|
|
 |
|
A r t
i c l e s
The Role of Receptive Skills in Enhancing Second
Language Acquisition
by Rahim SARI, Unpublished MA Thesis, 1996
INTRODUCTION
Some Issues in Second Language Teaching and Learning
From Reception to Production
Scarcity of input might be considered the crucial factor leading to failure in
second language learning in a classroom setting (vanPatten, 1994). Although the
majority of L2 acquirers in underdeveloped societies of the world such as those
in Africa entertain high levels of proficiency in their target language due to
high doses of input they collect through natural communication, L2 learners in
educated societies generally fail to attain the same level of competence,
largely because of minimum in put provided in a classroom environment (Krashen &
Terrell, 1983). It can even be suggested that the appearance of L2 teaching
methods has been detrimental rather than facilitative, when one considers the
considerable ease with which naturalistic/st reet acquirers pick up an L2 and
the difficulty that formal classroom learners experience in developing their L2
competence.
The aforementioned stance does not, of course, represent the majority view among
applied linguists or L2 teachers and learners. If it did, then classroom L2
teaching would not be marked by output practice in the form of speaking,
writing, and grammar exercises. The general eclectic trend prevailing in English
language teaching (ELT) circles nowadays reinforces the integration of four
skills from the very beginning with some emphasis of grammar. Students are
encouraged to speak or write just afte r they have got minimum amount of
listening and/or reading input, as if there is a one-to-one correspondence
between input and output (Gary, 1975). The students are viewed as computers
capable of producing output once they get equal amount of input. In some cases
the equality between input and output is broken for the worse: on the basis of
minimum input, students are required to produce maximum output, thinking that
production practice coupled with an implicit focus on form will result in the i
nternalization of the target structures contextualized in their output
(Sharwood-Smith, 1981; Brown, 1987; McLaughlin, 1987; Bialystok, 1988; 1991;
1994; Allen et al., 1990; Stern, 1990; Cook, 1991; Spada & Lightbown, 1993).
Research on Second Language Acquisition
It was only in 1970s that L2 teachers and researchers seriously questioned the
validity of such an output plus grammar orientation in language teaching. What
was taught and practiced in class did not necessarily match what was accepted
and used by th e students in spontaneous conversation or free writing. The
mismatch between teaching and learning forced the L2 researchers to carry out
many studies with the aim of determining the underlying processes of second
language acquisition. What these studies showed was that irrespective of the
method of presentation and practice of L2 material in class, students followed a
natural route which is basically similar to that of children in acquiring a new
language ( Brown & Hanlon, 1970; Dulay & Burt, 1 973; 1974; Ervin-Trip, 1973;
Bailey, Madden & Krashen, 1974; Milon, 1974; Fathman, 1975; Krashen, Madden &
Bailey, 1974; Larsen-Freeman, 1976; Krashen et al., 1977; Anderson, 1978). Their
mature cognitive capacity, social and intellectual skills do not allow them to
follow a different path. Even researchers who tried to change the natural order
through conscious teaching failed to do so, and their student subjects
"developed their language stepwise despite the scheduling of the teaching" and
mo re importantly "in the same order as has been found for natural
acquisition"(Pienemann, 1989,pp.71-72). Similar results were obtained for other
foreign languages.
..Data elicited [from] 39 learners of L2 German at two points in time are used
to describe the sequence of acquisition of three obligatory word order rules. A
comparison of this sequence with that reported for naturalistic learners of Ge
rman revealed no difference, despite the fact that the order in which the rules
were introduced and the degree of emphasis given to the rules in the instruction
differed from the naturalistic order.... The results of this study support the
claim that the classroom and naturalistic L2 acquisition... follow similar
routes.(Ellis, 1989, p.305).
Such data needed to be accounted by a plausible theory of SLA and the first
remarkable attempt was made by an applied linguist at the University of Southern
California. Krashen (1977) suggested that the main determinant of natural
acquisition order i s an innately specified device--LAD-- responsible for any
kind of language acquisition and use. Unlike Chomsky (1965), however, who
claimed the unexploitability of LAD after first language acquisition, Krashen
(1992) asserted that it is fully functional throughout one's life and that the
only critical period after which one cannot acquire a new language is death
(Krashen, 1983). The unexploitability according to Krashen, has nothing to do
with a critical age, but it has to do with the effectiven ess of the relevant
factors triggering the device (Krashen, 1982). That is, if a second language
acquirer is exposed to the same environmental stimuli that a child is exposed
to, then LAD can acquire any new language with maximum efficiency, except f or
accent; that aspect of language, which cannot be developed due to muscle
plasticity (of the articulatory muscles in the vocal cords)rather than brain's
elasticity (Krashen, 1973). The crucial environmental factor triggering LAD is,
according to Krashen, comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985a). When one is exposed
to ample amounts of understandable messages, he can automatically acquire the
linguistic structures in the input subconsciously. In fact, Krashen says, he
acquires the language unavo idably, inevitably (Krashen, 1983a).
Krashen's Monitor Theory has revived an interest on receptive skills and
accordingly North American second language teaching has witnessed a mushrooming
of comprehension-based methods (Asher, 1982; Swain and Lapkin, 1982; Swain,
1984).
Krashen's theory was indifferent to benefits of grammar instruction. A basic
premise of his theory was that subconscious acquisition rather than conscious
learning is the basic determinant of success in second language acquisition.
Thus, acquisition with and without learning is virtually the same. Consciously
learned rules cannot become subconsciously acquired through practice. The only
way to acquisition is through exposure to ample amount of input.Krashen
formulated this view in his frequently criticized statement that learning does
not become acquisition. On the opposite side, there were the majority of
teachers and methodologists who claimed the existence of an interface between
acquisition and learning. They believed that consciousl y learned rules become
subconsciously acquired through pattern and/or communicative practice
(McLaughlin, 1987).
