1

In the Name of God

The Research Project

Title:

The Importance of Whole Language Approach in Teaching English to

Intermediate Iranian EFL Learners

Developed by:

Javad Nabizadeh Moghadam

Azad University of Torbat Heydariye, Iran

S.M. Reza Adel

Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran

Islamic Azad University

Torbat-e-Heydariyeh Branch

English Department

July, 2011

2

Table of Content

Title Page

Abstract

Chapter 1: Introducing the Research Project 5

1.1. Introduction 6

1.2. Statement of the problem 6

1.3. The purpose and significance of the study 7

1.4. Research questions and hypotheses 7

1.5. Operational definition of terms 8

Chapter 2: Literature Review 12

2.1. Segregated vs. integrated approach 12

2.2. Content-based language instruction 14

2.3. Task-based language learning and teaching 18

2.4. Rationale for task-based language teaching 20

2.5. Task definition(s) 22

2.6. Task types, task variables and task dimensions 24

2.7. Perspectives to task-based learning 25

2.8. The future for task-based learning 30

Chapter 3: Research Methodology 33

3.1. Method 34

3.1.1. Participants 34

3.1.2. Apparatus 34

3.1.3. Procedure 35

Chapter 4: Results 36

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 47

5.1. Discussion & Conclusion 48

3

5.3. Pedagogical Implication 50

5. 4. Shortcoming of the Study & Suggestions for Further Studies 50

REFRENCES

APPENDICES

4

Abstract

The main objective of this study is to emphasize on whole language approach developing

mainly the two primary skills of reading and writing in varying degrees and combinations.

Based on a language proficiency test, out of 150 senior EFL learners from Azad University of

Torbat Heydariye, 90 were chosen and defined as intermediate learners. Two expository reading

and writing tests were taken and the results were compared with four reading and four writing

scores which were defined as their general reading and writing scores. The results were

analyzed using the SPSS software and some correlation and ANOVA analyses were run. The

correlation coefficients along with the scatter plot matrix showed strong, weak and in some

cases partial correlations among the scales. The results of the post hoc tests of the repeated

measures of ANOVA and the pairwise comparison of the measures also showed that the EFL

learners performed almost equally well on the skills of reading and writing, but with expository

writing and expository reading texts the performance was quite different. The concept of

language proficiency was reconsidered in respect to the integrative approach‟s principles and

some pedagogical implications in the field of language teaching were suggested.

5

CHAPTER 1

Introducing the Research Project

6

1.1. Introduction

If the aim of language teaching and learning is to develop learners‟ communicative

competence, a whole language approach whereby all the skills are treated in a more interrelated

way, should be at the heart of L2 classes and, whenever possible, they should be integrated as

happens in actual language use. Teaching language as communication calls for an approach

which brings linguistic skills and communicative abilities into close association with each other.

One way to obtain this association is by using an integrated approach which gives the students

greater motivation that converts to better retention of all the principles related to language

learning (speaking, listening, reading, and writing).

1.2. Statement of the Problem

This study seeks to answer the question of whether skills being taught are used in

isolation or integrated with other skills. The segregation of skills in an EFL context may be a

big problem leading to the lack of competence in EFL learners. As Oxford (1990, pp. 5-6)

maintains, “acquiring a new language necessarily involves developing the four primary skills of

listening, reading, speaking and writing in varying degrees and combinations. These four skills

also include associated skills, such as knowledge of vocabulary, spelling, pronunciation, syntax,

meaning, and usage”. Thus, the skill strand of the tapestry, as Oxford put it, can lead to

effective EFL communication when all the skills are interwoven during instruction. If these

language skills are effectively interwoven, EFL students are likely to become communicatively

competent. According to Brown (2000, p. 218), “the richness of integrated-skill courses gives

EFL students greater motivation that converts to better retention of principles of effective

speaking, listening, reading, and writing”. Cunningsworth states that “in the actual language

use, one skill is rarely used in isolation. Numerous communicative situations in real life involve

integrating two or more of the four skills. The user of the language exercises his abilities in two

or more skills, either simultaneously or in close succession” (1984, p. 46).

7

1.3. The Purpose and significance of the Study

We have taken reading and writing skills as the main concern of this study to see whether

they have been treated as integrated or segregated. The reason for the inclusion of these two

skills as the main concern of this study is that research has supported the view that

developments in reading and writing are closely connected (Tierney & Pearson, 1983; Tierney,

Söter, O‟Flahavan, & McGinley (1984); Tierney & Shanahan (1991). The correlation and

regression analyses of the results could also help the researchers to predict the strength and

direction of such connections.

This study may help language teachers to revisit and revise their syllabus in terms of the

skills whether they teach them interwoven with other skills or there are sometimes a mismatch

between these skills. The study may shed some light on syllabus designers and policy makers to

design textbooks with a task-based view which hinder the segregation of skills.

1.4. Research questions & hypotheses

The previous scores of a senior group of TEFL students in their reading and writing

courses have been collected and defined as general reading and writing test scores. These have

been compared with the scores in what we have defined as expository reading and writing test

scores (see Method). Based on the results and the literature review, which will follow, the

following hypotheses and questions run as:

Research questions:

1. Do Iranian intermediate EFL learners‟ scores in their reading (reading 1, reading 2,

reading 3, and simple prose) and writing skills (grammar 1, grammar 2, advanced grammar, and

essay writing) have any correlations in themselves?

2. Do Iranian intermediate EFL learners‟ scores in their general reading and general writing

skills have any correlations in themselves?

3. Do Iranian intermediate EFL learners‟ scores in expository reading and writing tests

correlate with their general reading and writing scores?

4. Do Iranian intermediate EFL learners perform equally well on general reading,

expository reading, general writing and expository writing tests?

8

Hypotheses:

1. Iranian intermediate EFL learners‟ scores in reading and writing skills have correlations

2. Iranian intermediate EFL learners‟ scores in general reading and writing skills have

correlations

3. Iranian intermediate EFL learners‟ scores in expository reading and writing tests do not

correlate with their general reading and writing scores

4. Iranian intermediate EFL learners do not perform equally well on general reading,

expository reading, general writing and expository writing tests

1.5. Operational Definition of Terms

Whole Language Approach:

A holistic philosophy of reading instruction which gained momentum during the 1970s,

'80s, and early '90s. Emphasizes the use of authentic text, reading for meaning, the integration

of all language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening), and context. Whole language is

natural language within a given context and in relation to a given situation. Isolated bits of

language used for exercise rather than for real communication are not natural language.

Language which is not a unit, which does not have a sensible beginning and ending, and which

does not serve to communicate within a meaningful context for a given purpose is not whole

language (Oxford, 2006).

Reading:

'Reading' is a complex cognitive process of decoding symbols for the intention of

constructing or deriving meaning (reading comprehension). It is the mastery of basic cognitive

processes to the point where they are automatic so that attention is freed for the analysis of

meaning. Reading is a means of language acquisition, of communication, and of sharing

information and ideas. Like all language, it is a complex interaction between the text and the

reader which is shaped by the reader‟s prior knowledge, experiences, attitude, and language

community which is culturally and socially situated. The reading process requires continuous

9

practices, development, and refinement. For many years, three basic definitions of reading have

driven literacy programs in the United States (Foertsch, 1998). According to the first definition,

learning to read means learning to pronounce words. According to the second definition,

learning to read means learning to identify words and get their meaning. According to the third

definition, learning to read means learning to bring meaning to a text in order to get meaning

from it. Although these definitions reflect long-standing views of reading, current literacy

research supports a more comprehensive definition of reading. This new definition includes all

of the above definitions and places learning skills in the context of authentic reading and

writing activities. It recognizes the importance of skill instruction as one piece of the reading

process (Allington & Cunningham, 1996; International Reading Association & National

Association for the Education of Young Children, 1998; Maryland State Department of

Education, n.d.; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).

Writing

Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium through the use of a set of

signs or symbols (known as a writing system) (Bright and Daniels, 1996). Writing skills are

specific abilities which help writers put their thoughts into words in a meaningful form and to

mentally interact with the message. For the process oriented professionals and researchers,

writing is a product of a person‟s search for meaning. Zamel (1982) points out that writers go

through the process where meaning is created because writers seem to start off the process not

knowing what they are going to say at all.

Intermediate level of English language proficiency

Students who receive this rating are able to use common, basic English in routine

academic activities but need considerable English-language support to make learning

understandable. Socially, these students are able to communicate simply about familiar topics

and are generally able to understand conversations but may not comprehend all the details.

10

Intermediate listeners usually understand simple or routine directions as well as short, simple

conversations and discussions on familiar topics. They frequently understand only part of what

they hear and seek clarification by requesting the speaker to repeat, slow down, or rephrase

speech.

Intermediate speakers know enough English to speak in a simple manner using basic

vocabulary. They are able to participate in short conversations and speak in sentences, though

they may hesitate frequently and for long periods to think of how to communicate their intended

meaning.

Intermediate readers are able to understand short connected texts on familiar topics but tend to

interpret English very literally and have difficulty following story lines that have a surprise

twist or nonstandard format. Because their English vocabulary consists mainly of high-

frequency words, they rely heavily on prior knowledge of a topic for comprehension and need

the support of pictures that illustrate meaning.

Intermediate writers have a limited ability to use the English language to build writing skills

and a limited ability to address grade-appropriate writing tasks in English. They frequently

exhibit features of their primary language when expressing themselves in English and are

sometimes unable to be understood by individuals not accustomed to English language learners

(TELPAS, 2011).

