Current Principles and Concepts in the Teaching of Macroskills

Jessie S. Barrot
Department of English, College of Education, Arts, and Sciences
National University, Manila, Philippines
[email protected]

Abstract: Many approaches have been proposed in teaching language macroskills. Some of
these approaches include communicative language teaching, task-based approach, integrated
approach and sociocognitive-transformative approach. Despite the effort of improving learners’
macroskills and the extensive literature available about these skills, many novice teachers and
researchers remain to have limited or naive perspective of what these skills are. Moreover, many
language teachers are still not aware that there are already six language macroskills as a result of
the proliferation of information technology. As such, this article discusses the fundamentals of
language macroskills. Specifically, the paper defines and describes the six macroskills which
include both the productive skills (i.e., speaking, writing, and representing) and receptive skills
(i.e., listening, reading, and viewing).Some ways on how these skills can be taught are also
presented.

Keywords: language teaching; macroskills; ESL pedagogy; teaching principles

1. Introduction representing) and receptive skills (i.e.,

The aim of any language program is listening, reading, and viewing).
to develop the different macroskills of
learners. Many approaches have been 2. Speaking
proposed in teaching these macroskills. Speaking is a complex process that
Some of these approaches are involves simultaneous attention to content,
communicative language teaching, task- vocabulary, discourse, information
based approach, integrated approach (Barrot, structuring, morphosyntax, sound system,
2014a), and sociocognitive-transformative prosody, and pragmalinguistic features
approach (Barrot, 2014b; Barrot, 2014c; (Hinkel, 2006). It runs in a continuum from
Barrot, 2015a). Despite the effort of the immediate and most familiar to
improving learners’ macroskills and the decontextualized and more formal
extensive literature available about these situations. It has also been observed that
skills, many novice teachers and researchers formal oral communication shares similar
remain to have limited or naive perspective features with written communication (Celce-
of what these skills are. Moreover, many Murcia & Olshtain, 2000).
language teachers are still not aware that From a sociopragmatic point of
there are already six language macroskills as view, teaching speaking involves effective
a result of the proliferation of information communication strategies, discourse
technology. As such, this article discusses organization and structuring, conversational
the fundamentals of language macroskills. routines or small talks, speech acts, and
Specifically, the paper defines and describes conversation formulas like forms of address
the six macroskills which include both the (Hinkel, 2006, p. 116). Celce-Murcia and
productive skills (i.e., speaking, writing, and Olshtain (2000) have suggested some

53
effective speaking activities in a language involves both bottom-up and top-down
classroom. The first activity deemed processing rather than using these processes
effective is role-play in which it simulates individually and that these processes operate
real communication that occurs beyond simultaneously.
classrooms. Other strategies include group L2 listening has three subprocesses
discussions, using the target language namely decoding, comprehension, and
outside classrooms, using learners’ input, interpretation (Rost, 2005). Decoding refers
using feedback, and using authentic to attending, perceiving speech, recognizing
speeches. On top of these activities, self- words, and parsing grammar.
evaluation would also be helpful in Comprehension deals with activation of
enhancing speech performances (Barrot, schema, representing propositions, and
2015b). logical inferencing. Interpretation refers to
As regards speaking proficiency, it matching the meaning to previous
can be measured through fluency, expectations and evaluating discourse
comprehensibility, and accuracy. Oral meanings (p. 504). Further, listening can be
fluency refers to the speaker’s automaticity reciprocal or nonreciprocal. Reciprocal
of oral production (Derwing, Munro, & listening involves dialogues in which the
Thomson, 2007). Researchers in the 1990s original listener and speaker have alternating
believed that it can be achieved through roles as source and as receiver of
engagement in communicative interactions information. Nonreciprocal listening
(Hinkel, 2006) and can be enhanced through involves a one-way role taking as in the case
well-designed and well-planned tasks (Ellis, of listening to monologues. Comparing the
2003). Another aspect of speaking two, nonreciprocal listening appears to be
proficiency is comprehensibility which more difficult to undertake (Celce-Murcia &
refers to the ease and difficulty with which a Olshtain, 2000).
listener understands L2 accented speech Other variables that influence
(Derwing et al., 2007). It can be adversely comprehensibility are speech rate and
affected by filled pauses, hesitations, metrical cadence. In most English varieties,
excessive and inappropriate pauses, false 90% of content words have their stress on
starts, and slow speaking rate (Derwing, the first syllable, most of which are
Munro & Thomson, 2001). The third aspect monosyllabic. Also, each pause unit in
of speaking proficiency is accuracy which speech contains at least one prominent
relates to both grammar and pronunciation. content item. As for speech rate, listening
Since grammar will be extensively discussed generally improves as speech rate is reduced
in the suceeding section, this part will just to an optimum level. Normal speech rate is
focus on pronunciation and its teaching. usually from 100 to 240 words per minute
(Rost, 2005). However, other research
3. Listening findings revealed that more than reducing
Usually tied up with speaking as a speech rate, what facilitates
skill is listening. It is a complex process that comprehensibility is the additional pauses at
involves the understanding of spoken data natural pause boundaries.
and involves receptive, interpretative, or As regards listening pedagogy,
constructive cognitive processes (Rost, Hinkel (2006) argued that it has shifted from
2005). This definition implies that listening a more linguistically-based approach to a
and listening comprehension are essentially more-schematic-based one which
the same. Similar to reading, listening incorporates cultural constructs, discourse

