1

A Theoretical Framework for Developing

Reading Materials for Information Science

Students

Najia ABDALLAOUI MAAN Professeur de l’Enseignement Supérieur

Ecole des Sciences de l’Information

Abstract

ESP has always been designed as materials- led and practical in its approach.

The selection of these materials can generate many challenges since the materials should meet

the learners’ needs and be linguistically, thematically and academically adequate. The article

discusses the theories and principles underlying the selection of ESP (English for Specific

Purposes) reading materials for tertiary education students. It also addresses other related

issues like the weight of the faculty responsibility and the assumption of ESP(English for

Specific Purposes) teaching as education rather than training.

ESP (English for Specific Purposes) reading courses in academic settings are

commonly thought of as practical in their orientations. They start from the purposes

they serve and finish with a definite outcome agreed on from the start. This

outcome is usually expected to be a set of fixed linguistic skills and specific

terminology. The missing elements in this view, however, are the nature of the

subject (as involving several disciplines, e.g. reading theory, language learning,

linguistics and education), the human factor (the learner and instructor), the

specificity of the setting (in our case Moroccan tertiary education), and the

interaction among all these variables.

The instructor (who is usually in charge for preparing the course) has to account for

all the factors mentioned above and make decisions during the whole process of the

course development. Her/his practices originate from beliefs, intuition,

experience, or understandings about reading comprehension and language

learning.

Nevertheless, if coherence and performance have to be ensured, decisions have to

be based on clear-cut, conscious principles which are related to one theory or

another. Theories do not dismiss the responsibility of the instructor but provide

her/him with valuable insights and guidance into issues. The instructor has to

make the final decisions.

In fact, in a tertiary level education, whether involved in language teaching or

another subject, the faculty have to base their decisions about the varied aspects

2

of their courses (from objectives, through programmes, to methodology or

contents) on scientific procedures. Old practices and wisdom have to be verified

against new developments.

Experience of itself has no significance but can only have

significance attributed to it. Custom of itself is no surety of

effective action. It may of course turn out that there are after all

good independent reasons for respecting the intuitive judgements

which come from long experience. But it does not seem sensible

to accept them unless they can be given rational sanction

(Widdowson, 1990: 2).

In a rapidly changing context, the faculty have to actualize their knowledge to

keep up with current views both on the subject matter of their course and

educational theories. This cannot be achieved, of course, unless they are willing

and supported to expand their potential, and are given the opportunity for change

and growth through continuous education and research.

The faculty involved in ESP (English for Specific Purposes) classes make no

exception. They deal with adults in academic settings and are under pressure to

respond to the challenging needs of their learners and the demands of their ever

changing profession.

In an ESP (English for Specific Purposes) reading course, the faculty are required to

make several decisions and choices to develop materials. Sound criteria have to be

determined.

Criteria to consider for materials’ development are numerous and vary from a

focus on learners, through learning, to language, contextual variables, activities

and task types, to the format they may take. To account for them all is beyond the

scope of this paper.

As argued above, any decision has to rely on a clear approach. In this paper, I will

review the theoretical basis for developing reading materials, notably reading

theories and ESP (English for Specific Purposes) perspectives, address key issues

and try to set a conceptual framework, wide enough to cover the varied

dimensions revealed by reading and ESP (English for Specific Purposes) research

but sufficiently coherent and integrated to ensure continuity and relevance in ESP

reading materials for tertiary education students.

1. Underlying Theories and Orientations for Materials Development

1.1. Perspectives of Reading and Teaching Practices

3

Research and assumptions about the reading process have evolved in parallel and

profited from insights of other disciplines, like psychology, education, linguistics,

and information processing. Several marked phases of the reading process and

learning can be differentiated. The phase of “conditioned learning” was shaped

by the principles of behaviourism; the era of natural learning reflected the

perceptions of cognitive theory; the era of information processing was affected by

artificial intelligence research; the era of sociocultural learning was controlled by

social and cultural studies; and finally the present period which accounts for the

hypermedia environment and the student’s motivation (Alexander and Fox,

2004).

1.1.1. Behaviourism and Reading

The first early research on reading is connected with behaviourism and assumes

that reading is a precise bottom-up process which relies on perceptual stimuli,

letter by letter, word by word decoding, and phonic recoding to get meaning.

Learning to read occurs, not as growth or development, but as the learning of a

definite observable set of skills and processes through repeated and controlled

stimulation. Research places emphasis on identifying the subskills, i.e. the

grapho-phonic system (letters and sounds that render them), words, and

grammatical structures required for reading.

Along the same lines, “traditional” ESL/EFL (English as a Second Language

/English as a Foreign language) reading instruction relies on teaching

pronunciation, lists of words and structures. The text is usually short and

controlled and used as a means to illustrate grammatical structures and

vocabulary; meaning is secondary. The reader may not even depend on the text

for meaning but on the teacher who is regarded as the primary source of

information.

1.1.2. Cognitive Theory and Reading

Shaped by cognitive theory and Chomsky’s ideas (i.e. that language has a natural

and rule-governed structure), psycholinguistic models view reading as an inherent

ability which can be developed by exposure in meaningful situations. They also

stress the central role of the reader in the reading process and minimal attention to

visual decoding (Goodman, 1980). Reading is viewed as “a selective process…a

psycholinguistic guessing game” (Goodman, 1972: 16). Teaching reading places

emphasis on prediction, guessing and use of background knowledge instead of

focus on letters and words.

4

Psycholinguistic models, however, like their predecessor show weaknesses

because of their overemphasis on the top-down processing concept and neglect of

the linguistic aspects of the text in meaning construction.

1.1.3. Information processing and Reading

The following phase in reading research is shaped by artificial intelligence and

information- processing perspectives. It has a pervasive impact on reading

understanding and instruction.

The reading models proposed maintain that both bottom-up and top-down

processes operate simultaneously or alternatively and influence each other. The

reader, simultaneously but selectively, utilizes a wide range of sources of

information: visual, lexical, syntactic, semantic and schematic. Both internal

mental workings and textual factors are involved in the reading process.

Interactive models, however, are numerous and differ in the degree of emphasis

placed on defining how processes interact (Rumelhart & McClleland, 1981;

Stanovich, 1980; Perfetti & Roth, 1981).

A further development of the interactive models is schema-theory which tries to

describe how knowledge is represented in the mind and used in comprehending a

text. Schemata are defined as abstract knowledge structures (not the background

knowledge but its structures) which provide frameworks for related concepts and

facilitate the use of this knowledge; they are the building blocks of cognition

(Rumelhart, 1980). The schematic knowledge is divided into formal schemata,

i.e. the background knowledge of the rhetorical organisational structures of texts,

and the content schemata, i.e. the background knowledge of the areas of these

texts (domain –specific and cultural components included).

The schema theoretical model, which presents reading comprehension in general

as an interaction between the reader and the text has resulted in a wide literature on

text description and analysis (e.g. Kintsch & Van Dijk, 1978 and Meyer, 1975),

and a shift in reading pedagogy. Emphasis is placed on teaching strategies (e.g.

predicting, summarizing, mapping, self-questioning, etc.) which help the reader

activate, access and refine her/his knowledge.