11

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE

REVIEW

12

2. Literature Review

In what follows, the related literature on the importance of integrated approach in general

and the content-based language instruction and task-based language instruction in particular, as

the two forms of integrated approach, will be discussed.

Tapestry is the metaphorical image suggested by Oxford (2001) for teaching English as a

second or foreign language (ESL/EFL). The tapestry is woven from many strands, such as the

characteristics of the teacher, the learner, the setting, and the relevant languages. In addition to

the four strands, she notes, one of the most crucial of these strands consists of the four primary

skills of listening, reading, speaking, and writing. The skill strand of the tapestry leads to

optimal ESL/EFL communication when the skills are interwoven during instruction. This is

known as the integrated-skill approach or whole language approach. If this weaving together

does not occur, the strand consists merely of discrete, segregated skills. This is sometimes

known as the segregated-skill approach.

2.1. Segregated Vs. Integrated Approach

In the segregated-skill approach, the mastery of discrete language skills such as reading

and speaking is seen as the key to successful learning, and language learning is typically

separate from content learning (Mohan, 1986). Segregated-skill-oriented courses “have

language itself as the focus of instruction to the extent that excessive emphasis on rules and

paradigms teaches students a lot about language at the expense of teaching language itself”

(Brown, 2000, p. 218). Frequently, segregated-skill ESL/EFL classes present instruction in

terms of skill-linked learning strategies: reading strategies, listening strategies, speaking

strategies, and writing strategies (Peregoy & Boyle, 2001).

The philosophy of integrated-skills instruction is based on the concept that in natural,

day-to-day experience, oral and written languages are not kept separate and isolated from one

another. Instead, they often occur together, integrated in specific communication events

(Peregoy & Boyle, 2001). According to Finocchiaro and Bonomo (1973), a good teacher

recognizes the importance of integrating discrete language skills in the communicative

situations, which simulate or duplicate the real life situations in which students will need to use

13

the foreign language. According to Oxford, Lavine and Crookall (1989), Savignon (1991) and

Larsen-Freeman (2000), the principles of CLT emphasize the importance of using a language to

communicate in order to learn it. Hymes (1971) stresses that being able to communicate

requires more than linguistic competence; it requires communicative competence. Whole

language advocates, such as Goodman (1986), Weaver (1990), Edelsky, Altwerger & Flores

(1991), Schwarzer (2001), and Brooks-Harper and Shelton (2003), state that language (oral and

written) functions to serve authentic purposes by facilitating meaningful communication. In the

language learning process, listening, speaking, reading, and writing should be treated as

integrated, interdependent, and inseparable elements of language. No language process should

be separated from the whole teaching task. Harste, Woodward, and Burke (1984) explain that

each time someone reads, writes, speaks, or listens, this language encounter feeds into a

common data pool. In subsequent encounters with language, the person can draw on this pool.

Rather than assuming that speaking, listening, reading, and writing should be kept separate,

they stress that all expressions of language support growth and development in literacy. Weaver

(1990) explains that when children engage in the complex processes of reading, writing,

discussing, and thinking, they simultaneously develop language and literacy, learning about and

through these processes. Krashen (1993) found that reading exposure or reading for genuine

interest with a focus on meaning provides language learners with written comprehensible input

similar to oral comprehensible input. He argues that reading contributes to second language

acquisition in the same way as listening does, and proposes that reading contributes to

competence in writing just as listening helps develop the ability to speak. Peregoy and Boyle

(2001) conclude that the teacher should incorporate opportunities throughout the reading for

students to develop their own learning by responding verbally as they read, write, and learn in

English, because it is the integrated use of oral and written language for functional and

meaningful purposes that best promotes the full development of second language proficiency.

These researchers suggest that reading and writing as well as speaking and listening should be

integral parts of all language classroom activities because all these processes interact with one

another.

14

There are at least two forms of instruction that are clearly oriented toward integrating the

skills (Oxford, 2001). They are Content-Based Language Instruction (CBLI) and Task-Based

Language Instruction (TBLI).

2.2. Content-Based Language Instruction

CBLI bases its rationale on the premise that students can effectively obtain both language

and subject matter knowledge by receiving content input in the target language. Although it has

been recently recognized by authors such as Rodgers as “one of the Communicative Language

Teaching spin-off approaches” (2001, p. 2), some authors contemplate the paradigm within an

even wider perspective. According to Stryker and Leaver (1997, pp.3-5), for instance, CBLI “is

a truly and holistic approach to foreign language education … (which) can be at once a

philosophical orientation, a methodological system, a syllabus design for a single course, or a

framework for an entire program of instruction”.

Brinton, Snow and Wesche (1989, p. 2) define CBI as “the integration of particular

content with language teaching aims, or as the concurrent teaching of academic subject matter

and second language skills.” In CBLI approaches, the second language is the medium to convey

informational content of interest and relevance to the learner, rather than the immediate object

of study. According to Eskey (1997, pp. 139-40) “for every piece of content recognized, there is

a discourse community which somehow provides us with the means to analyze, talk about, and

write about that content”. Hence, the task for EFL instructors in CBLI is to acculturate students

to the specific discourse communities.

Documentation on the original foundations of the paradigm can be found from the late

eighties in the pioneering works by Mohan (1986), Cantoni-Harvey (1987), Crandall (1987),

Benesch (1988), and Brinton et al. (1989) among others. Despite its short lived presence in the

foreign language teaching arena, now, at the beginning of the twenty first century, there exists a

more than abundant literature recently published both in the form of books (Short, 1991;

Krueger and Ryan, 1993; Snow and Brinton, 1997; Fruhauf, Coyle, and Christ, 1996; Stryker

and Leaver, 1997; Marsh and Langé, 1999, 2000; Kasper, 2000a; Haley, 2002, among others),

and articles in refereed journals (Crandall, 1994, 2006; Short, 1993, 1994; Gaffield-Vile, 1996;

15

Kasper, 1995, 1997; Sagliano and Greenfield, 1998; Snow, 1998; Pally and Bailey, 1999;

Dupuy, 2000, among many others).

Research in second language acquisition (SLA) also offers support for CBLI; empirical

research findings provide evidence that language learning becomes more concrete. For instance,

Genesee (1994) contends that the integration of language and content in instruction respects the

specificity of functional language, i.e. students can realize that meaning changes depending

upon context, and the fact that more sophisticated language is learned within a framework that

focuses on complex, authentic context. Oxford (2001, p. 2) maintains that CBLI is “indeed

valuable at all levels of proficiency, although the nature of the content may differ according to

proficiency level”.

On the whole, CBI allows for the integration of language skills, as CBLI is aimed at the

development of use-oriented second and foreign language skills and is distinguished by the

learning of a specific content and related language use skills (Brinton et al., 1989). As the

structure of CBLI classes is dictated by the nature of the subject matter, students are likely to

get involved with all the language skills as the instructors have the students reading, discussing,

solving problems, analyzing data, writing reports, etc. Thus, students practice all the language

skills in a highly integrated communicative fashion while learning content, such as science,

math, and social studies.

According to Brinton et al. (1989) and Scarcella & Oxford (1992), at least three general

models of content-based language instruction exist: theme-based (TB), adjunct, and sheltered.

“In a theme-based course, the content is exploited and its use is maximized for the teaching of

skill areas” (Brinton et al., 1989, p. 26). The TB model integrates the language skills into the

study of a theme (e.g., urban violence, cross-cultural differences in marriage practices, natural

wonders of the world, or a broad topic such as change). The theme must be very interesting to

students and must allow a wide variety of language skills to be practiced, always in the service

of communicating about the theme. This is the most useful and widespread form of content-

based instruction today and it is found in many innovative ESL and EFL textbooks.

TB courses do have explicit language aims which are usually more important than the

content learning objectives. In the continuum that Brinton et al. (1989) distinguish between

16

what they call weak and strong forms of CBLI, TB courses would constitute the weakest

representation of CBLI models. According to this pattern, weaker forms would include

language courses whose main aim is to develop learners‟ communicative proficiency, whereas

stronger versions would integrate content courses for L2 speakers in non-language disciplines,

in which the primary goal is mastery of the subject matter. Suggestions for designing theme-

based units are provided in Gianelli (1997) and Stoller and Grabe (1997) and Stoller (2004).

Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 24, 261-283. . References to successful TB courses or programs are numerous.

Lafayette and Buscaglia (1985) report on a study of a fourth semester theme-based course in

French civilization which was conducted in French at Indiana University in the U.S.

Comparison with students enrolled in a regular fourth-semester section revealed that the

students in the content course made significant gains in listening, speaking, and writing;

students in the traditional course made significant gains in listening and writing. In addition, the

experimental (theme-based) group reported more positive attitudes toward the study of French.

Giauque (1987) described a theme-based French course in Greek mythology for third-

year university students at Northern Arizona University in the U.S. In this course, students read

authentic texts, listened to lectures and took notes in French, participated in discussions, and

wrote papers and exams in French, and they were rewarded with general education credit in the

humanities and in the language. Klahn (1997), for instance, provides a detailed review of a

course for advanced learners of Spanish centered on „Contemporary Mexican Topics‟

developed for the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) of Columbia University

(New York, US). The course was interdisciplinary in nature and scope for, as the author writes,

“students who took the course were graduate students studying for a master's degree at SIPA,

Ph.D. students in history, political science, or anthropology, graduate students in Columbia

Teachers College, law students, journalism students, and other advanced undergraduate students

who met the entrance requirements” (Klahn 1997, p. 205).