Conscious Learning versus Subconscious Acquisition
To test whether Krashen's or his opponents' point of view was true, a number of
researches have been carried out. Long (1983), for example, reviewed a dozen of
studies comparing the effects of grammar instruction on learners' overall second
language proficiency. Learners of various age and proficiency levels receiving
grammar instruction are compared to those experiencing exposure to input. Six of
these studies(Carroll, 1967; Krashen et al., 1974; Krashen & Seliger, 1975;
Chirara & Odler, 1978; Brier, 1978; Krashen at al., 1978) showed an advantage of
instruction over exposure to natural input(Long 1983). Three of the studies,
Long mentioned,(Upshur, 1968; Mason, 1971; and Fathman, 1975) showed no
significant difference between instruction and exposure. Only two of twelve
studies (Hale and Budar, 1970; Fathman, 1976) indicated an advantage of exposure
over instruction (Long, 1983).
The conclusion that Long derives out of these studies, the majority of which
have shown the beneficial effects of instruction, was that conscious
teaching/learning of grammar aids subconscious acquisition. In an updated review
of the in structed secon d language learning research, Long 1988), likewise,
concluded that grammar instruction is beneficial to learners, especially in
terms of rate of second language acquisition. Pienemann's study (1984) also
showed that classroom learners acquire faster than naturalistic learners
provided that they have psycholinguistic readiness.
There are other studies, cited in Ellis (1993) which showed positive effects of
instruction on second language acquisition. One such study was done by Weslander
and Stephany (1983) who claimed the effects of grammar instruction on second
language acq uisition of more than 500 child learners of English as a second
language. They found that instruction helped especially at lower levels. In
another study by Ellis and Rathbone (1987), the relationship between class
attendance and language proficiency of adult learners of German as a second
language was investigated. The results showed positive correlation between the
two factors supporting the view that learning becomes acquisition (cited in
Ellis 1993).
Finally, Doughty (1991), in her article titled "Second Language Instruction Does
Make a Difference" suggested that form-focused instruction facilitated second
language acquisition. None of these research results, however, are unaccountable
in Krashen's non-interface point of view which denies any seepage from learning
to acquisition. To account for the facilitative effects of classroom
instruction, Krashen suggests that it is t he enhanced comprehensibility of
classroom input -rather than grammar instruction- which fosters the process of
second language acquisition:
[A1] [A2] Any rate advantages claimed for the classroom, according to Krashen,
are due to the kind of input provided in classrooms, i.e. comprehensible input,
being better for acquisition ..... than the untuned mix of comprehensible and
(unusable) in comprehensible input available through exposure (street learning)
alone (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991, p.323).
Krashen (1982) believes that even "grammar translation provides scripts of
comprehensible input" (p.128). Therefore he assigns any advantage perceived in
second language classes to the existence of input, no matter how much
form-focused the grammar i nstruction is. Similarly, Ellis (1984) questions the
attribution of beneficial effects of classroom second language learning to
grammar instruction only: (Grammar)instruction involves both 'exposure'(input)
and consciousness raising/practice ....(I)is conceivable that it was classroom
exposure rather than consciousness raising/practice that facilitated second
language acquisition.(p.148).
It is basically because of the enhanced likelihood of receiving better and more
easily understandable input in a classroom setting that Krashen (1983) advises
beginning level learners to attend a second language class rather than going to
the native country of the target language where much of the input is
incomprehensible thus noise.
A major misinterpretation of Krashen's non-interface position is that once you
learn a rule, you can never acquire it. However, what Krashen means is that a
rule cannot be acquired through conscious learning and practice but through
exposure to input bearing that rule. He has never meant that learning blocks
acquisition but that it is not transformed into acquisition, nor does he deny
the possible contribution of conscious grammar knowledge.
[C]onscious rules could indirectly aid acquisition. Conscious rule knowledge may
help make input comprehensible, even if the conscious rule that helps do this is
not at i+1 and is not itself the object of acquisition. It may contribute to the
context and aid in the acquisition of some other rule. (Krashen, 1985a. p.42)
Krashen's Monitor theory, therefore predicts that exposure to roughly- tuned
classroom input coupled with some weak form of grammar instruction facilitates
second language acquisition more than exposure to input in native environment
alone. There are some studies in the literature focusing on the combined effects
of form-focused and input-based instruction on second language acquisition. For
instance, Montgomery and Eisenstein (1985) compared two groups of learners, one
receiving both meaning and form- focused instruction while the other gets only
form-focused one. The former group, the results showed, displayed higher
competence both in overall proficiency and in grammar.Similarly, vanPatten and
Cadierno(1993) and Spada (1986) found that mat ching form and meaning-based
instruction yields beneficial effects in second language acquisition.
STUDIES -
Investigating the Impact of Instruction
Studies investigating the impact of non-manipulated overall instruction upon
general proficiency may not provide a clear picture as to what acts as a causal
factor in fostering learner's competence in second language. After all,
classroom interaction involves a multiplicity of competing factors each
affecting different aspects of learner's proficiency. In the midst of so many
extraneous factors, one immediately finds himself in the difficult position of
selecting the causal ones. For some, like Krashen, comprehensible input is the
causal factor, while for others like Swain(1985), it is comprehensible output
plus input. Swain claims that the concept of comprehensible input per se, is not
enough to account for second language acquisition; comprehensible output should
be included in any second language acquisition theory to better account for the
acquisition process. According to Swain, language acquisition takes place when
the learners realize how meaning is expressed accurately using their output as a
means of hypothesis testing process. An L2 learner tests his hypotheses by
trying them out in communicative situations. If his hypotheses prove to be
successful in expressing his communicative intent then the hypotheses are
confirmed; if not then they are revised and put into test again.
A strong version of Swain's output hypothesis cannot even account for first
language acquisition. Brown and Hanlon 1970), for instance, have shown that
parents do reinforce well-formed utterances of their children more than
ill-formed ones. They found no significant correlation between parental approval
and correctness of their children's utterances. Finally, it is concluded that
output-based (dis)confirmations 'cannot be the forces causing the child to
relinquish immature forms and adopt adult forms' and that a child revises his
hypotheses not due to output disconfirmation but because of' the occasional
mismatch between his theory of the structure of the language and the data he
receives' (p.50), a finding which is quite in line with the predictions of the
Input hypothesis. Similar results were reported by Hirsch-Pasek,Treiman and
Schneiderman (1984), who replicated Brown and Hanlon's findings with a wider
sample greater age range.