Knowledge exists in several forms and interactive dimensions; knowledge of one’s

abilities, beliefs and goals (declarative knowledge), knowledge of strategies

(procedural knowledge), and Conditional knowledge (knowing the conditions under

which one may apply certain actions) (Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1983). Reading

situations and corresponding students’ behaviours are analysed and reported. Lorch

& al (1993) records ten situations of reading distributed into two categories. The

first category, reading for school, includes exam preparation, reading for research,

5

class preparation and reading to learn. The second category, reading by choice,

includes reading to apply, search reading to self-inform, to carry out intellectually

challenging reading, reading for stimulation and light reading. Each situation

combined with the student’s purpose engenders specific cognitive demands,

involvement, depth of reading and strategy use.

ESL/EFL (English as a Second language/ English as a Foreign Language) reading

research embraces the views of a schema interactive reading theory and places

emphasis on the reader and the strategies s/he uses to construct meaning.

Strategies, however, reveal abundance and disparities in definitions and

classifications. Several interacting factors are found to influence effective selection

and use of these strategies, notably, motivation, beliefs, language proficiency and

cultural background. Strategies are “successful” or “unsuccessful” only in relation

to a specific purpose, context, reader and text. Instruction aims at “bridging the gap”

between the author’s and the reader’s schematic worlds through appropriate

strategy use. The reader’s contextual factors, affect and beliefs are accounted for

(Abdallaoui, 2001).

Controversy persists concerning the extent of focus which should be placed on

lower-level processes (e.g. letter, feature, word and syntactic processing).

Supporters argue language skills are critical for developing fluency and

automaticity which EFL readers lack. Opponents fear reading instruction would slip

back to structuralism and be equated with decoding and teaching lists of

vocabulary. EFL/ESL (English as a Second language/ English as a Foreign

Language) reading ability and language proficiency are interrelated but distinctly

different abilities (Abdallaoui, 2001).

A general consensus, however, exists about the benefits of extensive reading in

increasing, among others, readers’ fluency and vocabulary input. Extensive reading

raises other issues for consideration, notably, the nature of the materials used (e.g.

narratives or expository texts, authentic or simplified, literary works, content-area,

or self-selected materials), the vocabulary load, timing, evaluation, etc. Research

findings are not conclusive (Day & Bamford, 1998; Nation, 2001; Gardner, 2004;

Hunt & Beglar, 2005).

1.1.4. Sociocultural Research and Reading

Further change in the perspectives of reading research came with educational, social

and cultural studies which put emphasis on the conception of learning as a

sociocultural experience closely interacting with knowledge.

Knowledge exists in the social and contextual interchanges and no longer in

individual minds, and its conditionality can arise from social and contextual factors

6

(Lantoff, 1999; Scollon, 1999). Gardner (1991) points to the existence of formal

knowledge (“schooled”) and informal knowledge (“unschooled”) and their salience

in learning. In certain circumstances, knowledge is even revealed to negatively

affect learning and obstruct conceptual change through misconceptions and strong

opinion. The specific nature of disciplines (e.g. mathematics versus history) and the

beliefs about the learning of these disciplines are also factors which modify

knowledge (Alexander & Fox, 2004).

Literacy instruction has to be responsive to the sociocultural dimension of the

student’s knowledge to promote learning (Au, 2001, 2002; Gregory, 2002). This is

translated in the form of cultural relevance of educational materials and procedures,

literature instruction, collaborative learning, and learners’ engagement.

This interest in the readers’ engagement has resulted in focus on motivational

factors, notably, goals and interests. Research concludes that there is an interaction

between the readers’ motivation, knowledge, strategies and the text (Guthrie et al,

1996; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Pressly, 2002; Ridgway, 2003; Ozgungor &

Guthrie, 2004; Walter, 2004).

1.1.5. Information and Communication Technologies and Reading

The advent of the new technologies has transformed research on reading and

reading instruction. New approaches and procedures are required to deal with the

non print, non linear and visually complex reading materials. The conception of

literacy has to be redefined and expanded to account for the new demands of the use

of information and communication technologies (ICTs) (Hanson-Smith, 2003).

The new technologies provide enormous facilities to empower learning. They help

develop the ability to construct meaning through the use of multiple sign systems

and reflect on language (Carroll, 1999). The Internet provides a wide pool of

authentic materials of different genres, topics, registers and sources. The learner has

to be equipped with new reading procedures and competencies. Above all, critical

thinking and critical reading skills (i.e. ability to understand, analyse, interpret,

monitor comprehension, evaluate content, discern fallacies and biases, etc.) are

required (Leu et al, 2004; Stapleton, 2005).

In sum, reading comprehension perspectives are wide, complex, and

multidimensional. Reading occurs in a bottom-up, top-down and in an interactive

manner, shaped by several factors: physical, psychological, social, textual, and

technological factors. Instruction aims at developing a fluent, autonomous and

engaged reader, capable of constructing meaning, reflecting on language and

evaluating what s/he is reading. Instruction practices vary from focus on phonics,

7

single words and structures, to a holistic approach which involves text analysis and

use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies.

Several issues, however, are still unanswered, especially in terms of the balance to

be established among the various interacting parameters, and the extent of focus to

place on each. Moreover, knowledge, abilities, motivation and experiences interact

and differ in countless ways, which makes each reading setting as well as its

requirements unique.

1. 2. ESP (English for Specific Purposes) Perspectives

Several abbreviations and labels have been attributed to ESP (English for Specific

Purposes), but it is commonly agreed to divide ESP in two classes; English for

Academic Purposes (EAP) and English for Occupational Purposes, or professional

purposes (EOP). Further groupings of the two main branches and more

abbreviations have been added to reflect the increasing specificity of the

corresponding courses: e.g. English for Science and Technology (EST), English for

Medical Purposes (EMP), English for Business Purposes (EBP)…etc. Of note here

is the distinction made in EAP (English for Academic Purposes) between English

for General Academic Purposes (EGAP) and English for Specific Academic

Purposes (ESAP).

This “splitting-up” of the field generates overlapping and confusion among its

different branches and the programme components to be included. Dudley-Evans &

St John (1998) suggest presenting the whole of English Language Teaching (ELT)

on a continuum which starts with general English courses for beginners to very

specific courses. The course becomes really specific only at the end of the

continuum. Anyway, whatever the groupings proposed, they all have the learners’

specific needs at the centre.

In fact, ESP (English for Specific Purposes) is an approach to language teaching in

which all decisions concerning design, materials and methods are dependent on the

learners’ specific needs. Anchored in Applied linguistics and ELT (English

language Teaching), “ESP is essentially a materials- and teaching-led movement”

(Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998: 19). It has gone through different stages which

correspond to parallel developments in educational pedagogy, linguistics and

language teaching.

1.2.1 Trends in ESP (English for Specific Purposes)

ESP grew as a result of the scientific, technical and economic changes of the 60’s

and the increasing need for learning English. Practitioners, relying on language

teaching and applied linguistics perspectives, worked under pressure to produce

8

teaching materials. They, in turn, enriched the same fields with their new views and

experience. ESP (English for Specific Purposes) has been marked by a continuous

fluctuation between practice and theory. The following trends can be noted:

Learning Needs Analysis, Register Analysis (or language structure), Rhetorical,

Discourse and Genre Analysis, and Skills Analysis.