The adjunct model aims at connecting a specially designed language course with a

regular academic course. Adjunct courses are taught to students who are simultaneously

enrolled in the regular content course, but who lack the necessary competence to follow the

17

course successfully unless some additional aid is provided. The adjunct courses work therefore

as support classes for regular subject matter courses, and offer excellent opportunities to

develop the academic strategies necessary to cope with real academic content. Detailed

examples of the implementation of the model are provided, among others, in Flowerdew (1993)

for teaching biology at a university in the Middle East, and in Iancu (1997) for teaching history

and sociology at the George Fox University in Oregon (US).

In the sheltered model, the subject matter is taught in simplified English tailored to

students‟ English proficiency level “A sheltered content-based course is taught in a second

language by a content specialist to a group of learners who have been segregated or „sheltered‟

from native speakers” (Brinton et al., 1989, p. 15). The term „sheltered‟ derives from the

model‟s deliberate separation of second language students from native speakers of the target

language for the purpose of content instruction. Studies of this model at the University of

Ottawa showed strong student gains in both subject matter and second language skills. These

gains were equal to or better than those of comparison groups taking the course in their first

language and students in regular French and ESL classes (Edwards, Wesche, Krashen, Clement,

& Kruidenier, 1984; Hauptmann, Wesche & Ready, 1988). In the sheltered subject-matter

instruction, the class is commonly taught by a content instructor, not a language teacher; this

content instructor, however, has to be sensitized to the students‟ language needs and abilities,

and has to be familiarized with the traits of the language acquisition process. Nevertheless,

some authors mention the possibility that the instructor may be a language teacher with subject

matter knowledge, or an instructor working collaboratively with a language specialist and a

content specialist (Gaffield-Vile, 1996).

Stoller & Grabe (1997) argue that “practically all instruction is theme-based” (p. 7). They

argue that sheltered and adjunct instruction are “not alternatives to theme-based instruction

[but] rather...two methods for carrying out theme-based instruction. For this reason, [they] see

the two terms, content-based instruction and theme-based instruction, as interchangeable” (p. 7).

Despite the perceived differences in their orientation and immediate aims, all the models

described share the view of language as a medium for learning content, and content as a

resource for learning language.

18

2.3. Task-based language learning and teaching

As pointed out before, the second form of instruction that is clearly oriented toward

integrating the skills is task based language instruction (Oxford, 2001). Task-based activities

such as team work or presentations replicate real world activities, bringing the functions of

language and communication to the forefront.Prabhu1 used a task-based approach with

secondary school classes in Bangalore, India, on his Communicational Teaching Project,

beginning in 1979. American Government Language Institutions switched to task-based

instruction (TBI) for foreign languages for adults in the early 1980s. So why are people making

this change to TBL?

It is often because they realize that most language learners taught by methods that

emphasize mastery of grammar do not achieve an acceptable level of competency in the target

language. Language learning in the classroom is usually based on the belief that language is a

system of wordings governed by a grammar and a lexicon. However it is more productive to see

language primarily as a meaning system. Halliday‟s (1975) description of his young son‟s

acquisition of his first language is significantly entitled Learning How to Mean. We need to

recognize that learners are also striving to mean. In the process of these strivings they are

prompted to develop a lexico-grammar that will enable them to realize the meanings they want.

Without this incentive they are much less likely to develop a usable language system.

Furthermore, it is commonly accepted that it is the process of struggling to communicate that

stimulates language development. However, even so-called meaning-based, „communicative‟

syllabuses, such as functional, situational, thematic or content syllabuses, are often no more

effective than structural syllabuses in achieving satisfactory results when delivered via a

presentation methodology.

Apart from highly gifted and motivated students, most learners working within a

structure-based approach fail to attain a usable level of fluency and proficiency in the second

language (L2) even after years of instruction (Skehan, 1996b: 18). In India, Prabhu (1987: 11)

notes that the structure-based courses required „a good deal of remedial re-teaching which, in

turn, led to similarly unsatisfactory results‟, with school leavers unable to deploy the English

they had been taught, even though many could form grammatically correct sentences in the

19

classroom. American Government Language Institutions found that with task-based instruction

and authentic materials, learners made far more rapid progress and were able to use their new

foreign language in real-world circumstances with a reasonable level of efficiency after quite

short courses. They were able to operate an effective meaning system, i.e. to express what they

wanted to say, even though their grammar and lexis were often far from perfect (Leaver and

Kaplan, 2004).

There are several types of form-based instruction, but in Europe, as well as other

countries like Brazil, there is one established approach to second language teaching which is

well established and difficult to shake. Commonly referred to as PPP, this advocates three

stages for teaching new language: presentation, practice and production. Presentation often

focuses on a single point of grammar, or the realization of a function, usually presented

explicitly in a context. This stage is assumed to develop an understanding of the language point

in the learner. Presentation is followed by controlled practice, presumed to enable learners to

use and automatize the newly grasped rule or pattern. At the production stage, often called the

„free stage‟, the learner is expected to reproduce the target language more spontaneously and

flexibly, for example in a communication task or a role-play activity.

But as J. Willis (1996a: 135) points out: The irony is that the goal of the final P – free

production – is often not achieved. How can production be free if students are required to

produce forms that have been specified in advance?

As many practitioners have noticed, one of two things happens at this production stage:

either learners „conform‟ to teachers‟ wishes (Willis, D. 1996a) and focus primarily on form,

making sentences with the new item (paramount to continuing with the second Practice stage)

or they focus primarily on meaning and often accomplish the task successfully without

incorporating the new item at all. Interestingly, the latter situation provides an excellent

argument for TBL: why not then start with the task, let learners deploy whatever language they

have already, and look for ways of building on that, of improving and expanding on their

current language capabilities (Willis. D., 2003). This is a far more positive proposition.

So far we have looked at aspects of teaching. But what about language learning?

Grammar-based (structural) approaches have also been criticized in that they are not based on

20

sound theoretical background or empirical evidence. PPP is based on the assumption that

students will learn what is taught in the same order in which it was taught, but there is no

evidence that this happens (Skehan, 1996b: 18). Indeed, second language acquisition (SLA)

research has shown that teaching does not determine the way the learners‟ language will

develop. Insights obtained from SLA research show that the strategies and cognitive processes

employed by learners are largely independent of the way learners are taught. Therefore, the

rationale that teaching a particular grammar point leads to learning no longer carries much

credibility. Instead, the current view posits that language learning is largely determined by

learner‟s internal, rather than external, factors. For instance, Skehan (1996a: 18) points out that:

The contemporary view of language development is that learning is constrained by

internal processes. Learners do not simply acquire the language to which they are exposed,

however carefully that the exposure may be orchestrated by the teacher. It is not simply a matter

of converting input into output.

According to this view learning is promoted by activating acquisition processes in

learners. What is needed, therefore, is an approach to L2 learning and teaching that provides a

context that activates these processes.

2.4. Rationale for task-based language teaching

Task-based language teaching (TBLT) proposes the use of tasks as a central component

in the language classroom because they provide better contexts for activating learner acquisition

processes and promoting L2 learning. TBLT is thus based on a theory of language learning

rather than a theory of language structure. Richards and Rodgers (2001: 228) suggest that this is

because „tasks are believed to foster processes of negotiation, modification, rephrasing, and

experimentation that are at the heart of second language learning.‟

What are, then, the basic assumptions of TBLT? Feez (1998: 17) summarizes these as

follows:

The focus of instruction is on process rather than product.

Basic elements are purposeful activities and tasks that emphasize communication and meaning.

21

Learners learn language by interacting communicatively and purposefully while engaged in

meaningful activities and tasks.

Activities and tasks can be either:

those that learners might need to achieve in real life;

those that have a pedagogical purpose specific to the classroom.

Activities and tasks of a task-based syllabus can be sequenced according to difficulty.

The difficulty of a task depends on a range of factors including the previous experience of the

learner, the complexity of the tasks, and the degree of support available. (Richards and Rodgers,

2001: 224.)

TBLT initially emphasized fluency in communication at the expense of other aspects of

language like accuracy and complexity (as did Krashen and Terrell‟s 1983 Natural Approach,

and Prabhu‟s (1987) arguments against an explicit focus on grammar). It was thought that the

ability to use the L2 (knowing how) would develop automatically, hence the experiments with

immersion classes in Canada (Swain 1988), where English-speaking children were educated in

French-speaking schools to allow them to acquire French naturally. However, it was found that

they needed to be encouraged to focus on various points of grammar to achieve the level of

accuracy required.

So this position was challenged; a focus on form and grammar is now seen as essential

for efficient learning and effective communication. For example, Nunan (1989a: 13) states that

„there is value in language activities which require learners to focus on form [and that] grammar

is an essential resource in using language communicatively.‟ Several papers in this volume also

emphasize the importance of focus on form for language learning (see, e.g., Loumpourdi,

Chapter 2; Moser, Chapter 7; Johnston, Chapter 15).

Indeed, TBLT with a focus on form (in the context of meaning) is gathering support from

SLA research. Long and Robinson (1998), in particular, stress the importance of focus on form

for L2 learning by drawing students‟ attention to linguistic elements, not as discrete items

presented to the learner, but as they arise in a meaningful classroom context. Long and

22

Robinson define focus on form as „consisting of an occasional shift of attention to linguistic

code features … triggered by perceived problems with comprehension or production‟ (1998, p.