A striking example proving Krashen's claim that acquisition is possible even
without production practice, is described in Fourcin (1975, cited in Krashen,
1985a). Richard Boydell was a fully intelligent though a linguistically impaired
child, who could understand the language spoken around him while he couldn't
speak normally nor could he use a sign language. At the age of thirty, he was
given a foot-controlled type writer and only then he could communicate with the
outside world.
He wrote:
I acquired an understanding of language by listening to those around me. Later,
thanks to my mother's tireless, patient work I began learning to read and so
became familiar with written as well as spoken language. As my interest
developed, particularly in the field of science, I read books and listened to
educational programs on radio and, later, television which were at a level that
was normal, or sometimes rather above, for my age. Also when people visited us
... I enjoyed listening to the conversation even though I could only play a
passive role and could not take an active part in any discussion ... As well as
reading books and listening to radio and television .... I read the newspaper
every day to keep in touch with current events. ( Fourcin,1975, cited in
Krashen,1985, pp.11-12).
As Fourcin puts it, Boydell's writing was "elegantly phrased" although he had
never written anything before. Krashen(1985a) attributes Boydell's success in
expressing himself with such a vigorous style, to his previous listening and
reading experience. The mere fact that he can produce such complicated sentences
without any history of practice of productive skills; writing and speaking, runs
counter to the predictions of output hypothesis, which bases the development of
language proficiency on output as well as input.
The Role of the Receptive Skills on the Second Language
Development
Listening and reading are not the driving force behind the first language
development only. These skills also play a key role in second language
acquisition. Accordingly, a number of studies have been done to test the effect
of receptive skills on second language development.
Listening-based Studies
Asher, Kusudo and Torre (1983) compared the efficacy of TPR over traditional
college foreign language instruction. The subjects taking listening-based TPR
instruction were between the ages of 30 and 60. The treatment lasted for only 32
hours. At the end, they were compared to younger, adolescent college students
who were assumed to be better acquirers. Then, the control group underwent 75
hours of systematic instruction in reading and writing. Although the listening
group had not received any su ch instruction, the results showed that in terms
of grammar knowledge and reading performance, they scored as high as the other
despite of the differences in the length of instruction and age range. The
results clearly showed that listening experience positively affected the
development of reading ability . The same researchers replicated the research
for Spanish learners and found similar results.
Similarly, Feyten(1991) examined the effects of listening-based instruction on
the second language development of 90 students of English as a second language
attending an intensive language program in the United States. The results
indicated that there is a high correlation between listening and general
language development. One of the rarely found non-North American listening-based
study was carried out by Damhuis(1993) in Netherlands. The results strengthened
the view that comprehension-based activities along with communicative oriented
ones facilitates second language acquisition.
Reading-based Studies
Elley and Mangubhai(1983) studied the effects of pleasure reading activities at
some Fijian primary schools. While the experimental group were exposed to book
floods, the control group underwent a formal second language instruction. At the
end of the first year, the reading group improved considerably in terms of
receptive skills. At the end of the second year, the experimental group
outperformed the other even in writing and speaking. In another study Hafiz and
Tudor (1989) found similar results. Krashen (1984) also found positive effects
of pleasure reading on Canadian immersion students' proficiency development
including writing ability.
In a rather curious study at Indians University, Gradman and Hanania (1991)
assessed the relative effectiveness of a number of factors affecting second
language development. Among the factors such as formal learning, intensive
English activity, speaking outside the class, private school, exposure and use
in class, communicative oral use, and oral exposure, reading outside the class
was found to be the major factor determining success in second language
acquisition, determining 49% of English language proficiency.
Sustained silent reading (SSR) in class is also shown to be an effective
technique of second language development. A number of studies (Oliver, 1973,
1976; Ewans and Towner, 1975; Ninio and Bruner, 1979; Elley, Lamb and Wyllie,
1979; Collins, 1980; Snow and Goldfield, 1983; Nevmann et al., 1984; Ninio and
Wheeler, 1984) have all shown that students who are engaged in SSR outperformed
others following a form- focused second language instruction, in terms of
vocabulary development and reading comprehension.
Almost every study designed to investigate the effects of comprehension-based
instruction on second language proficiency development has arrived at positive
results. For some, such findings might be interesting. After all, it is more
than apparent th at input plays a crucial role in second language acquisition.
What is more interesting is to test whether heavily comprehension-oriented
instruction based on receptive skills; listening and reading in the form of free
voluntary reading, with minimum emphasis on production or productive skills;
speaking and writing, would yield similar results. In this paper, the design and
results of such a study are presented.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Aim
This study aims at assessing the role of listening comprehension and free
voluntary reading activities in a basically comprehension-based program of
instruction on the speaking and writing performance of the foreign language
learners. It intends to answer the following research questions:
1)Do learners in a comprehension-based program of instruction, which is
supported by form-focused instruction and which emphasizes listening
comprehension, develop better speaking skills than the ones in a basically
form-focused program of instruction?
2) Can the learners under a comprehension-based program of instruction, which
emphasizes free voluntary reading and which gives no writing instruction and
practice in and outside the class, do as well as the learners under a basically
form-focused p rogram of instruction supported by programmed writing activities
on writing tests? The study also indirectly examines the following questions:
3) How does the performance of the students under the comprehension- based
program of instruction on a C-Test which is considered as a test of overall
ability and reading ability (Hughes, 1990; Madsen, 1983) differ from that of the
ones in a form-focu sed program of instruction?
4) How do overall school achievements of the students in both groups differ at
the end of the year?
________________________________________
Subjects
The study was carried out at a prep class of a lycee school. One experimental
and one control group each containing 20 lycee prep students formed the subjects
of the study. The subjects in the experimental group were chosen at the
beginning of the first semester. The researcher himself was the instructor of
the experimental group. As a common procedure, all students were given a test of
proficiency at the beginning of the year. Though there has not yet been a
standardized test of English proficiency at the beginner level (Winitz & Garcia,
1986; Spada & Lightbrown, 1993) the researcher relied on the test given, and on
the arrangements of the administrators. In fact, the school had been doing a
very good job in forming homogeneous classes. Yet, of the 24 students in his
class the researcher excluded three who had college background, and one who was
a complete beginner from Azerbaijan. The subjects in the experimental group all
came from standard state secondary schools. They had taken approximately three
hours of English education for three years. The course books were An English
Course for Turks Elementary 1, 2, and 3. The books are arranged around a
structural syllabus; the presentation of the language input is determined
according to a linguistically graded target structures from simple to complex.