1.2.1.1. Learning Needs Analysis

“Needs analysis should be the starting point for devising syllabuses, courses,

materials and the kind of teaching and learning that takes place” (Jordan, 1997 :

22). In ESP (English for Specific Purposes), Needs Analysis holds a central place.

Definitions of the concept, however, vary from one study to another, depending

on the perspective and beliefs of the researcher (Abdallaoui & Hadddouchi,

2002).

Closely linked with an ESP (English for Specific Purposes) perspective, the

Target Situation Analysis defines needs in terms of the target needs, or the uses

to which the language will be put (Mackay and Mountford, 1978; Dubin and

Olshtain, 1986).

More comprehensive, Munby’s Communicative Syllabus Design (1978) follows a

sociolinguistic approach. It tries to define “the content of purpose-specific

language programmes”. At the centre of the model is the “communication needs

processor” (CNP) which indicates in great detail “the variables that affect

communication needs”. They are organised into two sets of parameters. The first

set is concerned with the non-linguistic information about the “participant”, the

purposive domain, the setting where the language will be used, and the

instrumentality (the medium, mode and channel of communication). The second

set of parameters provides linguistic data; dialect, level of linguistic proficiency,

communicative events (what the learner will have to do in English) and

communicative key (the manner in which communication needs to be done).

Munby’s work, though complex and difficult to use, marked a turning point in

needs analysis.

Richterich and Chancerel (1980) and Richterich (1983), while still thinking in

terms of the outcome of learning, believe that needs should be defined from the

point of view of the learner who is at the centre of the system. Information about

the learner’s personal resources and the state of her/his language proficiency at

the beginning of the language course is vital. Needs are also viewed as

developing and changing not static. The learner’ needs will be provided by the

learner herself/himself, the teaching establishment and the “utilizing institutions”;

9

which means making compromises among the learner’s resources, the

administrative goals and the social orientation of these institutions.

Hutchinson and Waters (1987) represent another trend, which also focuses on

language needs but recommends a learning-centred approach. Target needs are

composed of “necessities” (what the learner needs to know in order to cope),

“lacks” (what necessities the learner does not know) and finally, “the wants” as

perceived by the learner.

The adherents to the cognitive perspective have a different standpoint.

“The defining of the subject English is in this view primarily not a

matter of language but of non-linguistic content. One might argue

then that the effectiveness of language teaching will depend on what is

being taught, other than the language, that will be recognized by the

learners as a purposeful and relevant extension of their schematic

horizons.” (Widdowson, 1990: 103)

Needs are then defined in terms of processes of learning rather than solely in

terms of end goals and purposes (Nunan, 1988). Emphasis is placed upon the

methods of learning and methodology of teaching. Strategy (or skills, processes)

analysis is one of the areas most favoured in this perspective (see below skills

analysis).

The next trend to be introduced defines needs in terms of affective goals. In fact,

placed within a humanistic theory, this approach considers that the existing

attitudes of learners, their previously acquired experiences, and their affective

engagement with the learning process influence the development of proficiency.

Information about those attitudes and experiences could be of paramount

significance to language classes (Stern, 1992).

Further descriptions of needs refer to “felt” needs and “perceived” needs. Felt

needs are those which learners have whereas perceived needs are teacher- centred

inputs to the planning process. Likewise, a distinction is made between

“subjective” and “objective” needs (Brindley, 1989; Brown, 1995). The first of

these terms refers to the cognitive and affective needs of the learner in the

learning situation. The second term is determined through factual, observable

data related to the situation, the learners, the language to be acquired, the

learners’ present proficiency and skills levels, etc.

10

In sum, needs analysis emerges as a concept difficult to delineate and varies with

the perspective of the researcher. Nevertheless, researchers agree on certain

concepts. First, a distinction is made between the final goals to be reached and

the means or objectives for achieving those goals.

“Goals are a way of putting into words the main purposes and

intended outcomes of your course. If we use the analogy of a

journey, the destination is the goal, the journey is the course”

(Graves, 2000: 75).

The second belief relates to the fact that needs analysis is not static but a flexible

and ongoing process of collecting data about learners’ needs and preferences

(Brown, 1995; Graves, 2000). Finally, the last point professionals agree on

concerns the complexity of needs analysis, and the necessity for curriculum

developers to be aware of the wide range of needs and beliefs underlying them.

Priorities will then be determined depending on the particular specificities of

each context (Brown, 1995; Jordan, 1997; Graves, 2000).

1.2.1.2 Register Analysis

Related to target needs analysis, Register analysis is based on the premise that

specific academic disciplines and professional areas have specific languages

different from the general language. It is shaped by the structural view which

assumes that learning a language means mastering the “building blocks” of the

language, from phoneme to word, to sentence and mastering the rules (the grammar

and structures) that combine them (Richards & Rodgers, 1986).

Early ESP (English for Specific Purposes) practitioners set themselves the task to

analyse specific languages in order to determine their linguistic and functional

properties and provide an input for teaching materials. The research on register

analysis is carried in structural terms and involves quantitative studies about English

for Science and Technology. Frequency counts of grammatical structures and

vocabulary items are provided. ESP (English for Specific Purposes) has become

associated with certain types of vocabulary and grammatical structures like the

passive or the simple present tense, which are reported to characterize scientific

writing.

Nevertheless, research has recognized the difficulty of teaching semi-technical

vocabulary, i.e. partly specific to certain disciplines but used in general English like

“consists of”, “contains”…etc. The idea of a basic specific language common to all

11

scientific disciplines has pervaded and with it the issue of how specialised an ESP

(English for Specific Purposes) course should be.

The materials produced under that perspective are substandard. The passages used

are usually related to a specific discipline, followed by a set of repetitive exercises,

lacking variety. The concentration on vocabulary and grammar is inadequate for

writing a credible textbook on English for Science and Technology (Dudley-Evans

& St John, 1998). Concern for meaning in language learning casts doubts about

register analysis.

1.2.1.3. Rhetorical, Discourse and Genre Analysis

Along with the realisation that language involves more than inventories of

grammatical structures and vocabulary, a broader view of language has emerged

and has given rise to functional, notional and communicative perspectives.

Functions are the communicative purposes for which we use language (e.g.

definitions, dimensions, properties), while notions are the conceptual meanings

(objects, entities, state of affairs, logical relationships, and so on) expressed through

language” (Nunan, 1988: 35).

Analysing language in terms of functions and notions, and starting with the content

of scientific language rather than structures, has been particularly appealing to ESP

(English for Specific Purposes) practitioners. ESP learners would have the

opportunity to know about how scientists use the system and follow new courses

instead of previous remedial courses.

The approach has moved forward to examine the relations between grammatical

items and purpose. Trimble (1985) investigates the rhetorical elements in the

discourse of scientific and technical English. Rhetorical elements are “the process a

writer uses to produce a desired piece of text. This process is basically one of

choosing and organizing information for a specific set of purposes and a specific set

of readers” (p.10).