23). Focus on form (manifestations of which include consciousness-raising, form-focused

instruction, or form-focused intervention) can also incorporate the modified conversational

interactions intended to achieve message comprehensibility by drawing students‟ attention to

relationships of L2 form, meaning, and function (Pica, 2001).

In fact, it is now widely accepted that learning partly depends on learners‟ ability to

attend to the relevant language features (Harley, 1998), to restructure knowledge (Dekeyser,

1998), to focus on form when learners notice a „hole‟ or gap in their interlanguage. The term

interlanguage refers to the underlying language system used by the second/foreign language

learner at any particular stage in the process of learning the target foreign language (Doughty &

Williams, 1998). Learning may also depend on the extent to which noticing is learner-initiated

(Long & Robinson, 1998). In other words, all these researchers hold the view that drawing

learners‟ attention to the formal properties of the L2 is also important for language learning, but

only if it is done while maintaining emphasis on meaning, communication and fluency. This

assumption constitutes one of the basic premises of task-based language teaching.

2.5. Task definition(s)

Before we proceed to look at the different perspectives and research findings pertaining

to task-based learning, we must first specify as clearly as possible what we mean by „task‟. In

her introduction, Jane Willis offers six broad characteristics of tasks, but there is no single

definition for „task‟. Ellis (2003, pp. 2–9), for example, offers nine sample definitions. This is

because the study and description of task has been approached from different perspectives and

for different purposes.

Second language acquisition researchers describe tasks in terms of their usefulness for

collecting data and eliciting samples of learners‟ language for research purposes. For example,

Bialystok (1983, p. 103) suggests that a communication task must (a) stimulate real

communicative exchange, (b) provide incentive for the L2 speaker/learner to convey

information, (c) provide control for the information items required for investigation and (d)

23

fulfill the needs to be used for the goals of the experiment. Similarly, Pica (1989) argues that

tasks should be developed in such a way to „meet criteria for information control, information

flow and goals of the study.‟

Others look at tasks from a purely classroom interaction perspective. Some definitions of

a classroom task are very specific. For instance, J. Willis (1996b, p. 53) defines a classroom

task as „a goal-oriented activity in which learners use language to achieve a real outcome.‟

Willis also suggests that language use in tasks is likely to reflect language use in the outside

world. Other definitions are more general. Nunan‟s (1989a) is one of the most commonly cited

pedagogical definitions of a classroom task.

Nunan proposes that a communication task „is a piece of classroom work which involves

learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing, or interacting in the target language while

their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form (Nunan, 1989a, p. 10).

Long & Crookes (1991) argue that in addition to being meaning-oriented, classroom

tasks must also have a clear relationship with real-world contexts of language use and language

need.

Skehan (1996a, p. 20) views classroom and L2 research tasks as „activities which have

meaning as their primary focus. Success in the task is evaluated in terms of achievement of an

outcome, and tasks generally bear some resemblance to real-life language use‟. Ellis (2003, p.

9–10) lists six „criterial features of a task‟. He mentions all the aspects listed by Skehan above,

and also includes the concept of task as a „workplan for learner activity‟, which „requires

learners to employ cognitive processes‟, and „can involve any of the four language skills‟.

While there is no clear agreement on what should constitute an overarching definition of

a task, a consensus seems to be emerging over the central characteristics, in particular for

pedagogic (as opposed to purely research) tasks.

A language learning task is

an activity

that has a non-linguistic purpose or goal

with a clear outcome

24

and that uses any or all of the four language skills in its accomplishment

by conveying meaning in a way that reflects real-world language use

2.6. Task types, task variables and task dimensions

When designing or selecting tasks for use in the language classroom teachers have a

number of choices to make in terms of the type of task, the conditions under which students

complete the task, and other task properties. Some of these options will be more effective than

others. Classroom research into tasks often aims to find out the effects of specific task

properties. Ellis (2000, p. 194) states that „information about significant task variables acquired

through research can assist teachers in deciding what tasks to use and when‟. In other words,

findings of research into the study of tasks can provide teachers with insights that enable them

to make language teaching more effective.

Task types can be identified in a number of ways. For example, Nunan (1989a) suggests

two broad categories: real-world tasks (such as using the telephone) and pedagogic tasks (such

as information gap activities). These can be further subdivided into other categories, by

language function (e.g. giving instructions, apologizing, making suggestions), or by cognitive

processes or knowledge hierarchies (e.g. listing, ordering and sorting, problem solving, being

creative (J. Willis, 1996a). Others might classify tasks by topic, by the language skills required

for completion, or by whether the outcome is closed or open (sometimes called divergent and

convergent tasks (Long, 1989). Pica, Kanagy and Falodun (1993) take as their starting point the

type of interaction that occurs during task completion, e.g. one-way or two-way information

flow, resulting in five types: jigsaw tasks, information gaps, problem-solving, decision-making,

opinion exchange. Distinguishing different task types is important, as it allows researchers to

investigate which types most effectively promote learning.

In addition to task types, there are also a number of task variables that can be studied.

These include task characteristics such as whether the task is structured (e.g. by providing a

series of prompts to direct the interaction, thus assisting task completion), cognitive difficulty

and familiarity of the task (including the amount of previous practice of the task-type or

25

repetition of the same or similar tasks). The conditions under which tasks are performed can

also be adjusted. Interlocutor familiarity, whether the interlocutor is a native or non-native

speaker, planning time and performance conditions (e.g. public or private) are all examples

(Wigglesworth, 2001, p. 186 ).

A slightly different way of looking at task characteristics is to see these in terms of a

number variable, interacting groups of factors. Robinson (2001, p. 287) proposes three such

groups of factors, which together constitute a set of criteria that can be adopted to design tasks

with progressively increasing demands. The resulting triadic framework can also be used for

designing research into task characteristics. Robinson distinguishes „task complexity (the task

dependent and proactively manipulable cognitive demands of tasks)‟ such as planning and

reasoning demands, from „task difficulty (dependent on learner factors such as aptitude,

confidence, motivation, etc.) and task conditions (the interactive demands of tasks)‟, such as

familiarity of participants and whether tasks require one-way or two-way information flow.

These three groups of factors „interact to influence task performance, and learning‟ (2001, pp.

293–4). Furthermore, the factors that contribute to task complexity are represented by Robinson

as dimensions, or in some cases, continuums, „along which relatively more of a feature is

present or absent‟ (2001, pp. 293–4). For example, narratives may range from simple to

complex, topics from familiar to unfamiliar, and tasks may be completed under variable time

limits.

2.7. Perspectives to task-based learning

Researchers have approached task-based learning differently and from different

perspectives. Some researchers have examined tasks from an interaction perspective, others

from an output perspective, others from a cognitive perspective, and still others from a socio-

cultural perspective. This section will briefly summarize the main perspectives of studies of task

based learning along with their rationales and their main research findings.

26

2.7.1 The interaction hypothesis perspective

According to the interaction hypothesis, negotiation of meaning provides learners with

opportunities for both the provision of comprehensible input and the production of modified

output. These are both believed to be necessary for language development. In particular, Long

(1983b, 1996) argues that exchange of information gives learners the opportunity to receive

feedback on the level of their comprehension in the L2. This results in negotiated modification

of conversation which renders the subsequent interaction more understandable, i.e. it becomes

comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985). Long further argues that negotiation serves to draw

learners‟ attention to linguistic form as they attempt to produce the target language. This

attention to linguistic form is believed to be necessary for L2 learning because it creates a

favorable context for the negotiation of meaning that „serves as the means by which learners‟

„data needs‟ can be effectively met‟ (Ellis, 2000, p. 199). Tasks can stimulate negotiation of

meaning and thus, it is argued, can provide the conditions necessary for language development

to occur.

Research working in this paradigm has sought to identify how the different task types,

variables and dimensions may affect the negotiation of meaning, interlanguage modification

and feedback to learner output (Pica, Kanagy & Falodun, 1993), and on occasions has been able

to demonstrate that negotiation does indeed appear to promote L2 acquisition (e.g. Ellis, Tanaka

& Yamazaki, 1994).

Ellis (2003, p. 79–83) goes into more detail on the interaction hypothesis and negotiation

of meaning, and also offers some challenging criticism of this. However, some principles of the

interaction hypothesis have been shown to be effective not just with adults and older learners,

but with children and younger learners as well.

2.7.2. The output hypothesis perspective

The output hypothesis posits that learner output (i.e. the language a learner produces)

must be considered not just a sign of acquired knowledge (Krashen, 1985), but also a sign of

learning at work (Swain, 1998, 2000). That is, output is not just a product of acquisition that has

already taken place or a means by which to practice one‟s language for greater fluency, but

27

rather it plays a potentially important role in the acquisition process (Izumi, 2002; Swain, 1998,

2000). Swain, in particular, argues that output „forces‟ learners to move from semantic analysis

of the target language to a more syntactic analysis of it, to test out hypotheses about the target

language, and to reflect consciously on the language they are producing (Swain, 1998, p. 79). In

so doing, learners notice a gap between what they can say and what they want to say, which

prompts them to stretch their current interlanguage capacity in order to fill the gap, „enabling

them to control and internalize linguistic knowledge‟ (Swain, 1995, p. 126). The language

produced as a result of this stretched interlanguage is referred to by Swain as „pushed output‟.

Thus, it is argued that „the importance of output in learning may be construed in terms of the

learners‟ active deployment of their cognitive resources. In other words, output requirement

presents learners with unique opportunities to process language that may not be decisively

necessary for simple comprehension‟ (Izumi, 2002, p. 545).