Though structures are embedded in the passages and dialogs in each unit, most of
the time, lessons are done as grammar rule teaching and memorization of the
vocabulary.
The subjects were expected to have some competence in English depending on their
educational background. However, the researcher saw that they were really very
low level students with some knowledge of vocabulary and grammar. That seemed to
be an advantage at the beginning of the instruction in terms of presenting more
input with ease from the very beginning.
The control group was selected from among 65 students at the same school. The
researcher intended to form the control group at the beginning of the year;
however due to the kind of questions in the study it was better to form the
control group at the end of the year. Since the study tries to find a
relationship between receptive skills and productive skills, i.e. between free
voluntary reading and writing and listening and speaking, the researcher could
not ignore the fact that students in the form-focused classes might as well be
engaged in pleasure reading and listening activities outside the class on their
own. In fact, the school offers such facilities to its students. There was a
common library where students could find a lot of Engl ish books to read and a
private English study room for the prep students to practice reading and
listening after the class hours. Therefore, the control group to be compared
with the experimental group was formed one week before the speaking test was
given. The researcher first interviewed with four English teachers who has
grammar orientation in their teaching about the achievement level of the
students in their classes. Those students who were reported to be poor were not
given the questionnaire and hence excluded from the study. In this way, a group
of 65 students with almost similar properties in terms of school achievement was
formed. Later, a questionnaire was given to the group and twenty subjects which
showed common properties in terms of learning activities in and outside class
were chosen to form the control group.
Both the experimental and the control groups had one main course teacher and a
skills teacher. The teachers of the control group had longer experience of
teaching than the experimental group teacher who had five years of actual
teaching experience. The skills teachers however, were all new teachers with one
year of teaching experience. In some respect, treatment of both groups by one
and the same teacher seems common in most comparative studies in order to
eliminate the biasing effects of teacher difference. Still, different teachers
for the experimental and the control groups are preferred by some researchers.
(Hillocks, 1986 cited in Hawisher et al., 1989) In our case, it was impossible
to assign one teacher to both groups because of the great number of class hours
per class and because of the school regulations.
The teacher of the experimental group, the researcher himself, has
comprehension-based approach view of language teaching. He believes that second
language acquisition is basically a subconscious process. The crucial element in
language acquisition i s comprehensible input. The purpose of the language
class, he believes, is to present as much comprehensible input as possible in a
completely stress and anxiety free environment (Krashen & Terrell, 1983; Long,
1983; Swain, 1991; Ellis, 1993). The in put can best be given in listening and
reading by way of meaning-based activities in class. He regards that writing and
speaking are not the cause of the acquisition but merely are the results of the
acquisition process. The grammar cannot be the cor e of a language education
program; since the forms of the language will be acquired naturally, instruction
should not focus on the forms. The only way grammar instruction works is the
point where it facilitates the understanding of an L2 material. Fi nally, the
teacher of the experimental group regards free voluntary reading activities much
more functional and fruitful than intensive reading practices (Hafiz and Tudor,
1989a, 1989b, 1990; Brusch, 1991; Krashen. 1993a,1993b). He also believes that
free voluntary reading naturally improves writing (Perera, 1990; Krashen,1984,
1992).
The teachers of the control group are proponents of some kind of eclectic
method. The term "eclectic" was reported by the teachers of the control group.
Whether the term eclectic is used to refer to an approach which best utilizes
the most useful and the most appropriate parts of the methods or to one which
advocates one best method (Haskell, 1978) or to an "intellectual obscenity", as
Krashen names it, (Barasch, 1994) depends on the intention of the user.
The teachers of the control group see language learning as a conscious process
of rule learning through practice. For them, one can attain language proficiency
by explicit study of rules and vocabulary. Regardless of the so-called
communicative activ ities in class; i.e. memorization of the dialogs and
role-play, writing dialogs and compositions, and doing a lot of grammar
exercises in and outside class as homework, their primary focus of attention was
on accuracy and the exams were replete with grammar exercises. They also think
that students should be forced to speak accurately and write accurately from the
beginning of the instruction. For the teachers of the control group, focusing on
form and correct production of the structures is necessary for successful
language learning, a view represented by many in our field (Sharwood-Smith,
1981; McLaughlin, 1987; Bialystok, 1988; 1991; 1994; Rutherford,1987).
Experimental Treatment
The experimental and the control groups in the study were formed from among the
students at the same school. The school had standard books and class hours and
curriculum for all the sections in prep class. Each week both groups took 22
class hours of main course English; six class hours of reading and one hour of
video. The study covered the 28 weeks of the instruction.
The subjects in the two groups showed the following common properties:
1) Members of the both group had similar educational background.
2) The age levels of the group members were identical.
3) The educational facilities at the school were at the service of both groups.
4) The same number of hours of education per week was allotted for both groups.
5) They studied and lived in the same environment during and after the lessons.
Apart from the above-mentioned similarities there were basic differences between
the experimental and the control groups. These differences formed the basis of
comparison between the groups.
1) The kind of language activities and the number of hours allotted to the
language learning activities in and outside class differed in both groups.
2) Materials in the experimental group were supplemented for better
comprehension and for more input.
3) The subjects in the experimental group were informed about the study and the
methodology they would follow.
1)The language activities in and outside the classroom.
For the kind and the amount of activities in the form- focused classes of the
control group the results of the questionnaire(see Appendix 1) are as follows:
In the classroom
1) Seven subjects in the control group have reported that they had taken 10 to
12 hours of grammar instruction in class. The rest 13 learners have reported
that they studied grammar more than 13 hours a week.
2) Ten subjects reported 1 to 3 hours of listening practice in class every week.
Eight subjects said they had done listening 4 to 6 hours a week. Only two of the
subjects took 7 to 9 hours of listening practice. The listening practice
reported by the subjects may as well cover the listening of the text once with
books open and once with books closed without any special focus on meaning.