54
clues, pragmatic norms, and topic practice strategies in a meaning-focused
familiarity. Current listening pedagogy also context and to process what has been
involves the enhancement of metacognitive listened to for note-taking and summarizing
and cognitive strategies to facilitate listening among others. Finally, learners are
comprehension. The most widely adopted encouraged to self-evaluate their level of
metacognitive strategies for listening include comprehension.
self-monitoring and evaluating Related to Mendelsohn’s (1998)
comprehension process, planning for proposal, Wilson (2003) proposed the
listening, and determining listening discovery listening approach which is a
difficulties. As for cognitive strategies, they response to the heavy emphasis given by
may include inferencing, elaboration, and most published textbooks on practicing
summarizing. Note-taking and other comprehension rather than teaching learners
academic listening activities are techniques the skills needed for an improved
appropriate for advanced listeners and can performance. Discovery listening allows
be integrated with speaking, reading, and learners to notice the differences between
writing. the original text and the text that they have
Similar to reading, most listening reconstructed after a listening task. From
materials for pedagogical purposes are often this noticing of gap, the learners will try to
created, simplified, and graded subjectively discover the cause of their listening
(Lynch, 1988). This situation runs contrary difficulties. The task has three phases:
to the widely accepted practice of using listening, reconstructing, and discovering.
authentic materials in the classrooms. The Listening allows learners to listen to a text
concern that listening would be highly without any note-taking. They will, then,
difficulty if authentic materials will be used assess their comprehension level. Finally,
can be addressed by using graded listening they will listen to the text twice with note-
tasks (Lynch, 1988). Others proposed taking. Reconstruction phase allows learners
extensive listening approach to developing to reconstruct the text as a group. It bis
listening skills. One of them is Ridgway followed by discovering that allows learners
(2000) who advocated that when learners are to compare the reconstructed text to the
exposed to ample comprehensible listening original text and classify the causes of
input, it will eventually lead to automaticity. errors. They will, then, assess the
However, Field (2008) countered such importance of these errors. After which,
argument saying that there are several learners will listen again to the original text
concerns on focusing too much on quantity and assess their performance. The listening
without any consideration to methods for texts in a discovery-listening task are
improving comprehension. graded. Self-assessment is also utilized
Mendelsohn (1998) has outlined during the task as in the case of third phase.
teaching strategies for a strategy-based L2 Wilson’s (2003) proposal has semblance to
listening. The first step is to make learners the suggestion of Swain and Lapkin (2001)
aware of the value of using strategies when that a dictogloss task can be employed
listening. It is followed by pre-listening which will help learners focus more on
activities that will activate learners’ schema. form. It is done by allowing learners to
Then, listeners are explained on what they listen to a short passage and reconstruct it
will listen to and why. Guided listening is afterwards.
also provided to allow more practice of
strategies. Learners are then allowed to 4. Viewing