Research conducted within this theoretical framework has examined, amongst other

things, how the different task-types and dimensions can have an impact on the negotiation of

meaning, negotiation of form, and opportunities for learners‟ production of

modified/comprehensible output. Researchers have been able to demonstrate that task-type does

provide learners with varied opportunities toward modified output (e.g. Iwashita, 1999; Pica,

Holliday, Lewis & Morgenthaler, 1989; Swain, 1997; Swain & Lapkin, 1998). Iwashita (1999)

for example, found that one-way tasks provided learners with greater opportunities to modify

their output toward comprehensibility than two-way tasks. Similarly, Shehadeh (1999) found

that a picture-description task (one-way task) provided significantly greater opportunities than

an opinion-exchange task (two-way task) toward modified output.

Similarly, in a series of studies Swain and her colleagues (e.g. Swain & Lapkin, 1998)

have demonstrated that students were able to solve linguistic problems jointly by negotiating

target language forms during the process of achieving a communicative task goal, by

determining which form to use in order best to convey their message accurately and coherently

Further, it was also found that the solutions reached during collaborative dialogues were

retained in the learners‟ interlanguage system (Swain, 1997). These findings can be interpreted

as meaning that if learners‟ production of modified output was found to be integral to successful

28

L2 learning (as suggested by Swain, 1998; Swain & Lapkin, 1995), the different task-types,

variables and dimensions would have varying effects on the progress and development of the

learners‟ L2 development because they have varying effects on the opportunities for the

learners‟ negotiation of meaning, negotiation of form and learners‟ output modifications.

2.7.3. Skehan’s cognitive perspective

Skehan (1998) distinguishes between three aspects of learner performance: fluency,

accuracy and complexity. Fluency refers to the learner‟s capacity to communicate in real time,

accuracy to the ability of the learner to use the target language according to its norms, and

complexity to the learners‟ ability to use more elaborate and complex target language structures.

Skehan argues that these three aspects of performance can be influenced by engaging learners in

different types of production and communication. So, for example, if we want to promote

fluency in the learner, we should get the learner engaged in meaning-oriented tasks; conversely,

if we want to promote accuracy or complexity in the learner, we should get him/her involved in

more form focused tasks.

What must be done, then, is to discover what task-types, variables and dimensions

promote fluency, accuracy or complexity in L2 learners and use these accordingly. Based on his

„cognitive‟ approach framework and findings from previous experimental studies, Skehan

(1998, p. 129) proposes the following five principles that constitute a model for task-based

instruction:

1. Choose a range of target structures.

2. Choose tasks which meet the utility criterion (Utility: „where the use of a particular

structure would help the efficiency of the completion of the task, but could be avoided through

the use of alternative structures or perhaps through the use of communication strategies

(Skehan, 1998, p. 122)‟).

3. Select and sequence tasks to achieve balanced goal development.

4. Maximize the chances of focus on form through attentional manipulation.

5. Use cycles of accountability („draw learners into consciously engaging in cycles of

evaluation‟; Skehan, 1998, p. 122). Skehan argues that these principles meet criteria that relate

29

to both effective communication (fluency and accuracy) and to facilitating progress and

development of the L2 (complexity): „These [principles] … offer some prospects for the

systematic development of underlying interlanguage and effective communicative performance‟

(Skehan, 1998, p.129).

2.7.4. The socio-cultural perspective

Unlike the perspectives illustrated above, socio-cultural theory proposes that learners

collaboratively construct knowledge as a joint activity. Activities that learners engage in are co-

constructed according to the learners‟ socio-cultural history and the locally determined goals of

these activities. It has been argued that such co-construction of knowledge engages learners in

cognitive processes that are implicated in L2 learning (Lantolf, 1996).

This perspective, originally inspired by the works of Vygotsky (1987), looks at how tasks

are jointly accomplished by learners, and how the process of accomplishing a task can

contribute to L2 learning. According to Vygotsky, dialogic interaction is an important trigger

for language learning. Vygotsky argues that external, social activities in which the learner

participates are the main source of mental/cognitive activities. When individuals interact with

other people, their cognitive processes awaken. These processes, which occur on the inter-

psychological (or social) plane, are believed to include both cognitive development and

language development. Vygotsky further argues that this language development moves from the

social plane to the individual‟s internal mental plane on the assumption that what originates in

the social (inter psychological) sphere will eventually be represented internally, or

„intrapsychologically‟, that is, within the individual. In other words, individual learners

ultimately internalize language by participating in dialogue with others, and one way to achieve

this in the language classroom is through the joint completion of tasks.

Research into dialogic interaction has shown that this enables learners jointly to perform

tasks and solve linguistic problems that lie beyond their individual abilities. For example,

Donato (1994) demonstrated that learners were able to produce jointly a particular grammatical

construction which was beyond their individual abilities. He also provided evidence to suggest

that language learning was actually taking place during these dialogic interactions. Similarly,

30

Swain (1997) found that learners in collaborative dialogues, which aimed at solving a certain

linguistic point, were able to achieve what none of them was able to achieve individually, and

that the solutions students reached during such dialogues were retained in their interlanguage

system. Hence, it is assumed that social interaction mediates learning, as explained by Ellis

(2000, p. 209): „learners first succeed in performing a new function with the assistance of

another person and then internalize this function so that they can perform it unassisted,‟ a

process often referred to as scaffolding. As explained above, research has indeed shown that

there is a strong tendency for learners to „stick with‟ the knowledge they had constructed

collaboratively (jointly) on previous occasions (LaPierre, 1994; Swain 1998).

The socio-cultural position looks at how learners approach and perform the task rather

than at the inherent properties of the individual tasks. This is because research has shown that

the same task can be performed differently by different learners (and sometimes by the same

learners but on different occasions), depending on the learners‟ interpretation of and approach

to the task (Coughlan & Duff, 1994; Swain & Lapkin, 1998). Learners set their own goals,

procedures and the way they collaborate in performing a certain task or activity. So, tasks here

are considered to be internally rather than externally defined because learners to a large extent

construct for themselves the activity they are engaged in.

2.8. The future for task-based learning

The persistence of grammar-based instruction in many teaching contexts in the world,

despite its relative failure to produce effective language users, is partly due to the fact that it

creates conditions where teachers feel secure as they can predict the language that will be

needed and they feel comfortable in their roles as knowers. This goes for teacher training, too.

According to Skehan (1998, p. 94) grammar-based instruction „has had an excellent relationship

with teacher training and teachers‟ feelings of professionalism. It is comforting and places the

teacher firmly in the proceedings‟. It also „lends itself to accountability, since it generates clear

tangible goals, precise syllabuses, and a comfortingly itemizable basis for the evaluation of

effectiveness‟. The difficulty in abandoning grammar-based instruction is also in part due to the

31

lack of a clear alternative framework, „a framework which will translate into classroom

organization, teacher training, and accountability and assessment‟ (Skehan 1998, p. 94).

Armed with insights from SLA research findings and cognitive psychology, nevertheless,

attempts are being made at effecting a transition from grammar-based to task-based instruction

not just by researchers (e.g. Bygate, Skehan & Swain, 2001, Ellis, 2000, 2003; Skehan, 1998,

2003), but also by language teachers and practitioners.

A half-way step would be what Ellis (2003) terms „task-supported learning‟, where tasks

are used alongside other more conventional methods, for example to supplement the text book.

Attempts are also being made to develop task-based frameworks into a fully-fledged approach

to language teaching. Ellis (2003) describes various ways this can be done, and proposes a

modular syllabus: beginners start with a purely task-based module, consisting of a range of

tasks (linguistically unfocused) to help them acquire naturally as much lexis and grammar as

possible; later a separate code-based module is gradually introduced, using focused tasks and

explicit grammar teaching, to draw attention to grammar and lexical refinements that learners

may not have noticed or acquired earlier.

Although this development still has some way to go, some progress has been made.

Robinson (2001, p. 287) argues that sequencing of tasks for syllabus design purposes should be

based on the cognitive demands of the tasks. D. Willis (2003) shows how a focus on language

can be subsumed within a task-based approach, and on a more practical level, Leaver and Willis

(2004) contains around ten case-studies of highly successful foreign language programmes in

the USA and South America that have been based on task-based instruction. In addition, there is

work going on exploring task-based assessment and testing, and evaluating task-based

pedagogy (Bygate, Skehan & Swain, 2001; Ellis, 2003).

The debate – still continuing online at the time of writing – brought together researchers,

researcher-teachers and professionals in a discussion of the role of tasks in language teaching

and learning. Some of the issues addressed by most researchers include the following:

In what way are tasks different from exercises?

Can you learn a language in a „holistic‟ way?

32

Where does the learning come from in tasks?

Can we use tasks with learners at all levels?

Is deeper restructuring of knowledge really taking place with task based learning? To what

degree?

How do we design task-based language courses?

What is the methodology of task-based teaching?

How are learners tested in a task-based language learning/teaching context?

How do we assess task-based language learning and teaching?

The significance of this debate is that it not only points to the need for more research into

this important area in the field of second/foreign language learning and teaching, but also, it

brings researchers and language teachers closer together than ever.

As the above review shows, numerous communicative situations in real life involve

integrating two or more of the four skills and the user of the language works out his abilities in

two or more skills, either simultaneously or in close succession. To see the presence or absence

of this segregation of skills we focused on the relationship between writing and reading scores

as the main concern of our analysis.