3) For the writing practice in class, five subjects reported 1 to 3 hours ; two
subjects reported 4 to 6 hours; another five reported 7 to 9 hours; and eight of
the students in the control group stated that they did 10 to 12 hours of writing
practice in class time every week. Students in the control group were encouraged
to write in their classes. They had private boards on class walls to exhibit
their writings.
The questionnaire results for the experimental group have shown that there are
drastic differences between the groups. Though the researcher himself arranged
the type and the amount of activities in the experimental class, the
questionnaire was also given to the experimental group at least for a
verification of the instructional activities by the students themselves.
1) All of the subjects in the experimental group reported that they had 1 to 3
hours of grammar instruction every week. In fact, the teacher of the
experimental class allotted half an hour to grammar explanation every day. He
warned the students tha t following 25 minutes would be a grammar hour and that
they would study grammar in order to understand the texts in the book. During
the first two weeks of the instruction the students in the experimental group
took Total Physical Response TPR-orien ted instruction two or three class hours
a day. The rationale behind this approach is that comprehension precedes
production (Asher et al., 1983; Krashen, 1982; Winitz & Garcia, 1986). TPR is a
technique of teaching language through commands. At the beginning, the teacher
acts out the commands while uttering them aloud. Later, he repeats the activity
with volunteer students, and then the whole class takes part in the activity.
Most of the time the experience is fun and very motivating. The students are not
forced to speak but they notice that they understand and learn a great deal in a
short period of time. Delaying student production till a natural period has the
rationale that expectation of immediate production usually results in student
frustration and may lead to affective barriers which may cause the students to
hesitate to take part in communication activities (Gary, 1975; Krashen, 1981).
The researcher did not hesitate to use the mother tongue to explain the
structures where he felt it would be easier for the student to understand
(Krashen, 1996). He preferred a deductive approach to grammar teaching, because
the inductive one seemed to be time consuming. The grammar section of the day
ended with a short grammar homework from the supplementary grammar book,
Practice Exercises in English 1 ,2 by DaçÀe and ÖÀzbay (1986,1987) (see Appendix
2). Therefore, majority of the grammar work was done outside the class thus
leaving more time for input activities in class. (Krashen, 1989, 1996)
2) The experimental group took more than 13 hours of listening practice every
week. The listening activities were usually in the form of listening
comprehension exercises or in natural conversations about daily matters.
Listening comprehension exerci ses were in the form of True / False exercises,
sentence completion, or multiple choice questions (see Appendix 3). Almost all
of the exercises were written by the teacher of the experimental group. The
teacher regularly opened discussions on interesting matters and drew students'
attention to the content of his speech.
Apart from the listening activities in class, every day, the teacher of the
experimental group gave the students one hour of free reading in class which is
called sustained silent reading activity (SSR)(Krashen, 1985,1994).
3) Writing practice was totally absent in the experimental language class. The
instructor asked the students not to write any dialogs or compositions
throughout the school year. Students were very pleased with the idea of the
absence of writing assig nments. Still there was the problem of weekly quizzes
which always had a writing section. In fact, the students in the prep class had
to take a quiz every week. The researcher told the students not to answer the
writing question in the test. Thus, students had no formal writing practice or
writing instruction. The researcher wanted to test whether the students would
automatically develop writing competence as a result of their extensive reading
experience.
Finally, the reading teacher of the experimental group was also persuaded not to
assign any writing practice in class.
LESIURE TIME ACTIVITIES
After the classes: Leisure time Activities
The members of the experimental group were motivated to read after the classes.
The teacher told the students at the beginning of the year that those who could
read at least 3000 pages until the end of the year would get extra credit. This
was inten ded to motivate the students at the very beginning of the year. The
teacher was hoping that the students would get the pleasure of reading and try
to read as much as possible without any extra motivation. First, the teacher
organized a group to buy cheap reading books for the class. Then, they could
exchange the books among themselves and they could change the books with new
ones with some extra fund. A student was responsible for the recording of the
books. Another one kept a record of the names and the number of the books each
student read. A month after the application began students were much eager to
read. They added new graded readers and short stories to the class library. The
teacher also gave a class hour for SSR activity in class.
1) The questionnaire indicated that the average student in the experimental
group read more than 3000 pages from various graded readers. The approximate
number of pages read by the subjects in the control group was 50.
2) The learners in the experimental group studied grammar nearly 3 hours a week
whereas the ones in the control group studied grammar from 8 to 13 hours each
week.
3) In terms of listening practice outside the class, the average experimental
group member reported that they spent 4 hours on listening. The control group,
on the other hand, gave diverse reports. Eight of the subjects spent no time on
listening; one reported one hour; four of them wrote 2 hours; four of them spent
4 hours; two of them spent 5 hours; and one reported that he spent 10 hours on
listening every week.
4) The experimental group allotted no time for writing outside the class. The
control group, however, were engaged in writing activities from 4 to 8 hours
every week.
2) Materials
As the main course book, American Streamline Departures and Connections were
used (see Appendix 4). These books present texts which are organized around a
typical structural syllabus. The structures are graded from simple to more
complex and each uni t tries to offer practice in these structures. The books
are colorful and simple. The recommended activities with the text in the
teacher's book usually involve listening to the text, repetition of the text and
reading aloud. After some practice of t his kind of lesson activities, asking
and answering of some text- based questions follows the flow of the lesson. Most
of the time oral substitution drilling of the target forms and a writing
homework ends the lesson. Each book is accompanied with work-books which provide
extensive drilling on target structures (see Appendix 5).
The teachers of the control group usually write grammar exercises on the
blackboard and emphasized the importance of accuracy. They went over each
sentence in the book, either translated or paraphrased the sentences and
explained unknown vocabulary a nd the target structures.
The teacher of the experimental group used the same source books; but he did not
use them as exercises of target structures.
He changed the type of the exercises and used the texts as the source of input.
Often, texts were supplemented with worksheet of comprehension questions for
listening and reading activity.(see Appendix 3) Beside the Streamline series the
experimental group teacher also made use of other listening materials available.
USIS listening materials Day By Day and Conversations F or Everyday Use by Curry
(1987, 1988) were used (see Appendix 6). These books were also supplemented with
listening exercises.