55
 The dominance of visual media in organize and present structural knowledge in
our lives today has led to the inclusion of a content domain” (Kang, 2004, p. 58). The
viewing in the language macroskills. It four general types of visual organizers
refers to perceiving, examining, interpreting, include web-like organizers (spider map and
and construction meaning from visual semantic map), hierarchical organizers
images and is crucial to improving (concept map and network tree), matrix
comprehension of print and nonprint organizers (compare/contrast matrix), and
materials. linear organizers (Venn diagram, continuum,
With the inclusion of viewing in the chain of events, and storyboard). These
macroskills and proliferation of multimedia organizers are mainly used when teaching
technology, it is imperative that both reading so that students can have better
speakers and listeners critically assess conceptual framework of their existing
audiovisual inputs and make meaning from knowledge and new knowledge. Using
them (Curriculum Planning & Development visual organizers also allows learners to
Division, 2010). This need requires new actively construct and interpret information.
forms of literacy: media literacy and visual Though these two forms of literacy are at the
literacy. Media literacy refers to the ability core of contemporary culture, they are still
to access, analyze, and evaluate media and treated superficially if not ignored in the
technology information that involves classroom.
moving images and sound effects (Hobbs &
Frost, 2003). According to De Abreu (2004), 5. Reading
developing media literacy would help Traditionally, people imagine
students question and critically analyze reading as a simple process that is linear and
messages provided to them via media which passive. However, more recent views have
facilitates critical viewing and thinking. In established that it is a complex cognitive
classroom setting, enhancing media literacy process of decoding written symbols. It is a
involves learners analyzing their own media “linguistic, socio-cultural, physical and
consumption habits and identifying the cognitive activity” (CPDD, 2010, p. 31)
author, purpose, and point of view of which involves getting meaning from and
television and radio programs, putting meaning to the printed text. This
advertisements, and films (Hobbs & Frost, definition implies that reading and reading
2003). Visual literacy, on the one hand, comprehension are essentially the same
refers to the power of giving meaning to and meaning. Reading, in many instances,
building up similar messages for visual requires simultaneous application of skills
messages and the ability to construct and subprocesses, such as identifying
meaning from images (Glorgis, Johnson, author’s mood and purpose, identifying
Bonomo, Colber, & Al, 1999). As Kang main ideas, context clues, analysis,
(2004) put it, visual literacy is as important evaluation, recognizing and assigning
as language and textual literacy. It, thus, meaning to words, constructing meanings at
obliges teachers to explore the potentials of sentence and discourse levels, and relating
visual and spatial instructional strategies to such meanings to the readers’ already
better facilitate the learning. One way to existing knowledge (Graves, Juel, & Graves,
realize this kind of instruction is through 1998). According to Chun and Plass (1997),
visual organizers. Visual organizers are two factors may have great influence on
“visual systems of using spatial frameworks reading ability of learners: L2 language
such as diagrams, maps, or charts to proficiency and L1 reading skills. Others are