33

Chapter 3:

Research Methodology

3.1. Method

3.1.1. Participants

3.1.2. Apparatus

3.1.3. Procedure

34

3.1. Method

3.1.1. Participants

Based on a language proficiency test and comparison of the students‟ writing and reading

scores, out of 150 senior EFL learners from Azad University of Torbat Heydariye, 95 were

chosen and defined as intermediate learners. They were 30 boys and 65 girls aged between 24

and 26. The reason behind the inclusion of the intermediate group was the large sample of this

group who were defined based on different scores in their reading and writing courses along

with a language proficiency test.

3.1.2. Apparatus

The participants‟ scores in the related reading and writing courses they had already been

evaluated were extracted. The participants‟ scores in reading 1 (Elementary), reading 2

(intermediate), reading 3 (advanced), and reading simple prose were calculated and defined as

general reading scores. The participants‟ scores in grammar 1 (elementary), grammar 2

(intermediate) advanced writing and essay writing were computed and defined as general

writing scores as well. Then, two expository reading and writing tests were administered. The

reading comprehension tests were two multiple-choice item tests each having 20 items designed

by the researchers. The texts were taken from a book titled „Patterns‟, by Lou-Conlin

(1998).The participants were required to read the texts carefully and answer the 40 multiple-

choice questions within a 60 minute allotted time. The other tests were two expository writing

tests (see Appendices 1 & 2). The students were asked to read the writing tasks carefully and

write two expository compositions both in English. The allotted time for writing each

composition was about one hour. These two reading and writing tests were defined as

expository reading and expository writing tests. The testing process of reading and writing was

held in two successive sessions within a one-week period of time.

35

3.1.3. Procedure

First, the participants‟ responses in the multiple choice reading comprehension tests were

scored. Then, based on Engelhard, Gordon, and Gabrielson‟s (1992) model, the participants‟

written data were analyzed and scored. This scale consists of five domains: content and

organization, style, sentence formation, usage, and mechanics. Two raters assigned points to

each of several aspects of participants‟ writings, providing a rating of the overall quality of the

written product as well as ratings on specific elements. The inter-rater reliability between the

two raters was .85 (Pearson), which is positive and statistically significant. The overall score of

a participant in all types of tests was considered to be 20. Finally, the participants‟ general

reading, general writing, expository reading and expository writing scores were statistically

analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 16.0).

36

Chapter 4:

Results

37

4. Results

As it was pointed out, the students received some scores in their reading 1, reading 2,

reading 3 and simple prose and these scores were defined as reading scores. Thus, the reading

score was the average of these four scores. The same procedure went for the writing scores. The

writing score was the average of grammar 1, grammar 2, advanced grammar, and essay writing

scores.

The first question posed was whether Iranian intermediate EFL learners‟ scores in their

reading and writing skills have any correlations in themselves or not and we hypothesized that

there is such a correlation. Based on the principles and premises of the whole language

approach, the correlation coefficient was used both as a means of describing the strength and

the direction of the skills relationships (how closely they are related to each other) and to

provide the significance of such relationships. The presence of such correlations was supposed

to confirm the fact that teaching the skills, at least reading and writing in our case, has been

treated integrativelly.

The results (see Table 1), however, do not reject or prove the first hypothesis completely.

Generally, there are some correlations which are positive or negative and in some cases show a

significant value. Grammar 1 and grammar 2, for instance, show the highest correlation

(r=.450) with **p < .01, (Sig. .000) (2-tailed), which is quiet significant. The correlation is also

positive. This means that as one variable (grammar 1) increases, the values of the other variable

(grammar 2) tend to go in the same direction in a predictable manner. However, the correlation

between these two variables, though it is the highest, is not very strong. The scatter plot

diagram with the fit line (see Figure 1) shows this partial relationship.

The weakest correlation goes to reading 1 and reading 3 (r= -.021), which is both

negative and has no significance value. The scatter plot diagram with the fit line (see Figure 2)

shows that there is no relationship between the two variables. This means that if one variable

(reading 1) deceases, so does the other variable (reading 3) in a predictable manner. Overall, a

look at Table 1 shows that there are no large correlation coefficients among the variables and

so there are no strong relationships among the skills except for some cases such as simple prose

and advanced grammar among the others.

38

Table 1: The Correlation coefficients among the scores of reading 1, reading 2, reading 3 and simple prose as

reading scores and grammar 1, grammar 2, advanced grammar, and essay writing as writing scores

Grammar

1

Grammar

2

Advanced

Grammar

Essay

Writing

Reading

1

Reading

2

Reading

3

Simple

Prose

Grammar 1 Pearson

Correlation 1 .450

** .285

** .270

** .096 -.052 -.099 .025

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .007 .010 .370 .628 .355 .818

N 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

Grammar 2 Pearson

Correlation .450

** 1 .111 .082 .149 -.316

** -.097 .025

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .298 .444 .162 .002 .365 .817

N 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

Advanced

Grammar

Pearson

Correlation .285

** .111 1 .144 -.060 -.052 -.033 .377

**

Sig. (2-tailed) .007 .298 .176 .573 .626 .760 .000

N 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

Essay Writing Pearson

Correlation .270

** .082 .144 1 -.122 -.021 .212

* -.089

Sig. (2-tailed) .010 .444 .176 .252 .841 .045 .402

N 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

Reading 1 Pearson

Correlation .096 .149 -.060 -.122 1 -.308

** -.018 .063

Sig. (2-tailed) .370 .162 .573 .252 .003 .868 .558

N 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

Reading 2 Pearson

Correlation -.052 -.316

** -.052 -.021 -.308

** 1 .106 .227

*

Sig. (2-tailed) .628 .002 .626 .841 .003 .322 .031

N 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

Reading 3 Pearson

Correlation -.099 -.097 -.033 .212

* -.018 .106 1 -.238

*

Sig. (2-tailed) .355 .365 .760 .045 .868 .322 .024

N 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

Simple Prose Pearson

Correlation .025 .025 .377

** -.089 .063 .227

* -.238

* 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .818 .817 .000 .402 .558 .031 .024

N 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

39

40

Then, to combine all the reading and writing scores together, and answer the second

question of the research, some descriptive, and correlation statistics were run. The simple

descriptive statistics (see Table 2) shows that almost all the values of these two skills are the

same. The minimum, maximum, and mean of these two variables are all but the same along

with the standard deviation which is somehow different (.80336 vs. .62668). The correlation

coefficient (see Table 3), however, shows that there is a negative correlation between these two

skills (r= -.032), which is not significant. This means that as the direction of this correlation is

negative, we cannot predict the strength of relationship between general reading and writing.

41

Moreover, the scatter plot diagram (see Figure 3) also supports this negative relationship and

therefore, the second hypothesis is rejected meaning that there is no relationship between the

skills of reading and writing.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Skills of General Writing & General Reading

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

General Writing 90.00 12.12 15.88 14.1767 .80336

General Reading 90.00 13.12 15.88 14.1042 .62668

Valid N

(listwise) 90.00

Table 3: The Correlation Coefficients between General Writing & General Reading Scores

General Writing General Reading

General Writing Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

1

90

-.032

.765

90

General Reading Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

-.032

.765

90

1

90

42

The third question of the research was whether Iranian intermediate EFL learners‟ scores

in expository reading and writing tests correlate with their general reading and writing scores or

not. It was hypothesized that there is no such a correlation. The result (Table 4) shows that

almost all the correlations are negative and they are all significant. It means that we cannot

predict the score in one variable on the basis of another score in another variable.

43

Table 4: The Correlation Coefficients among General Writing, General Reading, Expository Writing &

Expository Reading Scores

General

Writing

General

Reading

Expository

Writing

Expository

Reading

General Writing Pearson

Correlation 1 -.032 -.025 .037

Sig. (2-tailed) .765 .812 .726

N 90 90 90 90

General Reading Pearson

Correlation -.032 1 -.167 -.075

Sig. (2-tailed) .765 .116 .485

N 90 90 90 90

Expository

Writing

Pearson

Correlation -.025 -.167 1 -.162

Sig. (2-tailed) .812 .116 .127

N 90 90 90 90

Expository

Reading

Pearson

Correlation .037 -.075 -.162 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .726 .485 .127

N 90 90 90 90

44

And to answer the fourth question of the research, the repeated measures of ANOVA

were run. The question was whether Iranian intermediate EFL learners perform equally well on

general writing, general reading, expository writing and expository reading tests and we

hypothesized that they do not perform equally well on these skills. The skills defined as factors

1 to 4 in Table 5 are general writing, general reading, expository writing and expository reading

respectively. The results of the post hoc tests mostly confirmed the null hypothesis meaning that

there were some significant differences among the performance of the learners in the related

skills. As the pairwise comparisons show (see Table 5), there are significant differences among

factors 1 and 3, 1 and 4, 2 and 3, 2 and 4, and finally 3 and 4 with p < .05, (Sig. .000). Among

these skills, general writing and general reading do not show a significant difference. The mean

difference (see Table 6) between these two skills is also almost the same (14.177 vs. 14.104).

This shows that the EFL learners have been able to perform almost equally well on these two

skills. But, with expository writing and expository reading texts the performance is quite

different (see Tables 5 & 6).