In the Reading part of the course, Oxford Departures in Reading and Connections
in Reading were used (see Appendix 7). The reading teachers in both groups
followed almost the same classroom procedures described in the book. Classroom
activities in this part of the course consisted of listening to the texts,
reading of the passages, games, oral discussion of the subject matter in the
texts, and a written homework. The skills teacher in the experimental group did
not follow the writing part of the procedure.
The video room was insufficient for the whole prep class. Students could only
attend the video classes one hour a week. A Weekend Away and A Week by the Sea
were the video series used in video classes (see Appendix 8). These programs
were basically designed as the video component materials of English Streamline
series and all try to reinforce the target structures in the books. The teacher
of the experimental group noticed that the video tapes of materials are badly
worn and usually incomprehensible. Therefore, first 40 episodes of the Follow Me
series were used in video classes (see appendix 9). Again Follow Me series were
also designed to teach grammar. However, the teacher did not focus on the forms
and tried to draw the attention on the meaning content of the conversations.
3) The experimental group's awareness of the method to be
followed
The researcher told the experimental group from the very beginning of the study
that they would receive a different kind of instruction from the other classes;
The number of hours they would spend on grammar would be minimum; and they would
receive n o writing instruction nor would they do any writing activity in and
outside the class. Upon students' interest he explained the principles of
language acquisition in simple terms. He pointed out the importance of focus on
meaning and comprehensible i nput. From time to time, he would ask the students
why they sometimes studied grammar and the students responded that they studied
it in order to understand the input and that they studied it only when it was
necessary. At the first introduction of the approach to be followed in class
students hesitated that they would fail in the tests and they would not be able
to learn English as well as the students in the other classes. Explanations by
the teacher at various times played an important role in convincing the students
of the new methodology. However, students' commitment to the new approach
increased as they realized that their performance on the weekly tests was not
worse than their friends'. Also important is the fact that students' arousal of
interest went higher five weeks after they were engaged in free reading
activities. They reported that they loved reading stories and that they had not
known that reading was such a pleasure. This psychological readiness and high
motivation drew the students to participate in more meaning-based activities and
in finding ways of getting more input.
The control group did not take any preparatory information about a special
approach. Probably, their teachers' focus on form and grammar assignments
indirectly influenced their understanding of language learning.
Testing
A speaking, two writing, and a C-test were given to both groups at the end of
the study. A listening test was not administered due to the aims of the study.
Speaking Test
It was difficult to administer the speaking test. First of all, student anxiety
due to the feeling of being tested was a great burden to the tester. Although
the students were told many times that the exam they would take had no relation
with their p assing grade, they were still too anxious before the exam.
Therefore, the researcher had to explain his research to every student and he
tried to persuade them to be calm, to be themselves. He was successful, though
to some extend. The speaking test was conducted in the video room. One student
each time was taken to the test. The tester was the researcher himself. He first
asked some warm-up questions such as a question for the student to introduce
himself, a question to tell a bout the best person he knows, some questions
about the reasons why he was there, what he thought about the education at the
school, ideas about friends, and school facilities etc. After he felt that the
student got calm, a picture was given to the s tudent and he was asked to
comment on the picture. The student was let to talk about the picture as much as
he could. In cases when he did not like the picture, he was let free to choose
another one. Each student talk lasted from 7 to 10 minutes. The test was
videotaped and later viewed and scored by the agreement of two scorers. The
scorers evaluated the students' performance in terms of accuracy, vocabulary,
pronunciation, content (sentence length and message complexity), and fluency.
Writing Tests
Two forms of writing test were given to the students (see Appendix 10). The
first writing test included three questions. One question was taken from the
writing part of the Cambridge Preliminary English Test(PET). In the first
question, students were required to fill in a hotel reservation form and write a
note to a fr iend about the arrangements they made. The second question
presented a problem at the station and the students were to write a message to a
friend. The third one was again a narrative. The students were asked to write a
letter to friends in their cou ntry before their arrival. The researcher made
use of the pictures and question types in Testing for Language Teachers.
(Hughes, 1989)
The second writing test was given to the students a week after the first one was
given. That was not because of the experimental procedures but because of the
difficulty in getting all of the students together at a certain hour. The test
was a pictur e story test.The students were told to write a story about a series
of four pictures which describe an act of robbery.
C-Test
The C-Test is a kind of cloze test. In the C-Test the second half of every
second word is deleted. The basic advantage of C-Test is that it offers more
exact scoring and takes less time to administer. It is considered as a means of
overall general language ability (Oller, 1973; Hughes 1989). The C-Test written
for the research had 100 words to be completed (see Appendix 11). Neither the
experimental nor the control groups had taken an exam of this kind before.
Therefore, the C-test was a surprise for them, they liked taking such an exam.
School Achievement of the students
Students took final tests at the end of the year at the school. The final test
of the school included 70 questions which comprised grammar and reading
comprehension questions in multiple choice and write-the- answer form (see
Appendix 12). The test results were compared in order to see whether the two
groups would show comparative values similar to those obtained from the research
tests.
For an extra assessment of overall school achievement of the students, the
researcher compared the passing grades of the subjects. The passing grades were
a combination of grades obtained from the weekly and monthly tests during two
semesters, the grades of the final test, and the speaking test. As a school
regulation, students are taken to an oral exam at the end of each school year.
The oral exam accounted for nearly 25% of the passing grade.
________________________________________
Data Analysis
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences(SPSS) was used for the analysis of
the data obtained during the research. T statistics (T- TEST) were computed in
accordance with the objectives of the study. T- tests are used to test if two
variables are different or not according to a statistical comparison of the mean
scores of the groups. The results are interpreted according to the level of
significance chosen. The level of significance is expressed with the letter p.
In this study two-tailed level of significance (.05), which is the most commonly
preferred value, was used. Therefore, when the significance level computed for
two variables is smaller than or equal to .05 the two groups are considered to
be different. When it is greater than .05 then it means that there is not a
significant difference between the groups; i.e. two groups are considered equal
according to the mean scores.
