic strip. Partners may not show each other their panels. Together the four panels present this narrative: a man takes a container of ice cream from the freezer; he serves himself several scoops of ice cream; he sits in front of the TV eating his ice cream; he returns with the empty bowl to the kitchen and finds that he left the container of ice cream, now melting, on the kitchen counter. These pictures have a clear narrative line and the partners are not likely to disagree about the appropriate sequencing. You can make the task more demanding, however, by using pictures that lend themselves to alternative sequences, so that the partners have to negotiate among themselves to agree on a satisfactory sequence.
  • More elaborate jigsaws may proceed in two stages. Students first work in input groups (groups A, B, C, and D) to receive information. Each group receives a different part of the total information for the task. Students then reorganize into groups of four with one student each from A, B, C, and D, and use the information they received to complete the task. Such an organization could be used, for example, when the input is given in the form of a tape recording. Groups A, B, C, and D each hear a different recording of a short news bulletin. The four recordings all contain the same general information, but each has one or more details that the others do not. In the second stage, students reconstruct the complete story by comparing the four versions.
  With information gap and jigsaw activities, instructors need to be conscious of the language demands they place on their students. If an activity calls for language your students have not already practiced, you can brainstorm with them when setting up the activity to preview the language they will need, eliciting what they already know and supplementing what they are able to produce themselves.
  Structured output activities can form an effective bridge between instructor modeling and communicative output because they are partly authentic and partly artificial. Like authentic communication, they feature information gaps that must be bridged for successful completion of the task. However, where authentic communication allows speakers to use all of the language they know, structured output activities lead students to practice specific features of language and to practice only in brief sentences, not in extended discourse. Also, structured output situations are contrived and more like games than real communication, and the participants' social roles are irrelevant to the performance of the activity. This structure controls the number of variables that students must deal with when they are first exposed to new material. As they become comfortable, they can move on to true communicative output activities.
  Communicative Output Activities
  Communicative output activities allow students to practice using all of the language they know in situations that resemble real settings. In these activities, students must work together to develop a plan, resolve a problem, or complete a task. The most common types of communicative output activity are role plays and discussions .
  In role plays, students are assigned roles and put into situations that they may eventually encounter outside the classroom. Because role plays imitate life, the range of language functions that may be used expands considerably. Also, the role relationships among the students as they play their parts call for them to practice and develop their sociolinguistic competence. They have to use language that is appropriate to the situation and to the characters.
  Students usually find role playing enjoyable, but students who lack self-confidence or have lower proficiency levels may find them intimidating at first. To succeed with role plays:
  
  • Prepare carefully: Introduce the activity by describing the situation and making sure that all of the students understand it
  • Set a goal or outcome: Be sure the students understand what the product of the role play should be, whether a plan, a schedule, a group opinion, or some other product
  • Use role cards: Give each student a card that describes the person or role to be played. For lower-level students, the cards can include words or expressions that that person might use.
  • Brainstorm: Before you start the role play, have students brainstorm as a class to predict what vocabulary, grammar, and idiomatic expressions they might use.
  • Keep groups small: Less-confident students will feel more able to participate if they do not have to compete with many voices.
  • Give students time to prepare: Let them work individually to outline their ideas and the language they will need to express them.
  • Be present as a resource, not a monitor: Stay in communicative mode to answer students' questions. Do not correct their pronunciation or grammar unless they specifically ask you about it.
  • Allow students to work at their own levels: Each student has individual language skills, an individual approach to working in groups, and a specific role to play in the activity. Do not expect all students to contribute equally to the discussion, or to use every grammar point you have taught.
  • Do topical follow-up: Have students report to the class on the outcome of their role plays.
  • Do linguistic follow-up: After the role play is over, give feedback on grammar or pronunciation problems you have heard. This can wait until another class period when you plan to review pronunciation or grammar anyway.
  Discussions, like role plays, succeed when the instructor prepares students first, and then gets out of the way. To succeed with discussions:
  
  • Prepare the students: Give them input (both topical information and language forms) so that they will have something to say and the language with which to say it.
  • Offer choices: Let students suggest the topic for discussion or choose from several options. Discussion does not always have to be about serious issues. Students are likely to be more motivated to participate if the topic is television programs, plans for a vacation, or news about mutual friends. Weighty topics like how to combat pollution are not as engaging and place heavy demands on students' linguistic competence.
  • Set a goal or outcome: This can be a group product, such as a letter to the editor, or individual reports on the views of others in the group.
  • Use small groups instead of whole-class discussion: Large groups can make participation difficult.
  • Keep it short: Give students a defined period of time, not more than 8-10 minutes, for discussion. Allow them to stop sooner if they run out of things to say.
  • Allow students to participate in their own way: Not every student will feel comfortable talking about every topic. Do not expect all of them to contribute equally to the conversation.
  • Do topical follow-up: Have students report to the class on the results of their discussion.
  • Do linguistic follow-up: After the discussion is over, give feedback on grammar or pronunciation problems you have heard. This can wait until another class period when you plan to review pronunciation or grammar anyway.
  Through well-prepared communicative output activities such as role plays and discussions, you can encourage students to experiment and innovate with the language, and create a supportive atmosphere that allows them to make mistakes without fear of embarrassment. This will contribute to their self-confidence as speakers and to their motivation to learn more.
  

   Teaching Reading

  Ackersold, J. A., & Field, M. L. (1997). From reader to reading teacher: Issues and strategies for second language classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  Anderson, N. (1999). Exploring second language reading: Issues and strategies. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
  Barnett, M. A. (1989). More than meets the eye: Foreign language learner reading theory and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
  Bernhardt, E. (1991). Reading development in a second language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 121-133.
  Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  Devine, J. (1993). The role of metacognition in second language reading and writing. In J. G. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom (pp. 105-127). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
  Eskey, D. (2002). Reading and the teaching of L2 r
  Eskey, D. (2002). Reading and the teaching of L2 reading. TESOL Journal, 11(1), 5-9.
  Galloway, V. (1992). Toward a cultural reading of authentic texts. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Languages for a multicultural world in transition (pp. 87-121). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co.
  Glazer, S. M. (1992). Reading comprehension: Self-monitoring strategies to develop independent readers. New York: Scholastic Professional Books.
  Grellet, F. (1981). Developing reading skills: A practical guide to reading comprehension exercises. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  Hosenfeld, C., Arnold, V., Kirchofer, J., Laciura, J., & Wilson, L. Second language reading: A curricular sequence for teaching reading strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 14, 415-422.
  Kramsch, C. (1985). Literary texts in the classroom: A discourse model. The Modern Language Journal, 69(4), 356-366.
  Phillips, J. K. (1985). Proficiency-based instruction in reading: A teacher education module. Introductory Packet; Applications Packet; Sample Materials. Material produced in conjunction with a grant from the International Research and Studies Program, U.S. Department of Education.
  Silberstein, S. (1994). Techniques and resources in teaching reading. New York: Oxford University Press.
  Swaffar, J., Arens, K., & Byrnes, H. (1991). Reading for meaning: An integrated approach to language learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  Urquhart, A. H., & Weir, C. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product, and practice. New York: Longman.