Further insights have emerged from the field of discourse analysis which has

produced an extensive literature especially on cohesion and coherence,

background/foreground information, given/new, story grammar (the structure of

narratives), text structure (e.g. problem/solution, cause/effect, description,

comparison, recall, etc.) (Abdallaoui, 2001).

Nevertheless, the communicative approach has shaped ESP (English for Specific

Purposes) and focus is placed on analysing the nature of discourse and the abilities

involved in creating it. Teaching scientific and technical English implies teaching

how scientists and technologists use the system instead of presenting a set of

12

isolated functions and notions. In other words, ESP (English for Specific Purposes)

courses should enhance communicative abilities of learners by focusing on “use”

rather than “usage” (or conventional form), and associating teaching the language

with other subjects in the curriculum (Widdowson, 1978).

In the ESP (English for Specific Purposes) classroom, the content-based approach

does not seem to be satisfactory; it raises some doubts related to the mismatch

between the ESP (English for Specific Purposes) the learner’s and the instructor’s

knowledge of the specific domain. A trivialized content can be uninteresting and

frustrating to learners. The other concerns are related to the selection and

sequencing of contents.

The next development is genre analysis. According to Swales (1990):

A genre comprises a class of communicative events, the

members of which share some set of communicative purposes.

These purposes are recognised by the expert members of the

parent discourse community, and thereby constitute the

rationale for the genre. The rationale shapes the schematic

structure of the discourse and influences and constrains choice

and of content and style (p.58).

The assumption underlying genre analysis is that certain categories of discourse

present regular patterns of “moves” or “steps” as they occur. For example, in

research article introductions, genre analysis identifies a set of moves which writers

across disciplines follow to write a research paper. Genre imposes constraints at the

level of discourse structure, whereas register imposes constraints at the level of

vocabulary and grammatical structures.

Genres may include research papers, abstracts, letters of personal reference, news

broadcasts, recipes, political speech, etc. Swales (1990) accepts that content and

formal schemata contribute to recognizing a genre and to producing similar models.

Nevertheless, schema-theory is primarily concerned with the cognitive aspects of

text processing, and relies on “decontextualised” samples of texts. Therefore,

schema theory cannot account for the communicative dimension of genres.

Genre analysis seems to be useful and easily adaptable to the ESP (English for

Specific Purposes) classroom. Moves of a given genre can be identified and used

for materials development. The risk, however, lies in dealing with moves as fixed

“technical” entities and ignoring their communicative aspects. Hyland (2005)

suggests raising students’ consciousness of the nature of conventions used,

highlighting features by comparing texts from different disciplines, i.e. getting

students to become “mini-discourse analysts”.

13

Another evolution of ESP (English for Specific Purposes) is the increasing interest

and analysis of specialised corpora (or electronic text collections). Large and varied

language corpora are being built in different fields and allow researchers to obtain

comprehensive and representative data of language use. Like register analysis,

corpus analysis provides frequency counts of the linguistic properties of a specific

language. Unlike register analysis, however, it uses large samples of language,

which allows more accurate statistics and a deeper insight into the relations existing

among the various rhetorical functions of a text (Flowerdew, 2002).

Corpora analysis has led to a renewed interest in Register analysis and instruction of

form, and with that the risk of focus on the product at the expense of the process.

Nevertheless, by revealing characteristics of discourse, corpora analysis has paved

the way to other perspectives, notably “hedging” or vague language. Hedging is

defined as the practice of expressing statements with “caution” and “diplomatic

deference” to the views of colleagues in academic language. In other words,

hedging is a discoursal resource in expressing uncertainty, scepticism, and open-

mindedness about one’s propositions (Hyland, 1996). The most frequently used

devices are “shields”, i.e. modal verbs expressing possibility, probability;

“approximators”, expressing quantity, degree, frequency, etc.; expressions such as

“I believe”, “to our knowledge”, etc.; “emotionally-charged intensifiers”, such as

extremely interesting, unexpectedly, etc. Foreign language learners should be made

aware of such “hedging techniques”. Consciousness-raising exercises are proposed,

like rewriting exercises and translation (Jordan, 1997).

1.2.1.4. Skills Analysis

Along with a growing interest in processes and learners, the skills approach has

been concerned with what learners do as readers, writers, listeners and speakers.

The focus is on processes rather than language. The approach is particularly useful

when a group of learners is heterogeneous and the decision about language data is

complex.

Three parameters are involved in skills analysis: the study situation (e.g. lecture,

seminar, private study, research, etc.); skills or macro-skills (i.e. reading, writing,

listening and speaking); and sub-skills (or study skills, i.e. the techniques, abilities

or strategies used when reading, writing, or listening).

The integration of skills in a course depends on the learners’ needs and contextual

factors. One or more skills may be needed and may stand in a hierarchical position.

Moreover, the boundaries between skills may be blurred; for example, teaching

reading comprehension may rely on writing or listening and vice versa. It may also

14

share the same sub-skill (e.g. note taking) with another macro-skill (e.g. listening)

(Jordan, 1997).

Study skills, needed by university learners studying in English textbooks, are wide

and can be difficult to specify. Jordan (1997) draws a list of eight situations and

more than fifty study skills which can be used more than once depending on the

target situation. Study skills can vary from reading efficiently, note taking,

summarising, paraphrasing, asking questions, clarifying, to finding and analysing

evidence or preparing for exams. The analysis of the target situation helps defining

the skills needed.

The approach is particularly relevant to EAP (English for Academic Purposes)

learners as it answers immediate needs. The danger, however, is dealing with the

skills in a mechanical manner, transforming the EAP (English for Academic

Purposes) class into a training class. The educational dimension of the EAP class is

necessary for the development of “a general capacity or set of procedures to cope

with a wide range of needs” (Dudley-Evan & St John, 1998: 42).

In sum, ESP (English for Specific Purposes) has gone a long way since it started but

its concerns seem to be constant. Hewings (2002) presents a paper in which he

analyzes the evolution of the field of ESP (English for Specific Purposes) through

the topics covered by the journal of English for Specific Purposes (which was

previously called ESP Journal and which is an established journal in the field)

during a period of 21 years. The following categories are revealed: analysing

discourse, describing a programme or a course, focusing on needs or syllabus

design, dealing with materials or methods, presenting an argument or discussion,

dealing with testing and teacher training. He also notes that the main change that

has occurred through the years is the increasing interest in discourse analysis and

the relative decline in programme descriptions.

The identified categories reflect the focus of ESP (English for Specific Purposes) on

practical matters of teaching. The missing ingredient, however, is focus on the

learner and learning processes. Skills analysis looks into the processes but from an

external position and not from inside, i.e. learning strategies, their interaction with

learners and discipline factors.

1. 2. 2. Issues in ESP (English for Specific Purposes)

ESP research and practices have matured and have influenced ELT (English

Language Teaching) in their focus on meeting learners’ external needs.

Nevertheless, many issues are still controversial, notably authenticity, specificity of

materials, status of the courses.

15

1.2.2.1. Authenticity

Utilising authentic or natural language in the classroom has been one of the points

debated in ESP (English for Specific Purposes) circles. The assumption is that

learners should use language in the classroom in an identical manner as that they

would use in natural circumstances. For example, if a learner is being prepared to

read the literature of a specific discipline, the texts used in the classroom should be

from that literature.