CONCLUSION
Broadly speaking, this study aimed at assessing the role and importance of
receptive skills, listening and free voluntary reading or pleasure reading on
the productive skills speaking and writing. For this end, the effects of
listening comprehension and free voluntary reading on the skills performance of
the learners were compared in an experimental study. The receptive skills were
emphasized in the learning environment of the experimental group while
especially writing skills were ignored. The environment where the control group
was given the second language instruction was a form-focused one. The
proficiency level of the learners in a speaking text, two writing tests, a
C-Test were compared. Also students' performance on the school fina l test and
their passing grades were examined. The results of the tests, first of all,
indicated that students under a comprehension-based program of instruction
supported by form-focused instruction developed better speaking abilities than
the ones in a basically form-focused program of instruction. Also, it was seen
that the learners under a meaning-based program of instruction which emphasizes
free voluntary reading in and outside the classroom and which gives no writing
instruction could write as well as and even better than the ones un der a
form-focused program which gives writing activities in and outside the class.
The results of the study suggested that for better speaking proficiency the
focus of attention in classroom should be primarily on listening comprehension
activities rather than on activities which force the learners to speak without
presenting enough amount of input which will automatically result in speaking
performance ( Dunkel, 1991; Rubin, 1994; Call, 1985). The second pedagogical
implication of the study is that focusing on writing in class does not make a
difference. The class time can better be spent in listening and free reading
activities for the attainment of better productive skills. The classroom
teachers need to find ways of raising consciousness among second language
learners that the reading ability in second language plays a crucial role in the
development of writing skills in second language (Carson, 1990; Flahive and
Bailey, 1990; Eist erhold, 1991).
Finally, the comprehensible input seems to play the basic role in second
language acquisition in all respects. The awareness of the importance of the
input on second language performance will direct second language teacher's
attention to finding ways of getting more input to classroom. The more input is
transferred the more output will be obtained in the form of productive skills
(Pica et al., 1989; Long, 1990; Liming, 1990; Gass, 1994).
________________________________________
REFERENCES:
Allen, P., Swain, M., Harley, B. & Cummins, J. 1990. Aspects of classroom
treatment: toward a more comprehensive view of second language education. In B.
Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins and M.
Swain (Eds.), The Development of L2 Proficiency (pp. 57-82). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, J. 1978. Order difficulty in adult second language acquisition. In W.
Ritchie (ed.), Second Language Acquisition Research: Issues and Implications.
London: Academic Press.
Asher, James,J. 1982. Learning Another Language Through Actions: Complete
Teacher's Guidebook. Los Gatos: Sky Oaks Productions.
Asher, J., Kusudo, J. A., & Torre, R. 1983. Learning a second language through
commands: The second field test. In J. W. Oller and P. A. Richard-Amato (Eds.),
Methods That Work (pp. 59-72). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.
Bailey, N., Madden, C. & Krashen, S. 1974. Is there a natural sequence in adult
second language learning? Language Learning 21: 235-43.
Barasch, R. M., James, C. V. 1994. Beyond the Monitor Model: Comments on the
Current Theory and Practice in SLA.Boston, Masschusettes: Heinle & Heinle
Publishers.
Bialystok, E. 1988. Psycholinguistic dimensions of second language proficiency.
In W. Rutherford & M. Sharwood-Smith (Eds.), Grammar and Second Language
Teaching, (pp. 31-50). Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Bialystok, E. 1991. Achieving proficiency in a second language: A processing
description. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood-Smith & M.
Swain (Eds.), Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research, (pp. 63-78).
Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
______. 1994. Analysis and control in the development of second language
proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16:157-168.
Brown, D. H. 1987. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. 1970. Derivational complexity and order of acquisition
in child speech. In J. R. Hayes (ed.), Cognition and the Development of the
Language. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 155-207.
Brusch, W. 1991. The role of reading in foreign language acquisition: designing
an experimental project.ELT Journal Vol.45/2: Oxford University Press.
Burger, S., 1989. Content-based ESL in a sheltered psychology course: input,
output and outcomes. TESL Canada Journal 6:(2) 45-57.
Call, M. E. 1985. Auditory Short-term memory, Listening comprehension, and the
Input Hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly 4. Vol. 19.
Carroll, J. 1967. Foreign language proficiency levels attained by language
majors near graduation from college. Foreign Language Annals 1:131-51.
Carson, J. A. 1990. Reading and writing: cognitive perspectives. In J. E. Carson
& I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the Composition Classroom: Second Language
Perspectives. Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Ma.: M.I.T. Press.
Cook, V. 1991. Second Language Learning and Teaching. London: Edward Arnold.
Curry, D. 1987. Day By Day: Oral Skills Practice Book for Students at the
Intermediate Level.Washington, D.C. United states Information Agency.
Curry, D. (Ed.) 1988. Dialogs for Everyday Use. Washington, D.C. United States
Information Agency.
Daçe, S., Özbay, G. 1989. Practice Exercises in English Book 1, Ankara: Alfa
Publications.
Daçe, S., Özbay, G., 1990. Practice Exercises in English Book 2, Ankara: Alfa
Publications.
Damhuis, R. 1993. Immigrant chilren in infant-class interactions. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 13: (4) 431-469.
Doughty, C. 1991. Second language instruction does make a difference. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition,15,(4) 431-469.
Dulay, H. and Burt, M. 1973. Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning
24, 245-58.Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. 1982. Language Two. New York,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
_____. 1974. A new perspective on the creative construction process in child
second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 253-278.
Dunkel, P. 1991. Listening in the native and second/foreign language: toward an
integration of research and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 25, (3) 431-455
Eisterhold, J. C. 1991. Reading-writing connections: toward a description for
second language learners.In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing (pp.
88-102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. 1984. Classroom Second Language Development. Oxford: Pergamon.
______. R. 1989. Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 11: 305-328 Ellis, R.1993. Instructed second
Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.
Ervin-Tripp, S. 1974. Is second language learning like the first? TESOL
Quarterly, 8, 111-27.
Fathman, A.,1975. The relation between age and second language productive
ability. Language Learning 25: 245-266
Feyten, C. M. 1991. The power of listening ability: An overlooked dimension in
language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 75, (2) 173-180.