56
topic interest and prior knowledge (Barry & the reader brings her/his background
Lazarte, 1998) as well as linguistic knowledge to the text. The limitation of top-
complexity (Barrot, 2012; Barrot, 2013; down model is that it requires readers to
Barrot, 2015c). predict meaning; consequently, only fluent
Reading is an interactive and readers would be able to manage such
problem-solving process making meaning approach to reading (Eskey, 1988). Lastly,
from the text. It possesses the following interactive processing which is both data-
characteristics: (a) reading is a language driven and concept-driven places emphasis
skill that can be developed through on the interaction between lower-level
systematic practice; (b) reading is a two-way (decoding) and higher-level (inferencing and
process that involves the communication interpretation) processing. It postulates that
between the author and the reader; (c) reading is neither exclusively top-down nor
reading is visual which involves the exclusively bottom-up. Rather, reading
transmission of message via optic nerves involves the interaction between linguistic
and requires good eyesight; (d) reading is a knowledge and schemata (Graves et al.,
productive process that has purpose whether 1998). Most of the current L2 reading
academically, personally, or professionally; research constitutes the notion of interactive
(e) reading is the foundation of good reading model and schema (Fecteau, 1999).
writing. Linguists assert that one of the most Another view of reading process that
effective means of developing writing skills has emerged is the cognitive-constructivist
is to be a good reader. Through reading, the view which emphasizes that reading
reader gains knowledge on lexemes, syntax, involves an active search for meaning which
morphology, and orthography. is largely dependent on the readers’ schema
Reading process can be viewed from (Graves et al., 1998). Schema can be
three different perspectives: bottom-up, top- distinguished into content schema
down, and interactive (Chun & Plass, 1997). (knowledge about people, culture, world,
Bottom-up processing is data-driven which and universe) and formal/textual schema
puts emphasis on textual decoding (lower- (knowledge about text structure and
level processes) such as letter and word rhetorical organization) (Barnett, 1989;
recognition. It assumes that reading Coiro & Dobler, 2007). As regards textual
progresses from recognizing first the lower- schema, Graves et al. (1998) stressed that
level units toward more complex ones most children have developed their textual
through synthesis in which there is little or schema for the organization of narratives
no interference by reader’s background because narratives mirror the environment
knowledge (Graves et al., 1998). Tsui and they live in. Additionally, children that are
Fullilove (1998) contend that bottom-up being read of narratives by their parents
processing skill is a prerequisite to good have a considerably rich narrative text
reading be it poor or good readers. Top- schema. Although it is proven that children
down processing, on the other hand, is have significant schema on narratives, they
concept-driven that puts emphasis on lack one on expository texts.
schema and reader interpretation. It From the perspective of whole
assumes that reading starts from making language pedagogy, reading adheres to some
meaning in the mind of the reader which guiding principles (Goodman & Goodman,
will then influence the sampling of the text 2009). First, no reading will occur without
to substantiate or disprove the reader’s comprehension. However, it should be noted
hypothesis (Graves et al., 1998). In short, that no matter how good the reader is, there

57
will always be misunderstanding of a text. designed by determining the purpose of
Second, developing reading comprehension reading course, determining the text types
is learned through making sense of written and tasks for the course, determining the
language. Third, reading development does linguistic items to be covered, integrating
not follow a linear development of skills; tasks and reading texts to class work units,
that is, reading does not develop from part to and integrating reading to other skills.
whole but from whole to part. Finally,
learners need to be exposed to authentic 6. Writing
materials that are at their level and interests. Writing refers to the act of putting
It is a known fact that reading ideas in text whether print or nonprint. It is a
involves reading strategies and reading “non-linear, exploratory, and generative
skills. Unfortunately, many reading teachers process” as they discover ideas and
are confused between these two concepts. reformulate them (Zamel, 1983, p.165).
Afflerbach, David Pearson, and Paris (2008, Writing allows the writer to reflect on the
p. 368) explained that reading strategies are world around her/him; it makes
“deliberate, goal-directed attempts to control communication effective; it documents and
and modify the reader’s efforts to decode captures thoughts and ideas relevant to
text, understand words, and construct decision making; and it provides knowledge
meaning of text.” Reading skills, on the to both the reader and the writer. Any
other hand, refers to “automatic actions that composition we write can either be short or
result in decoding and comprehension with long. It can range from short paragraphs to
speed, efficiency, and fluency and usually long essays. With regard to the text type
occur without awareness of the components written by students, at elementary level, the
or control involved”. They have also most common types of writings are personal
advocated for an explicit teaching of both narratives; for secondary, it is expository
skills and strategies. One way to teach with emphasis on writing about literature;
strategy effectively is through assessment. and for tertiary, they expand their writing to
Assessment should focus on processes argumentative essays (Sperling &
involved in skills and strategies. The Freedman, 2001). As regards L1-L2 writing
purpose of this assessment is to identify relationship, Kobayashi and Rinnert (2008)
what learners cannot do and what they do claimed that transfer of writing skills happen
incorrectly. Generally, strategy assessment in a bidirectional way; that is, from L1 to L2
should be formative in nature making it and vice versa. He further concluded that
more informal and embedded in instruction writing competence can be transferred
while skill assessment should be summative. across languages. This may be the reason
White (1981) suggested some ways why in Krapels’s (1990) review, findings
of helping teachers put reading skills to revealed that even advanced L2 writers
classroom setting and relate them with other consider themselves stronger when
macroskills. The first step is to arouse composing using their native language; that
students’ interest by relating the text to their is, an increase use of L1 in writing correlates
schema. The next step is to provide learners with better L2 writing especially if the topic
with things to search for in the text. Then, is culture bound.
encourage students to discuss the text to one According to Celce-Murcia and
another. Finally, ask students to write about Olshtain (2000), a well-written text has two
what they have read. Similarly, Nunan features that facilitate the comprehensibility
(1999) suggested that reading programs be of a text. These are coherence and cohesion.