The word “Authentic”, however, is not clear. For some it refers to the language

input only; for others it refers to language input and tasks; and still for others it

includes even the nature of the learners’ engagement. In that sense, some argue that

the concept is illusive (Widdowson, 1990). When a text or a discourse is removed

from its natural context, it is no longer authentic (Graves, 2000). Besides, learners

cannot be engaged with the text in the manner a native or fluent speaker of the

language may do. Others, however, believe that authenticity of materials could be

realized if materials serve both an authentic communicative purpose and a language

learning purpose (Clark, 1987).

The question is debatable and no clear answer has been provided by research.

Nevertheless, the concept of authenticity has made its way in the field of ESP

(English for Specific Purposes) especially that of the text used in the classroom. As

pointed above, authenticity has several degrees and complete authenticity may not

be feasible but authenticity of the text (in the sense the text is originally written for

native or fluent readers, not for language classes) has been widely used and

approved.

In fact, learners have to be exposed to an authentic text for several reasons. A

simplified text has been proved to disrupt the meaning of a text or make it more

complex by reducing its cohesive ties, the continuity and redundancy features

which could help reading for development of ideas. Moreover, an authentic text can

be motivating and challenging especially to tertiary education students. (For more

details see Abdallaoui, 2001).

1.2.2.2. Degree of Specificity of Materials

Another debate which has prevailed in the field of ESP (English for Specific

Purposes) is the degree of specificity of the materials used. The advocates of

specificity argue that different academic disciplines have varying rhetorical

conventions which have to be focused in an ESP course. Exposing learners to the

language of their discipline would make their classes more efficient. Learners’

specific needs have to be accounted for (Swales, 1990; Dudley-Evans & St John,

1998).

16

The opponents argue for a “wide-angle” approach which allows using texts from

other fields than those of the learners. The underlying belief is that a “narrow-

angle” approach may prove demotivating and irrelevant to learners’ needs

(Hutchison &Waters, 1987). Moreover, Learners can handle the complexities of

terminology of their own discipline more than the ESP (English for Specific

Purposes) instructor. As mentioned previously, a trivialisation of content can be

frustrating and time wasting.

The narrow-angle approach can also be restrictive to both learners and instructors.

In fact, learners may need to be exposed to materials from their discipline, know

about its linguistic properties and communicative use, but it may also be valuable to

them to be exposed to a variety of patterns and genres of core academic English

used across disciplines. Moreover, in academic settings, disciplines overlap in

diverse and countless ways. It would be unfeasible for an ESP (English for Specific

Purposes) course to expose learners to samples of all the language they may need in

real contexts.

Certainly, a compromise between common core Academic English and Specific

English has to be established, otherwise ESP would have no reason to exist. Yet, it

should be remembered to sort out the confusion occurring between the goal (“the

destination” or the language learners should be capable of dealing with once they

have finished their ESP (English for Specific Purposes) classes) and the means (the

course, or what they have to do to learn to use the language naturally).

Whatever the approach employed, it should aim at developing the learner’s capacity

to cope once the course is finished. The ultimate aim is an autonomous critical

learner, capable of solving problems as they arise in authentic situations.

1.2.2.3. Training versus Education

Since the beginning, ESP (English for Specific Purposes) has been characterised by

focus on end product, not process and has been expected to be “in the service” of

other disciplines. The concept “in the service” has created both openings and

difficulties to the field.

Dealing with other disciplines gives ESP (English for Specific Purposes) different

prospects from the parent field ELT (English Language Teaching). ESP has

contributed to and profited from research in register and discourse analysis; it has

acquired new knowledge about methods and activities of the disciplines it “serves”

and, in turn, has influenced them by its insights and pedagogy (Swales, 1990).

17

As an example, the insights about the workings of academic language provided by

genre analysis profit not only to the language learners but also to both the academia

and native speakers. In the same vein, study skills are moving from the “technique”

to the “critical thinking” concept which helps the learner develop a methodology

and an intellectual capacity valuable, not only in language learning, but to academic

performance in general.

The other side of the story, however, does not present equally positive prospects.

Being “in the service” of other disciplines may lead to thinking that the course

involves training learners in some techniques which do not, in a certain way, belong

to the academic realm; anyone mastering the language can teach it. It is just a

matter of knowing the vocabulary and grammar. Some non- language specialists

think it is their duty to provide language instructors with indications about how to

teach-even the language, while others feel the EAP (English for Academic

Purposes) instructor is intruding on their field.

The result is that the discipline is sometimes believed to be of lower status. This

may be translated in giving it low priority in facilities of research and further

education, in resources, time allocation, and cooperation with non-language

specialists.

As shown and argued throughout this paper, several factors are intertwined in

teaching a language, be it general or specific. It is not just a question of making lists

of objectives, materials and techniques to obtain an end- product. It is about

education. Teaching a language implies taking decisions and making choices at all

levels: linguistic, conceptual, psychological, sociocultural, ethical, etc. In an

academic setting, where learners are adults of certain intellectual abilities and

expectations, the factors involved take higher dimensions (see introduction).

The faculty have to be accountable, measure up to those expectations, and be

granted the opportunity to develop academically and professionally. They should

also respect students as citizens having rights and duties. The students, who should

show responsible and positive attitudes towards their learning, have the right to

have worthwhile challenging and enriching courses.

The courses should be accorded a status equal to that of other subjects, and be dealt

with as distinct entities involved in education, not training; yet an essential part of

the institution’s educational scheme.

2. Principles from Theory to Guide Reading Materials Development

18

Drawing from reading theory and ESP (English for Specific Purposes) orientations,

a list of the main principles, which will form the basis for developing a framework

for reading materials, will be established.

2.1. Principles from Reading Theory

Reading comprehension is an interactive process which involves

communication between the reader and the author.

Reading involves Knowledge. Knowledge is complex and is

shaped by wide parameters: physical, cognitive, psychological,

sociocultural, technological, etc.

Reading instruction aims at learners’ engagement and

development, not only the mastery of skills.

Text is linear, knowledge is not. Reading involves both text and

knowledge. Balance needed between lower-level language skills

and higher-level processing skills.

Readers’ strategies help activate and access knowledge.

2.2. Principles from ESP (English for Specific Purposes) Orientations

ESP (English for Specific Purposes) is multidisciplinary: it

involves language learning, applied linguistics, related specific

disciplines insights, etc.

Language is not a set of isolated grammatical items, vocabulary

and functions. Language is a whole based on meaning and

communication.

The goals to be attained are different from the content of the

course.

Language provided should reflect learners’ needs, interest and

aspirations.

Skills should be focused on to engage learners in their learning.

2.3. Principles from Both Perspectives

Reading and language instruction aim at learners’ development,

not training.

Reading comprehension and language learning are not just a

matter of linguistic knowledge.

Reading comprehension and language learning are

communicative and involve bridging the gap between two

schematic worlds.

Need for integration of balance between language skills and other

processing procedures.

19

Materials have to be responsive to the parameters interacting in

reading and language learning: cognitive, linguistic, psychological,

social, affective, etc.