45

Table 5: Pairwise Comparisons of General Writing, General Reading, Expository Writing and Expository

Reading Tests

Factor

1

(J)

Factor

1

Mean

Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.a

95% Confidence Interval for

Difference a

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 .073 .109 1.000 -.222 .367

3 2.516* .131 .000 2.163 2.868

4 1.377* .120 .000 1.053 1.700

2 1 -.073 .109 1.000 -.367 .222

3 2.443* .126 .000 2.102 2.784

4 1.304* .114 .000 .997 1.611

3 1 -2.516* .131 .000 -2.868 -2.163

2 -2.443* .126 .000 -2.784 -2.102

4 -1.139* .141 .000 -1.520 -.757

4 1 -1.377* .120 .000 -1.700 -1.053

2 -1.304* .114 .000 -1.611 -.997

3 1.139* .141 .000 .757 1.520

Note: Based on estimated marginal means: a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. *. The mean

difference is significant at the .05 level.

46

Table 6: The Estimates of General Writing, General Reading, Expository Writing and Expository Reading as

Shown as 1 to 4 Respectively

Factor 1 Mean Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 14.177 .085 14.008 14.345

2 14.104 .066 13.973 14.235

3 11.661 .097 11.468 11.855

4 12.800 .088 12.625 12.975

`

47

Chapter 5:

Conclusion and

Discussion

48

5.1. Discussion & Conclusion

Dismantling language into different skills which goes to the traditional era of

structuralism in linguistics and behaviorism in psychology is a facilitating matter of pedagogy,

but finding the underlying construct of these so-called skills is a complicated issue. In regard to

the existence of correlation, grammar 1 and grammar 2 were happened to have at least a partial

correlation. They are both defined as grammar and the prediction is that if the score in one skill

increases, the score in the other skill or variable increases for that matter. The same is true for

the construct of reading but from a different perspective. Reading 1 and reading 2 as two skills

sharing the same underlying construct as reading comprehension were seen to experience the

weakest correlation and the interpretation is that if the score in one variable (reading 1)

deceases, so does the other variable (reading 3) in a predictable manner. But it seems that when

we look at all the variables (skills), we see a fluctuation among the scores (reading and writing

in our case) which may be due to the way these skills are treated. It seems that the emphasis

given to each variable is different, which may be due to different methods used by different

teachers, the textbooks used, the educational priority given by policy makers and syllabus

designers locally and internationally, and the difference among the learners themselves. When

skills are treated in a dismantled way, the result is that the learners‟ performance in one skill is

going to be better than another skill, as reading and writing in our case. But, comparing just two

variables and interpreting the result with a small population is not concluding the presence or

absence of the integration approach. We, therefore, combined all the variables of reading

comprehension together and defined them as general reading and we did the same for general

writing. This time the integrative approach was supported and there was correlation between

these scores. But, if we change the nature of the variables or increase the number of subjects we

may come to different results and interpretation. This shows, on the one hand, the difficulty of

the skills construct and the influence of the external factors such as learners, teachers, among

the other variables on the other hand.

Linked to the above interpretation is the concept of language proficiency itself. In our

study, we have separated a group of learners and categorised them as intermediate and less

proficient in comparison to advanced levels. Language proficiency, however, seems to be

49

considered as a relative concept. Stern (1983, p. 46), for instance, describes L2 proficiency, as

comprising the intuitive mastery of the forms of the language, the intuitive mastery of the

linguistic, cognitive, affective, and sociocultural meanings expressed by the language forms, the

capacity to use the language with maximum attention to communication and minimum attention

to form, and the creativity of language use. Accordingly, it can then be concluded that the use of

language in a number of specific ways is difficult even for native speakers of a particular

language. Comparing the advanced group may also lead to other results.

The next illuminating point to discuss is that as these learners have been defined as

intermediate learners, the prediction was that they will not be able to respond to expository texts

without difficulty. This may be explained from the perspective of the nature of expository texts.

In working with such texts one need to analyze information and information analysis is a

cognitive demanding task. In Drury‟s words, “the activity of analyzing the information means

that writers must distance themselves from the content more than the activities of observation,

description and classification which result in a typical factual, report genre. Such distancing

develops a more abstract genre which is removed from its real-world experiential content”

(2001, p. 110). In addition, expository texts are characterized by the use of specialized lexicon

(related to the topic involved) and by an argumentative structure that requires information

ordering that always is related to the topic and the writers‟ communicative intentions: definition

or description of an event, explanation of its origin, description of types or categories involved

in a concept, etc. (Boscolo, 1996). We need, therefore, even more advanced learners to handle

such texts. These intermediate learners had difficulty in handling such texts and this proves the

validity of previous studies in that expository texts are more difficult for less proficient learners.

In handling such texts these learners proved that they are still intermediate and their scores in

working with such texts were not the same with the scores they had taken in general reading

and writing courses. In other words, their scores from the expository tests had no correlation or

relationship with the scores in their general reading and writing scores in their related English

courses.

50

5. 2. Shortcoming of the Study & Suggestions for Further Studies

The conclusion and the generalizability of such findings should be treated with more

caution. With more variables and a larger sample we may have more reliable conclusions. As

pointed out, the metaphorical image suggested by Oxford (2001) and advocated in this study is

woven from many strands, such as the characteristics of the teacher, the learner, the setting, and

the relevant languages. In addition to the four strands, one of the most crucial of these strands

consists of the four primary skills of listening, reading, speaking, and writing. The effect of

speaking and listening along with other strands should also be investigated.

Another point is that levels of proficiency and the learning context should be considered

as well. The relationship among the four skills should be tested in elementary and advanced

levels with different age groups, backgrounds, needs, interests and abilities and this should be

tested in different foreign and second language contexts with various syllabuses and resources

that they may follow or make use of.

5.3. Pedagogical Implication

In line with other researchers, these researchers suggest that reading and writing along

with other skills and parameters should be integral parts of all language classroom activities

because all these processes interact with one another. Selecting an integrated approach in

teaching language whereby all variables work together helps learners develop communicative

competence and through the developing of competences, they will be more conscious about

their own learning, identifying strengths and weaknesses to be improved. Becoming aware will

lead them to take a course of action and make their own decisions about their own learning

process, which is, finally, the goal of any language learning process.

It is much better to make the teaching and learning situation come closer to the way we

do things in real life to make classes more challenging, motivating and meaningful for the

learners of English as a second or foreign language. In line with the integrated approach

possible tasks are suggested to help learners learn language by interacting communicatively and

purposefully while engaged in meaningful activities.

51

Finally, it should be asserted that in applying the integrated approach, creativity of the

teachers play a fundamental role. If the teacher is creative, a course bearing a discrete-skill title

might actually involve multiple, integrated skills. For example, in a course on intermediate

reading, the teacher probably gives all of the directions orally in English, thus causing students

to use their listening ability to understand the assignment. In this course, students might discuss

their readings, thus employing speaking and listening skills and certain associated skills, such as

pronunciation, syntax, and social usage. Students might be asked to summarize or analyze

readings in written form, thus activating their writing skills. In a real sense, then, some courses

that are labeled according to one specific skill might actually reflect an integrated-skill approach

after all. The same can be said for ESL/EFL textbooks. A particular series might highlight

certain skills in one book or another, but all the language skills might nevertheless be present in

the tasks in each book. In this way, students have the benefit of practicing all the language skills

in an integrated, natural, communicative way, even if one skill is the main focus of a given

volume. Applying an integrated approach is in line with the latest findings in the field of

linguistics and there is certainly a need for more research in this area.

Acknowledgements

We are deeply grateful of a senior group of EFL students from Azad University of Torbat

Heydariye who patiently took part in this experiment.

52

References

Allington, R. L., & Cunningham, P. M. (1996). Schools that work: Where all children read and

write. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.

Benesch, S. (Ed.) (1988). Ending remediation: Linking ESL and content in higher education.

Washington DC: TESOL.

Bialystok, E. (1983). Some factors in the selection and implementation of communication

strategies. In C. Faerch and G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication

(pp.100 -118). London: Longman.

Boscolo, P. (1996). The use of information in expository text writing. In C. Pontecorvo, M.

Orsolini, B. Burge, & L. Resnick. (Eds.), Children’s early text construction (pp. 219-

230). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brinton, D, Snow, M, and Wesche, M. (1989). Content-based second language instruction.

New York: Newbury House.

Brooks-Harper, G. and Shelton, P. W. (2003). Revisiting whole language development: A

transactional approach to learning. Research for Educational Reform, 81, 35-42.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Teaching by principles. USA: Pearson ESL.

Bygate, M. Skehan, P. and Swain, M. (Eds) (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second

language learning, teaching, and testing. Harlow: Longman.

Candlin, C., and Murphy, D. (1987). Language learning tasks (Eds.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:

Prentice Hall International.

Cantoni-Harvey, G. (1987). Content-area language instruction: Approaches and strategies.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Carless, D. (2002). Implementing task-based learning with young learners. ELT Journal, 56,

389-396.

Crandall, J. (Ed.) (1987). ESL through content-area instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Crandall (1994). Content-centered language learning. ERIC Digest (EDO-FL-94-06).

Crandall, J. A. (2006, March). The Power of Writing: The Importance of Writing in EFL.

Presented at the annual conference of TESOL Arabia: Dubai, UAE.

53

Cunningsworth, A. (1984). Evaluating and selecting EFL teaching materials. London:

Heinemann.

Daniels, P. and Bright, W. (1996). The World’s Writing Systems. Oxford University Press.

Drury, H. (2001). Short answers in first-year undergraduate science writing. What kind of

genres are they? In M. Hewings (Ed.), Academic writing in context: Implications and

applications: Papers in honor of Tony Dudley Evans (pp.104-122). London: Birmingham

University Press.