58
Coherence relates to the pragmatic features checking is usually considered as post-
and culturally acceptable rhetorical writing process (Tribble, 1996). But the
organization, structure, and sequence. question is the role that grammar plays in
Cohesion, on the one hand, is the linguistic the teaching and enhancing writing skills.
consequence of coherence through the use of Muncie (2002, p. 185) proposed some
cohesive devices making it an overt feature guidelines in incorporating grammar to
of a text. As regards the writing process, writing classes. First, grammar should not
Rollinson (2005) has listed some insights defocus learners from the meaning
that good writing involves revision; that orientation of writing pedagogy. Second,
writer need to have specific audience for teacher feedback should not involve any
writing; that writing involves multiple drafts grammar correction. Third, grammar
with feedback in between them; that peers correction must be directly linked to the
are useful resource of feedback at various editing stage. Fourth, grammar component
stages of writing; that training students to should satisfy the perceived learners’ needs.
peer response leads to a more quality Finally, grammar component should involve
writing; and that peer and teacher feedback the recycling of materials. Though content
act complementarily with additive value. and meaning should be the utmost priority in
Currently, there are five approaches a writing class, it is recognized as well that
to teaching writing: product approach, linguistic accuracy situates itself as an
process approach, genre approach, process important factor in any final written output
genre approach, and post-process pedagogy. especially if linguistic inaccuracy impedes
More recently, Barrot (2015d) proposed a the clarity of meaning (Ashwell, 2000).
sociocognitive-transformative approach in Several other scholars have proposed that
teaching writing which incorporates the use grammar correction be excluded from the
of technology into the writing process teaching of writing. One of them is Truscott
(Barrot, 2016). Product approach focuses on (1996) who strongly argued that grammar
what a final piece of writing will look like correction in writing classes should be
and measures the product using vocabulary abandoned because it is ineffective, has
use, grammar, mechanics, content, and detrimental effects, and lacks merits. He
organization as criteria (Brown, 1994). The defined grammar correction as correcting
procedure includes four stages: grammatical errors to improve students’
familiarization, controlled writing, and free ability to write accurately. He further
writing. From a teacher’s perspective, it asserted that the burden of proof resides on
involves assigning a piece of writing, those who claim that grammar correction is
collecting it, and returning it for further beneficial. Truscott (1996) asserted that one
revision. The concerns with using product possible reason that error correction failed is
approach is it ignores the actual process that it does not respect the order of
used by the students in producing a piece of acquisition by correcting students on
writing, focuses on imitation and churning grammatical forms for which they are not
out a perfect product on the first draft, ready yet. The acquisition of grammatical
requires constant error correction that affects forms is a gradual developmental process
students’ motivation, and does not prepare contrary to the view underpinning error
students for real world. correction of a sudden discovery.
The last four approaches has placed These claims against the role of
grammar in the background in writing texts grammar correction in writing were
and methodology books in which grammar challenged by Ferris (2004) by arguing that