The reader and the specific language learner are central to their

learning and have to participate in that learning.

Materials should account for learners’ needs and promote learners’

responsibility and their capacity of learning how to learn.

3. Reading Materials Development

Once the approach, or principles, is elicited, the next step will be making decisions

about Materials’ selection. First, however, a definition of materials as used in this

paper will be provided.

3.1. Defining Terms

The definition of materials for language teaching differs from one researcher to

another. For some, materials refer to “any systematic description of the

techniques and exercises to be used in classroom teaching” (Brown, 1995: 139).

Such definition is wide as it includes lesson plans as well as books, packets of

audiovisual aids, games, or any other types of activities that go on in the language

classroom. A similar definition, but more limited, refers to “materials” as “units

and lessons within those units to carry out the goals and objectives of the course”

(Graves, 2000: 149).

In turn, techniques, activities and exercises used in a language classroom are not

clear-cut. It is widely affirmed that the lines between techniques, activities,

exercises and the form in which they are presented are often blurred (Brown, 1995;

Graves, 2000; and Jordan, 1997).

In the case of a reading comprehension course, the text used and the related

exercises play an important role in implementing the objectives of the course.

Therefore, “reading materials” here refer to any written text, virtual or paper-

based, and the activities or exercises which could help in the teaching and

learning of reading comprehension in an ESAP (English for Specific Academic

Purposes) course.

3.2. Text selection

At this stage, and in agreement with the principles mentioned above, decisions

concerning the text selection will have to be made and criteria to be determined.

3.2.1. Learning Needs

20

The first factor to take into account, however, is the learning and learners’ needs. As

noted above, learners are at the centre and their interests guide choices.

Nevertheless, learners’ interests may be disparate and at times in mismatch with the

learning goals or approach (e.g. a learner may prefer to focus on formal grammar

rules, whereas the course relies on a communicative approach), with those of other

learners or with the institution’s goals. In that case, the various needs should be

elicited, and choices made accordingly. Most of the time, compromises have to be

reached, with the interests of the whole group in the foreground. Discussion and

negotiation can be valuable. (See Abdallaoui & Haddouchi, 2002, for more details

about ESI students’ needs analysis).

The second stage will be defining criteria for selecting texts. These are of two types:

textual features and content. The boundaries between the two types are fine, as it is

the case, for instance, of “authenticity”, “density”, but this dichotomy is utilized for

study purposes.

3.2.2. Textual features

They include instructional appropriateness, authenticity, organisation, density, and

cohesion.

Instructional appropriateness refers here to the linguistic level of the text which

should be neither exceedingly difficult nor desperately easy. The text structure,

genre of the text should be varied and yet representative of those students have to

handle in their specific field of study. For example, for information science

students, it would be more appropriate to choose an expository text, having a

problem- solution, or a comparative structure rather than fiction, though the latter

can be introduced in small doses in special circumstances, or for extensive reading.

Authenticity refers to the fact that texts (as defined above in section 1.2.2.), have

not been specially written for language classes. They focus on meaning, are

relevant to learners’ needs, and serve some genuine communicative purpose.

Learners deal with these texts as readers first and as language learners next.

Authentic texts can prove challenging and valuable for adult tertiary students as a

“controlled” transition from the classroom language to real language in a real

environment.

Sometimes, however, these texts are complex. Prepared texts may be used and be

supplemented with authentic texts on the same topic. Reading across texts can

eventually activate and develop the learner’s schemata, facilitate understanding and

focus on meaning (Abdallaoui, 2001).

21

Organisation (purpose and arrangement of information in a text), density (the

number of new ideas and vocabulary contained in a text) and cohesion (the way

information is tied together from sentence to sentence, paragraph to paragraph) are

other textual features which contribute to determining the readability level of a text.

Singer & Donlan (1989) determine the readability level of a text by estimating its

“friendliness” against a long inventory they supply. For a text to be “reader

friendly”, it

Should be well organised, consistent, and coherent. It should have

examples that activate and make contact with students’ prior

knowledge and experience, have an appropriate level of conceptual

density, and define terms as they appear... (Singer and Donlan,

1989: 144)

Nevertheless, lack of organisation, cohesion, density, etc. if they occur could be

exploited through the guidance of the instructor. The learner will have the

opportunity to discover more about authentic discourse, think about and grasp the

workings of the system.

3.2.3. Content of the Text

The factors related to content are instructional appropriateness, value, conceptual

level, novelty and variety.

Instructional appropriateness is used here in terms of topic, ethical dimension of

the content, and responsiveness to the learner’s culture and expectations. For

example, giving to Moroccan adult students decontextualised excerpts from

speeches of George W. Bush would be highly controversial. The instructor may

have the good intention of presenting a sample of the American way of thinking,

but many issues can arise. First, there are concerns about the instructor’s political

knowledge and ability to handle such a topic in a tertiary level classroom, in an

international and a Moroccan context particularly sensitive. Second, students may

perceive such a text as propaganda for a certain ideology; others may experience it

as an intrusion on their privacy if they are reluctant to expose their political views.

Last, presenting such topics needs providing alternative views or opportunities for

students to reflect and make choices.

The cultural content of the text has also to be scrutinized. In fact, one of the

principles drawn from the theory reviewed above is that learning a language and

reading involve bridging gaps between two schematic worlds, which of course

includes cultural schemata. Cultural knowledge has been found to affect reading

comprehension more than the level of semantic and syntactic complexity, and

second or foreign language learners are necessarily culture learners (Abdallaoui,

2001). Yet, teaching culture within a language class in a foreign context is not

22

without hurdles. In the case of ESAP (English for Specific Academic Purposes)

students, awareness-raising of foreign cultural dimensions in academic discourse is

necessary, but the materials and activities employed should be relevant and should

consider the learner’s cultural identity and beliefs, otherwise resentment and

subsequent failure will take place.

Value refers to the quality of the content in terms of relevance, intellectual

challenge and enrichment. For example, damping on tertiary level Information

Science students texts on “horoscope” or “sleeping positions” could be irrelevant

or insulting to some, trivial and time-wasting to others. Some students may have

fun, participate at the moment, but apart from the vocabulary they may encounter,

no genuine intellectual purpose or challenge are engaged. What matters is not

simply “seducing” students into learning but really motivating them.

Too often judgements about materials are based on considerations

of interest and enjoyment. These are important factors in

achieving learner engagement but it is possible for learners to

enjoy using materials without learning very much from them and it

is also possible to learn a lot from materials which are not

particularly interesting or enjoyable to use (Tomlinson, 1998:

263).

In addition, and as argued above, selecting texts for the sheer manipulation of the

linguistic items they contain is widely contested by reading instruction

specialists.

A text also has value when its source is known. For both deontological and

practical purposes, all texts should be referenced in an ESAP (English for Specific

Academic Purposes) course. Information about the author of the text, the wider

social, ideological, or scientific context provides the reader with a framework

which could activate existing schemata, facilitate understanding and prevent false

attributions. Take the previous example of the excerpts attributed to George W.

Bush. If the text is not referenced, its content can be false, yet students may be led

to believe the opposite because of the “sanctity” of the classroom. Actually, with

the advent of the internet, and the facility of text dissemination, it is imperative to

raise students’ awareness of such contextual aspects of the text.