Dupuy, B. C. (2000). Content-based instruction: Can it help ease the transition from beginning

to advanced foreign language classes? Foreign Language Annals, 33, 205-222.

Edelsky, C., Altwerger, B., and Flores, B. (1991). What’s whole language: What’s the

difference. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Edwards, H. P., Wesche, M.B., Krashen, S., Clement, R., and Kruidenier, B. (1984). Second

language acquisition through subject matter learning: A study of sheltered psychology

classes at the University of Ottawa. Canadian Modern Language Review, 41, 268-282.

Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4,

193–220.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John

Benjamin Publishing Company.

Eskey, D. E. (1997). Syllabus design in content-based instruction. In M. A. Snow & D. A.

Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and

content (pp. 132-141). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Finocchiaro, M. & Bonomo, M. (1973). The foreign language learner. New York: Regents

Publishing Comp Inc.

Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design Sydney: National Center for English Teaching and

Research.

Flowerdew, J. (1993). An educational or process approach to the teaching of professional

genres. ELT Journal, 47, 305-316.

54

Foertsch, M. (1997). Exemplary reading programs in Illinois public schools. Oak Brook, IL:

North Central Regional Education Laboratory. Available online: http://www.ncrel.org/

sdrs/areas/isbe/titlepg.htm

Fruhauf, G., Coyle, D., and Christ, I. (Eds.) (1996). Teaching content in a foreign language:

Practice and perspective in European bilingual education. Alkmaar: Stichting Europrint.

Gaffield-Vile, N. (1996). Content-based second language instruction at the tertiary level. ELT

Journal, 50, 108-114.

Genesee, F. (1994). Integrating language and content: Lessons from immersion. Educational

Practice Report, 11, 1-14.

Gianelli, M. (1997). Thematic units: Creating environment for learning. In M. A. Snow and D.

M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language

and content (pp. 142-148). White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.

Giauque, G. (1987). Teaching for content in a skills course: Greek mythology in French.

Foreign Language Annals, 20, 565-569.

Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repair during L2 oral

performance. IRAL, 45, 215-240.

Goodman, K. (1986). What’s whole in whole language. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Haley, M. H. (2002). An interactive approach to content-based second language learning.

Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Harste, J., Woodward, V. and Burke, C. (1984). Language stories and literacy lessons.

Portmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hauptmann, P., Wesche, C., Boo, M., and Ready, P. (1988). Second language acquisition

through subject matter learning: A follow-up study at the University of Ottawa.

Language Learning, 38, 439-482.

Hymes, D. H. (1971). On communicative competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania

Press.

Iancu, M. (1997). Adapting the adjunct model: A case study. In M.A. Snow & D.M. Brinton,

(Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on Integrating Language and Content

(pp. 149-157). White Plains, NJ: Addison Wesley Longman.

55

International Reading Association & National Association for the Education of Young

Children. (1998). Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for

young children [Online]. Available:

http://www.naeyc.org/resources/position_statements/psread0.htm

Kasper, L. (1995). Theory and practice in content-based ESL reading instruction. English for

Specific Purposes, 14, 223-230.

Kasper, L. (1997). The impact of content-based instructional programs on the academic

progress of ESL students. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 309-320.

Kasper, L. (2000a). Content-based college ESL instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Klahn, N. (1997). Teaching for communicative and cultural competence: Spanish through

contemporary Mexican topics. In S. B. Stryker and B. L. Leaver (Eds.), Content-based

instruction in foreign language education (pp. 202-218). Washington D.C.: Georgetown

University Press.

Krashen, S. (1993). The power of reading. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Krueger, M. and F. Ryan (Eds.) (1993). Language and content: Discipline and content-based

approaches to language study. Lexington, MA: DC Heath.

Lafayette, R. C. and Buscaglia, M. (1985). Students learn language via a civilization course: A

comparison of second language classroom environments. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 7, 323-342.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000) Techniques and principles in language teaching. 2nd

ed. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT

Journal, 58, 319-326.

Long. M. & Crookes, G. (1991). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL

Quarterly, 26, 27-55.

Lou-Conlin, M. (1998). Patterns: A short prose reader (Fifth Edition). Boston. New York.

56

Maryland State Department of Education. (n.d.). Building effective teaching through

educational research: English and language arts [Online]. Available:

http://www.mdk12.org/practices/good_instruction/projectbetter/elangarts/index.html

Marsh, D., and G., Langé (Eds.) (1999). Implementing content and language integrated

learning. A research-driven TIE-CLIL foundation course reader. Jyväskyla: University

of Jyväskyla.

Marsh, D. and G. Langé (Eds.) (2000). Using languages to learn and learning to use languages.

Jyväskyla: University of Jyväskyla.

Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Murphy, J. (2003). Task-based learning: The interaction between tasks and learners. ELT

Journal, 57, 352-360.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 25,

279-295.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (2006). Task-based language teaching in the Asia context: Defining 'task'. Asian EFL

Journal, 8(3), A-1. Available online at http://www.asian-efl-

journal.com/April_09_dn.php

Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston:

Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Oxford, R. (2001). Integrated skills in the ESL/EFL classroom. ERIC Digest. Washington, DC:

ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED

456670).

Oxford, R. L. (2006). Task-based language teaching and learning: An overview. Asian EFL

Journal, 8(3), A-5. Available online at http://www.asian-efl-

journal.com/April_09_ro.php

57

Oxford, R., Lavine, R. Z. and Crookall, D. (1989). Language learning strategies, the

communicative approach, and their classroom implication. Foreign Language Annuals,

22, 29-39.

Pally, M. and Bailey, N. (Eds.) (1999). Sustained content teaching in academic ESL/EFL: A

practical approach. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Peregoy, S. F. and Boyle, O. F. (2001). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL: A resource book

for K-12 teachers. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Pica, T. (2005). Classroom learning, teaching, and research: A task-based perspective. The

Modern Language Journal, 3, 339–352.

Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Richards, J. C. and Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. 2nd

ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Robinson, P. and Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis and second

language learning and performance. IRAL, 45, 161-176.

Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Language teaching methodology. ERIC Digest.

http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/rodgers. html.

Sagliano, M. and Greenfield, K. (1998). A collaborative model of content-based EFL

instruction in the liberal arts. TESOL Journal, 7, 3-28.

Savignon (1991). Communicative learning teaching: State of the art. TESOL Quarterly, 25,

261-277.

Scarcella, R., and Oxford, R. (1992). The tapestry of language learning: The individual in the

communicative classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Schwarzer, D. (2001). Whole language in a foreign language class: From theory to practice.

Foreign Language Annals, 34, 52-59.

Short, D. (1991). How to integrate language and content instruction: A training manual.

Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Short, D. (1993). Assessing integrated language and content instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 27,

627-656.

58

Short, D. (1994). Expanding middle school horizons: Integrating language, culture, and social

studies. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 581-608.

Skehan, P. (1996a). A framework for the implementation of task based instruction. Applied

Linguistics, 17, 38-62.

Skehan, P. (1996b). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In J.

Willis and D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 17-30).

Oxford: Heinemann.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Skehan, P. (2003). Tasks in L2 learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 36, 1-14.

Snow, M. A. (1998). Trends and issues in content-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 18, 243-267.

Snow, M. A. and D. Brinton (Eds.) (1997). The Content-based classroom: Perspectives on

integrating language and content. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley-Longman.

Snow, C., Burns, M., and Griffin, P. (eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young

children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Available online:

http://books.nap.edu/html/prdyc

Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Stoller, F. L. (2004). Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual

Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 261-283.

Stoller, F. and W. Grabe (1997). A Six T‟s approach to content-based instruction. In M. A.

Snow and D. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating

language and content. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley-Longman.

Stryker, S. N. and B. L. Leaver (Eds.) (1997). Content-based instruction in foreign language

education. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) (2011). Available online:

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index3.aspx?id=4246&menu_id3=793

59

Tierney, R. J., and Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading-writing relationship:

Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, and P.

D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 246-280), New York: Longman.

Tierney, R. J., and Pearson P. D. (1983). Toward a composing model of reading. Language

Arts, 60, 569-580

Tierney, R. J., Söter, A., O‟Flahavan, J. O. and McGinley, W. (1984). The effects of reading

and writing upon thinking critically. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 134-173

Weaver, C. (1990). Understanding whole language: From principles to practice. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.

Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. London: Longman.

Zamel, V. (1992) Writing one‟s way into reading. TESOL Quarterly 26 (3), 463–85.

60

Appendix 1

Student name: ………….

Grade: ………………..

Major:……………….

Your overall average:…………..

Your writing mark: ……………

Any proficiency test?.......

Your mark:……..

Age:……….

Topic:

Write about the gap between young people and the older generation. Today the gap between young

people and the older generation is (is not) wider than ever before. What might be your personal

reasons for this? These personal reasons might be related to different aspects of life. Make sure that

you write your own personal reasons. Think about how these ideas have come into being or how

important they are for you. Think about the information that will help your reader understand why

these explanations are considered serious for you.

61

Appendix 2

Student name: ………….

Grade: ………………..

Major:……………….

Your overall average:…………..

Your writing mark: ……………

Any proficiency test?.......

Your mark:……..

Age:……….

Topic:

Write about the importance of money (economical capital) and knowledge in helping people make a

more happier life. Which one is more important and more powerful? What might be your personal

reasons for this? These personal reasons might be related to different aspects of life. Make sure that

you write your own personal reasons. Think about your ideas deeply. Think about the information

that will help your reader understand why these explanations are considered serious for you.