Flahive, D. E. & Bailey, N. H. 1990. Exploring reading/writing relationships in
second language learning. In J. E. Carson & I. Leki ( Eds.), Reading in the
Composition Classroom: Second Language Perspectives. Heinle and Heinle
Publishers.
Gary, J. O. 1975. Delayed oral practice in initial stages of second language
learning. Paper presented at Ninth Annual TESOL Convention, Los Angeles, CA,
March 4-9.
Gass, S.M., Varonis, E. M. 1994. Input, Interaction, and Second Language
Production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3 Vol. 16.
Gradman, H. L. & Hanania, E. 1991. Language learning background factors and ESL
proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 75: (1) 39-51.
Hafiz, F. M. and Tudor I. 1989 Extensive reading and the development of language
skills. ELT Journal Vol43/1.
______. 1990. Graded readers as an input medium in L2 learning. System 1.
Vol.18.
Hartley, V. & Viney, P. 1983. American Streamline Departures. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hartley, V. & Viney, P. 1983. American Streamline Connections. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Haskell, J., F. 1978. An eclectic method? TESOL Newsletter. April 1978.
Hawisher, G., & Selfe, C. 1989. Critical Perspectives on Computers and
Composition Instruction. New York: TC Press.
Hughes, A. 1989. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Krashen, S. D. 1973. Lateralization, language learning, and the critical period:
some new evidence. Language Learning 23:63-74.
______ . 1977. The monitor model of adult second language performance. In M.
Burt, H. Dulay, and M. Finocchiaro (eds.), Viewpoints on English as a Second
Language. New York: Regends, 152-61.
Krashen, S. D. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
______. 1983. Video presentation.
______. 1894. Writing: Research, Theory, and Applications. Torrence, CA: Laredo
Publishing Company.
______. 1985a. The Input Hypotesis: Issues and Implications. Harlow: Longman.
______. 1985b. Inquiries and Insights. Englewood Cliffs: Alemany Press.
______. 1989. Language Acquisition and Language Education. Hertfordshire:
Prentice Hall International.
______. 1992. Fundementals of Language Education. Torrance, CA: Laredo
Publishing company.
______. 1993a. The case for free voluntary reading. The Canadian Modern Language
Review, October edition.
______. S. D. 1993b. The Power of Reading. Insights from the Research.
Englewood:Libraries Unlimited.
______. 1996.Telepress conference with Krashen at USIS, Ankara.
Krashen, S., Houck, N., Giunchi,P., Bode, S., Birnbaum, R., and Strei, G. 1977.
Difficulty order for grammatical morphemes for adult second language
performances using free speech. TESOL Quarterly 11:338-41.
Krashen, S. D., and Seliger. H. 1975. The essential characteristics of formal
instruction. TESOL Quarterly 9:173-83.
Krashen, S. D. & Terrel, T. 1983. The Natural Approach. California: Alemany
Press.
Krashen, S., Sferlazza, V., Feldman, L., and Fathman, A. 1976. Adult Performance
on the slope test: More evidence for a natural sequence in adult second language
acquisition. Language Learning 26:145-51.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 1976. An explanation for the morpheme acquisition order of
second language learners. Language Learning 26:125-34.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. H. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language
Acquisition Research. London: Longman.
Liming, Yu. 1990. the Comprehensible Output Hypotesis and Self-directed
Learning: A Learner's Perspective.TESL Canada Journal 1 Vol.8
Long, H. L. 1983. Does second language instruction make a difference? A review
of research. TESOL Quarterly 17: (3) 359-382.
Long, M. 1988. Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (ed.) Issues in
Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
______. 1990. The least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain.
TESOL Quartely 4. Vol.24. Madsen, H. S. 1983. Techniques in Testing.Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
McLaughlin, B. 1987. Theories of Second Language Learning. London: Edward
Arnold.
Milon, J. P., 1974. The development of negation in English by a second language
learner. TESOL Quarterly 8:137-43
Montgomery, C. & Eisentein, M. 1985. Real reality revisited: an experimental
communicative course in ESL. TESOL Quarterly 19: 317-333.
Oller,J. 1973. Cloze tests of language proficiency and what they measure.
Language Learning 23:105-18.
Perera, K. 1990. Language acquisiton and writing. In P. Fletcher and M. Garman.
1990. Language Acquisition, Cambridge: Cambridge Un. Press.
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis,. N. and Morgenthaler,.L. 1989. Comprehensible
output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 11, Vol.11.
Pienemann, M. 1984. Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6:186-214 Pienemann, M. 1989. Is language
teachable? Applied Linguistics 10: 52-79
Rubin, J. 1994. A review of second language listening comprehension research.
Modern Language Journal 2. Vol.78. Rutherford, W. 1987. Second Language Grammar:
Learning and Teaching. New York: Longman.
Sharwood-Smith, M. 1981. Consciousness raising and the L2 learner. Applied
Linguistics 11: 159-168.
Spada, N. & Lightbown, M. 1993. Instruction and development of question, in L2
classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15:205-221.
Stern, H. H. 1990. Analysis and experience as variables in second language
pedagogy. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins, & M. Swain (Eds.), The Development
of Second Language Proficiency (pp. 93-109). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Swain, M. 1991. French immersion and its off-shoots: getting two for one. In B.
Freed (Ed.), Foreign Language Acquisition Research and the Classroom (91-103).
Lexington, Mass: P. L. Heath.
Tudor, I., Hafiz, F. 1989. Extensive reading as ameans of input to learning.
Journal of Research in Reading 2 (UKRA) Vol.12: 164-178.
VanPatten, B. 1992. On babies and bathwater: Input in foreign language learning.
In R. M. Barasch & C. V. James (Eds.), Beyond the Monitor Model Massachusetts:
Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Winitz, H. & Garcia, P.A. 1986. Teaching German to college students through the
Comprehension Approach: a four- semester program of study. In V. Cook (ed.),
Experimental Approaches to Second Language Learning (pp. 127- 149). Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Note.
Appendices will soon be published here.
6
Print This Article
TOP
|
|
|
Home
|
Articles
|
Links |
Search
|
Contact Us
Contact us at
natural.approach@yahoo.com
or send a message to
us
now. |
|
©
Vedat Kiymazarslan. All Rights Reserved.
1997- |
|
|
|