The conceptual level of a text refers to the complexity of the introduced

concepts. Unfortunately, there are no scales to measure the conceptual difficulty

of a text except the instructor’s common sense and knowledge of the students’

level. Nevertheless, in an ESAP (English for Specific Academic Purposes)

situation, texts could be provided by the specific disciplines’ instructors or by the

students themselves, which ensures a familiarity with the concepts, and

subsequently leads to an increased involvement and performance. When the

23

students have acquired a sufficient control over their reading, more texts of varied

schemata than the familiar ones can be introduced.

Complexity, grading and sequencing of the text are dealt with in terms of degree

of familiarity with the text, not difficulty of the language or length of the text.

Language instructors, however, have to be knowledgeable about the content they

present, otherwise they may lose credibility.

Novelty and variety of the materials are essential in engaging students in learning

and in meeting varied learning needs. Moreover, novelty and variety permit a

certain level of authenticity to occur. In the real world, texts are read for the

novelty of their contents, be it information, an argument, a report or a complaint.

In a real context, texts are also varied, in terms of topics, discourse, and genres.

Classrooms should try to provide representative samples of the target situation in

which the foreign language may be used.

In some situations, where English is a foreign not a second

language, the ESP classroom may be almost the only source of

English. Materials then play a crucial role in exposing learners to

the language, which implies that the materials need to present real

language, as is used, and the full range that learners require.

(Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998: 171).

3.3. Activities and Exercises Selection

Once the text is selected, the next stage will be eliciting activities and exercises

which encourage students’ active processing and analysis of the text. Here as well

criteria have to be considered. The determined reading and language learning

perspectives are the guiding lines.

First activities and exercises should meet the learners’ needs. Second, they should

promote learners’ active engagement, awareness, autonomy and critical reading.

Last, textual aspects (organisation, cohesion, genres, hedging, grammatical cues,

etc.) are to be considered in terms of their role in building meaning.

The activities and exercises will have to consider the learners’ purposes for reading

and types of reading. In fact, activities should provide the learner with an

opportunity to reproduce real world interaction with the text. In the real world, the

learner may need to read in English in a specific context (e.g. library or home in

front of a computer) for a certain purpose (e.g. obtaining information, understanding

a notion or a theory, verifying the reliability of a statement, etc.). In reading

instruction, the different purposes for reading of the learner should be specified (see

section 1.2.1.4. above). Exercises and activities should be devised accordingly and

should help the learner succeed in his/her enterprise. For example, if the purpose of

24

reading a given text is to obtain information, using scanning as an activity would be

adequate. If on the other hand, the purpose of reading is to understand a theory,

note-taking, using background knowledge, summarising, or diagram/table

construction would be more appropriate.

Closely linked to the above, the second criterion is related to the nature of the

activities and exercises. They should permit learners to actively engage in the

process of reading rather than simply test the outcome of that reading. For example,

exercises will consist of leading the learner to contextualise the text (i.e. find about

the author, the social/ historical, academic context, check the degree of certitude of

content by verifying references, quotations, etc.), discover the hidden message of

the author, or express personal reaction to the text, etc.

Critical thinking procedures would be valuable. In fact tertiary level learners can

profit from activities and exercises for raising awareness about the nature of

arguments in academic discourse, the difference between factual information and

opinion, controversiality, common fallacies (like hasty generalisations, false cause,

fallacies of evidence, false analogies, etc.), consistencey, recency, relevance, etc.

(For more details about Critical thinking, see Inch & Warnick, 2002).

Third, activities and exercises should help readers use strategies to learn how to

cope, monitor their reading and be autonomous. Strategies can be taught through

awareness-raising of their appropriateness in certain contexts and for specific

purposes, or through modelling, etc. Strategies are numerous and can vary from

predicting, scanning, skimming, guessing word’s meaning to finding the main idea,

summarising, making grammatical analysis or consulting external documents, (For

further details about EFL reading strategies see Abdallaoui, 2001).

Last, activities and exercises should consider distinctive structures and linguistic

features of the text and raise learners’ awareness of the role of these features in

conveying meaning. The features concerned, whether vocabulary, cohesive cues

(e.g. reference within a text, tense agreement, etc) or overall text organisation

should be contextualised and their meanings explicated. If tenses are dealt with, for

instance, their role in meaning making should be stressed. Similarly, when dealing

with adverbials (e.g. possibly, perhaps, ultimately, etc.), or modal auxiliaries (may,

might, should, etc.), emphasis should be put on their role in the interpretations we

make of the text. In a way, students will be involved in analysing discourse. Ideas

from research on hedging could be pertinent.

In sum, in a similar way to the text selected, exercises and activities should be

relevant to learners, meaningful and purposive.

25

To enhance learning, materials must involve learners in thinking

about and using the language. The activities need to stimulate

cognitive not mechanical processes (Dudley-Evans & St John,

1998: 171).

Conclusion

ESP (English for Specific Academic Purposes) has always been designed as

materials-led, as being practical in its approach, serving the immediate needs of

the learners. Yet, throughout this paper, materials development for an ESAP

(English for Specific Academic Purposes) reading course has been shown to rely

on decision- making, which itself relies on beliefs. Beliefs are grounded in theory.

If the theoretical background is not clear, the outcome will lack coherence,

continuity and efficiency. Writing materials for an ESAP (English for Specific

Academic Purposes) reading course also requires of the faculty (usually the

materials’ providers) to have, besides their linguistic proficiency and knowledge

of applied linguistics, other academic capacities and qualities, notably,

knowledge of the requirements of the context in which they work, ethical

behaviour, responsibility, integrity and the capacity to secure students’ rights for

respect and for challenging and enriching courses. ESAP (English for Specific

Academic Purposes) classes are involved in education, not training, and seek the

learner development.

The framework proposed for reading materials development is based on a set of

principles drawn from reading theory and ESP (English for Specific Purposes)

perspectives. These regard reading and language instruction as requiring more

than simple linguistic knowledge. They involve bridging the gap between the

reader’s and the author’s schemata, which implicates an interaction among

several parameters; physical, cognitive, social, linguistic, and affective. Reading

materials should account for these dimensions, try to respond to learners’ needs

and aim at actively engaging them in reading. Striking a balance between the

materials’ pertinence and their suitability to the learners’ cultural and ideological

background is a challenging task especially in a world context and an Arab

country where sensitivities are high.

26

REFERENCES

Abdallaoui Maan, N. 2001. Reading Strategies of Learners of English as a Foreign

Language. Rabat: Ecole Des Sciences de L’Information.

Abdallaoui Maan, N. and F. Haddouchi, 2002. “Needs Analysis for English Classes at Ecole

des Sciences de l’Information”. In Revue de la Science de l’Information, n.12.

Alexander P.A. & E. Fox, 2004 “A historical Perspective on Reading Research and Practice”

in R.B. Ruddell & N.J. Unran, (Eds) Theoretical Models and Processes of reading (5th ed.),

Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Au, K.H. 2001. “Culturally Responsive Instruction as a Dimension of New Literacies. In Reading

Online, 5(1) www.readingonline.org

Au, K.H, 2002, “Multicultural factors and the effective Instruction of Students of Diverse

Backgrounds” in A.E. Farstrup & S. Samuels (Eds), What Research Has to Say About Reading

Instruction, Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Brindley, G. 1989. “The Role of Needs Analysis in Adult ESL Programme Design” in R.K.