59
there are insufficient studies on error principles espoused in this paper should be
correction in L2 writing. And if ever taken as suggestive more than conclusive.
proponents of error correction claim its
effectiveness, the burden of proof is on 8. References
them. She further asserted that, granted that
research base in L2 composition is Afflerbach, P., David Pearson, P., & Paris,
inadequate, teachers cannot afford to wait S. (2008). Clarifying differences
for generalizable research findings from L2 between reading skills and reading
composition researchers. It is because strategies. The Reading Teacher,
teachers struggle to making their learners 61(5), 364–373.
write more effectively and learners lack Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher
progress in terms of accuracy (Ferris, 2010). response to student writing in a
In the meantime, what teachers can do is to multiple-draft composition
use the existing evidence, experience, and classroom: Is content feedback
intuitions in the teaching of writing. Despite followed by form feedback the best
the ample studies that compare the method? Journal of Second
effectiveness of different types of error Language Writing, 9(3), 227–25.
corrections, very few have compared Barnett, M. (1989). More than meets the
“correction” versus “no correction” for eye: Foreign language reading:
ethical reasons. With these contentions, Theory and practice. New Jersey:
Ferris (2004) suggested that error treatment Prentice-Hall.
must be made part of L2 writing instruction Barrot, J. (2012). Exploring the Lexical and
particularly indirect feedback. Students Syntactic Features of the Learners’
should also be given opportunities to edit Narratives. Philippine ESL
their own work after receiving feedback and Journal, 9, 38–55.
prepare and maintain error charts for Barrot, J. (2013). Revisiting the role of
heightened awareness of their linguistic linguistic complexity in ESL reading
weaknesses. Finally, they should be given comprehension, 3L: The Southeast
supplemental grammar instruction based on Asian Journal of English Language
their needs and instruction on paragraphing Studies, 19(1), 5–18.
and punctuation (Tsang, 1996). Barrot, J. (2014a). Combining isolated and
integrated form-focused instruction:
7. Conclusion Effects on productive
This paper presents the current skills. Language, Culture, and
principles in teaching macroskills. Curriculum, 27(3), 278–293.
Specifically, the paper defines and describes Barrot, J. (2014b). A macro perspective on
the six macroskills which include both the key issues in English as second
productive skills (i.e., speaking, writing, and language (ESL) pedagogy in the
representing) and receptive skills (i.e., postmethod era: Confronting
listening, reading, and viewing).Some ways challenges through sociocognitive-
on how these skills can be taught are also transformative approach. The Asia-
presented. Language teachers in various Pacific Education Researcher, 23(3),
contexts can use these concepts in their 435–449.
respective language classrooms for a more Barrot, J. (2014c). Development and
principle-based pedagogy. Nonetheless, the validation of materials for isolated
form-focused instruction. Modern

60
 Journal of Language Teaching Chun, D., & Plass, J. (1997). Research on
Methods, 4(1), 267–282. text comprehension in multimedia
Barrot, J. (2015a). A sociocognitive- environments. Language Learning &
transformative instructional materials Technology, 1(1), 60–81.
design model for second language Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the
(L2) pedagogy in the Asia Pacific: online reading comprehension
Development and validation. The strategies used by sixth-grade skilled
Asia-Pacific Education readers to search for and locate
Researcher, 24(2), 283–297. information on the Internet. Reading
Barrot, J. (2015b). Self- and teacher Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214–257.
assessment of speaking Curriculum Planning & Development
performances: An investigation of Division (2010). English language
interrater consistency and agreement. syllabus: Primary & secondary
Journal of Language and Literature, (express/normal [academic]).
6(4). Ministry of Education, Singapore.
Barrot, J. (2015c). Comparing the linguistic De Abreu, B. (2004). Teaching media
complexity in receptive and literacy. New York: Neal-Schuman.
productive modes. GEMA Online Derwing, T., Munro, M., & Thomson, R.
Journal of Language Studies, 15(2), (2001). Modeling perceptions of the
65–81. accentedness and comprehensibility
Barrot, J. (2015d). A sociocognitive- of L2 speech. Studies in Second
transformative approach to teaching Language Acquisition, 23(4), 451–
writing: Theory and 468.
praxis. Indonesian Journal of Derwing, T., Munro, M., & Thomson, R.
Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 111–120. (2007). A longitudinal study of ESL
Barrot, J. (2016). Using Facebook-based e- learners’ fluency and
portfolio in ESL writing classrooms: comprehensibility development.
Impact and challenges. Language, Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 359–380.
Culture and Curriculum, 1–16. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language
Barry, S., & Lazarte, A. (1998). Evidence learning and teaching. New York:
for mental models: How do prior Oxford University Press.
knowledge, syntactic complexity, Eskey, D. (1988). Holding in the bottom: An
and reading topic affect inference interactive approach to the language
generation in a recall task for problems of second language
nonnative readers of Spanish? readers. In P. Carrell, J. Devine, &
Modern Language Journal, 82, 176– D. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive
193. approaches to second language
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by reading (pp. 93–100). New York:
principles: An interactive approach Cambridge University Press.
to language pedagogy. USA: Fecteau, M. (1999). First- and second-
Prentice Hall. language reading comprehension of
Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). literary texts. Modern Language
Discourse and context in language Journal, 83(4), 475–493.
teaching: A guide for language Ferris, D. (2004). The “grammar correction”
teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge debate in L2 writing: Where are we,
University Press. and where do we go from here? (and