Johnson (Ed). The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, J.D. 1995. The Elements of Language Curriculum. Boston: Heinle & Heinle

Publishers.

Carroll, M. 1999. “Dancing on the Keyboard: A Theoretical Basis for the Use of Computers in

the Classroom”. In Reading Online, www.readingonline.org

Clark, J.L., 1987. Curriculum Renewal in School Foreign Language Learning. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Day, R. & J. Bamford, 1998. Extensive Reading in the Second Language Classroom.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dubin, F. and E. Olshtain, 1986. Course Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dudley-Evans, T & M.J. St John (1998). Developments in ESP. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Flowerdew, L., 2002. “Corpus-based Analysis in EAP”. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.) Academic

Discourse. London: Longman.

Gardner, D. 2004. “Vocabulary Input Through Extensive Reading: A Comparison of Words

Found in Children’ Narrative and Expository Reading Materials”. In Applied Linguistics, 25/1: 1-

37.

Gardner, H. 1991. The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach.

New York: Basic Books

Goodman, K. S., 1972, “reading: A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game”. In L.A. Harris and

C.B. Smith (Eds), Individualising Reading Instruction: A Reader. London: Rinehart and

Winston, Inc.

Goodman, K.S. and Y.M. Goodman. (1980). “Learning to Read is Natural”. In L.B. Resnick

& P.A. Weaver (Eds). Theory and Practice of Early Reading (Vol.1, pp. 137-154). Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Graves, K. 2000, Designing Language Courses: A Guide for Teachers. Boston: Heinle &

Heinle Publishers.

Gregory, E. 2002 “Getting to know Strangers: a Sociocultural Approach to Reading, Language,

and Literacy”, IRA Multilanguage Literacy Symposium, July 2002, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Guthrie, J.T. et al, 1996. « Growth of Literacy Engagement: Changes in Motivations and

Strategies During Concept-oriented Reading Instruction”. In Reading Research Quarterly, 31/3,

306-332.

Guthrie, J.T. and A. Wigfield, 2000. “Engagement and Motivation in Reading.” In M.L. Kamil,

P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol.3), Mahwah,

NJ: Erlbaum.

27

Hanson-Smith, E. 2003. “Reading Electronically: Challenges and Responses to the Reading

Puzzle in Technologically- Enhanced Environments). In The Reading Matrix, 13/3.

Hewings, M. 2002. “A History of ESP through ‘English for Specific Purposes’; In ESP World,

3/1. http://www.esp-world.info/

Hinkel, E. (Ed) 1999, Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press).

Hunt, A. & D. Beglar, 2005. “A Framework for Developing EFL Reading Vocabulary”. In

Reading in a Foreign Language, 17/1: 23-59.

Hutchinson, T. & A. Waters, 1987. English for Specific Purposes: A learning-Centred

Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. 2005. “Perspectives on EAP”. In ELT Journal, 59/1: 57-64

Inch E.S. & B. Warnick 2002. Critical Thinking and Communication. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Jordan, R.R. 1997.English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kintsch, W. and T.A. Van Dijk, 1978. “Toward a Model of Text Comprehension and

Production.” In Psychological Review. 85/5: 363-368;

Lantoff, J.P. 1999, “Second Culture Acquisition, Cognitive Considerations”. In Hinkel, E. (ed)

1999, Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press).

Leu, D.J. et al, 2004. “Toward a Theory of New Literacies Emerging From the Internet and Other

Information and Communication Technologies”. In R.B. Ruddell & N.J. Unran, (Eds)

Theoretical Models and Processes of reading (5th ed.), Newark, DE: International Reading

Association.

Lorch, R.F., E.P. Lorch and M.A. Klusewitz, 1993, “College Students’ Conditional Knowledge

about Reading” in Journal of Educational Psychology, 85/2,239-252)

Mackay, R. and A. Mountford, 1978. “The Teaching of English for Specific Purposes:

Theory and Practice”. In Mackay, R & A. Mountford (Eds), English for Specific Purposes,

London: Longman.

Meyer, B. 1975. The Organisation of Prose and its Effects on Memory. Amsterdam: North

Holland

Munby, J.L. 1978. Communicative Syllabus Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nation, P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Nunan, D. 1988. Syllabus Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ozgungor, S. and J.T. Guthrie, 2004. “Interactions among Elaborative Interrogation,

Knowledge, and Interest in the Process of Constructing Knowledge from Text”. In Journal of

Educational Psychology, 96/3: 437-443.

Paris S.G., M.Y. Lipson and K.K. Wixson, 1983. “Becoming a Strategic Reader”. In

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8: 293-316.

Perfetti, C.A. and S. Roth, 1981. “Some of the Interactive Processes in reading and Their

Role in Reading Skill”. In A.M. Lesgold. & C.A. Perfetti (Eds) Interactive Processes in

Reading. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pressly, M. 2002. “Metacognition and Self-Regulated Comprehension”. In A.E. Farstrup, & S.

Samuels (Eds), What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction, Newark, DE: International

Reading Association.

Richards, J. & T. Rodgers, 1986. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Richterich, R. and J.L. Chancerel. 1980. Identifying the Needs of Adults Learning a Foreign

Language. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Richterich, R. (Ed) 1983. Case Studies in Identifying Language Needs. Oxford: Pergamon

Press.

28

Ridgway, T. 2003. “L1 and L2 Reading and Transferability: The Importance of Styles and

Attitudes”. In Reading in a Foreign Language, 15/2: 117-129.

Rumelhart, D.E. 1980; 3Schemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition”. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce

and W. Brewer (Eds). Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension. New Jersey: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Rumelhart, D. E. and J.L. McClelland, 1981. “Interactive Processing Through Spreading

Activation”. In A.M. Lesgold, & C.A. Perfetti (Eds). Interactive Processes in Reading. New

Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Scollon, S. 1999, “Not to waste Words or Students” in Hinkel, E. (Ed) 1999, Culture in Second

Language Teaching and Learning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Singer, H. and D. Donlan, 1989 (2nd Ed). Reading and Learning from Text. New-Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stanovich, K.E. 1980. “Toward an Interactive Compensatory Model of Individual Differences

in the Development of Reading Fluency.” In Reading Research Quarterly. 16/1: 32-71.

Stapleton, P. 2005. “Evaluating Web-Sources: Internet Literacy and L2 Academic Writing”. In

ELT Journal, 59/2, 135-143.

Stern, H. H. 1992. Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Swales, J. 1990. Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tomlinson, B. 1998. Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Trimble, L. 1985. English for Science and Technology. A Discourse Approach. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Walter, C. 2004. “Transfer of Reading Comprehension Skills to L2 is linked to Mental

Representations of Text and to L2 Working Memory”. In Applied Linguistics, 25/3: 315-339.

Widdowson, H. G. 1978. Teaching Language a Communication. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Widdowson, H.G. 1990. Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

29