61
 what do we do in the meantime…?). classroom (pp. 37–56). Cambridge:
Journal of Second Language Cambridge University Press.
Writing, 13, 49–62. Lynch, A. (1988). Grading foreign language
Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing listening comprehension materials:
research and written corrective The use of naturally modified
feedback in SLA: Intersections and interaction. Unpublished doctoral
practical applications. Studies in dissertation, University of Edinburg.
Second Language Acquisition, 32, Mendelsohn, D. (1998). Teaching listening.
181–201. Annual Review of Applied
Field, J. (2008). Bricks or mortar: Which Linguistics, 18, 81–101.
parts of the input does a second Muncie, J. (2002). Finding a place for
language listener rely on? TESOL grammar in EFL composition
Quarterly, 42(3), 411–432. classes. ELT Journal, 56(2), 180–
Glorgis, C., Johnson, N., Bonomo, A., 186.
Colber, C., & Al, E. (1999).Visual Nunan, D. (1999). Second language
literacy. Reading Teacher, 53(2), teaching and learning. Boston, MA:
146–153. Heinle and Heinle.
Goodman, K., & Goodman, Y. (2009). Ridgway, T. (2000). Listening strategies—I
Helping readers make sense of print: beg your pardon. ELT Journal,
Research that supports a whole 54(2), 179–185.
language pedagogy. In S. Israel & G. Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in
Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research the ESL writing class. ELT Journal,
on reading comprehension (pp. 91– 59(1), 23–30.
114). New York, NY: Routledge. Rost, M. (2005). L2 listening. In E. Hinkel
Graves, M., Juel, C., & Graves, B. (1998). (Ed.), Handbook of research in
Teaching reading in the 21st century. second language teaching and
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and learning (pp. 503–527). Mahwah,
Bacon. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on Sperling, M., & Freedman, S. (2001).
teaching the four skills. TESOL Research on writing. In V.
Quarterly, 40(1), 109–131. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of
Hobbs, R., & Frost, R. (2003). Measuring research on teaching (4th ed., pp.
the acquisition of media-literacy 370–389). Washington, DC:
skills. Reading Research Quarterly, American Educational Research
38(3), 330–355. Association.
Kang, S. (2004). Using visual organizers to Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on
enhance EFL instruction. ELT form through collaborative dialogue:
Journal, 58(1), 58–67. Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate,
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (2008). Task P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.),
response and text construction across Researching pedagogic tasks:
L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second language learning, teaching
Second Language Writing, 17, 7–29. and assessment (pp. 99–119).
Krapels, A. (1990). An overview of second London: Longman.
language writing process research. In Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford: Oxford
B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language University Press.
writing: Research insights for the

62
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against White, R. (1981). Reading. In Johnson and
grammar correction in L2 writing Morrow (Eds.). Communication in
classes. Language Learning, 46(2), the classroom. (pp. 87–92). London:
327–369. Longman.
Tsang, W. (1996). Comparing the effects of Wilson, M. (2003). Discovery listening—
reading and writing on writing improving perceptual processing.
performance. Applied Linguistics, ELT Journal, 57(4), 335–343.
17(2), 210–233. Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes
Tsui, A., & Fullilove, J. (1998). Bottom-up of advanced ESL students: Six case
or top-down processing as a studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165–
discriminator of L2 listening 187.
performance. Applied Linguistics,
19(4), 432–451.

63