Cuantitative Methods Guide Pag156

ii TESOL QUARTERLY

QUARTERLY VOLUMES MENU

CONTENTSFounded 1966

ARTICLESThe Quality of Language Learning Opportunities 9David CrabbeReading in Two Languages: How Attitudes Toward Home Language andBeliefs About Reading Affect the Behaviors of “Underprepared”L2 College Readers 35Lía D. Kamhi-SteinFine Brush and Freehand: The Vocabulary-Learning Art ofTwo Successful Chinese EFL Learners 73Peter Yongqi GuDueling Philosophies: Inclusion or Separation for Florida’sEnglish Language Learners? 105Elizabeth Platt, Candace Harper, and Maria Beatriz Mendoza

FORUMOn Reconceptualizing Teacher Education 135Robert Yates and Dennis MuchiskyComments on Douglas Biber, Susan Conrad, Randi Reppen, Pat Byrd, andMarie Helt’s “Speaking and Writing in the University:A Multidimensional Comparison”

A Reader Reacts . . . 147Mohsen GhadessyThe Authors Respond: Strengths and Goals ofMultidimensional Analysis 151Douglas Biber, Susan Conrad, Randi Reppen, Pat Byrd, and Marie Helt

RESEARCH ISSUESSome Guidelines for Conducting Quantitative andQualitative Research in TESOL 157

Quantitative Research Guidelines 159Qualitative Research Guidelines 163

REVIEWS iii

Volume 37, Number 1 � Spring 2003

REVIEWSThe Practice of English Language Teaching (3rd ed.) 179Jeremy HarmerReviewed by Robert WeissbergTeachers’ Narrative Inquiry as Professional Development 181Karen E. Johnson and Paula R. Golombek (Eds.)Reviewed by an ChengContinuing Cooperative Development: A Discourse Framework forIndividuals as Colleagues 182Julian EdgeReviewed by Timothy StewartSecond Language Writers’ Text: Linguistic and Rhetorical Features 184Eli HinkelReviewed by Mary J. SchleppegrellGenre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspectives 186Ann M. Johns (Ed.)Reviewed by Peter ClementsLiterature-Based Instruction With English Language Learners 187Nancy L. Hadaway, Sylvia M. Vardell, and Terrell A. YoungReviewed by David JohnsonThe Power of Tests: A Critical Perspective on the Uses of Language Tests 189Elana ShohamyReviewed by Arieh SherrisDoing and Writing Qualitative Research 190Adrian HollidayReviewed by Anne FeryokLanguage as Cultural Practice: Mexicanos en el Norte 192Sandra R. Schecter and Robert BayleyReviewed by Martin Guardado

BOOK NOTICES 195Information for Contributors 197Editorial PolicyGeneral Information for AuthorsTESOL Order FormTESOL Membership Application

REVIEWS i

QUARTERLY Volume 37, Number 1 � Spring 2003

A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languagesand of Standard English as a Second Dialect

EditorCAROL A. CHAPELLE, Iowa State University

Research Issues EditorPATRICIA A. DUFF, University of British Columbia

Reviews EditorROBERTA J. VANN, Iowa State University

Assistant EditorELLEN GARSHICK, TESOL Central Office

Assistant to the EditorLILY COMPTON, Iowa State University

Editorial Advisory BoardDwight Atkinson,

Temple University JapanJ. D. Brown,

University of Hawaii at ManoaSuresh Canagarajah,

Baruch College, City Universityof New York

Micheline Chalhoub-Deville,University of Iowa

John Flowerdew,City University of Hong Kong

Carol Fraser,Glendon College, York University

Linda Harklau,University of Georgia

Ryuko Kubota,The University of North Carolina atChapel Hill

John Levis,Iowa State University

Lourdes Ortega,Northern Arizona University

James E. Purpura,Teachers College, Columbia University

Steven Ross,Kwansei Gakuin University

Miyuki Sasaki,Nagoya Gakuin University

Kelleen Toohey,Simon Fraser University

Jessica Williams,University of Illinois at Chicago

Devon Woods,Carleton University

Founded 1966

Additional ReadersJane Arnold, Paul Bruthiaux, Richard Donato, Gene Halleck, Renée Jourdenais, Elliot Judd,Lía Kamhi-Stein, Dorit A. Kaufman, Joan Hall Kelly, Janette Klingner, Sandra Kouritzin,B. Kumaravadivelu, Batia Laufer, Patsy Lightbown, Mary H. Maguire, Nancy Niedzielski, Deborah Poole,Ben Rampton, Terry Royce, Maria Thomas-Ruzic, Keiko K. Samimy, Mack Shelley, Rita Simpson,Janet Swaffar, James Tollefson, Dolly Young

CreditsAdvertising arranged by Suzanne Levine, TESOL Central Office, Alexandria, Virginia U.S.A.Typesetting by Capitol Communication Systems, Inc., Crofton, Maryland U.S.A.Printing and binding by Pantagraph Printing, Bloomington, Illinois U.S.A.Copies of articles that appear in the TESOL Quarterly are available through ISI Document Solution, 3501 Market Street,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 U.S.A.

Copyright © 2003Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.US ISSN 0039-8322

iv TESOL QUARTERLY

is an international professional organization for those concernedwith the teaching of English as a second or foreign language and ofstandard English as a second dialect. TESOL’s mission is to develop

the expertise of its members and others involved in teaching English to speakers ofother languages to help them foster effective communication in diverse settingswhile respecting individuals’ language rights. To this end, TESOL articulates andadvances standards for professional preparation and employment, continuing educa-tion, and student programs; links groups worldwide to enhance communicationamong language specialists; produces high-quality programs, services, and products;and promotes advocacy to further the profession.Information about membership and other TESOL services is available from TESOLCentral Office at the address below.

TESOL Quarterly is published in Spring, Summer, Autumn, and Winter. Contributions shouldbe sent to the Editor or the appropriate Section Editors at the addresses listed in theInformation for Contributors section. Publishers’ representative is Helen Kornblum, Directorof Communications & Marketing. All material in TESOL Quarterly is copyrighted. Copyingwithout the permission of TESOL, beyond the exemptions specified by law, is an infringementinvolving liability for damages.

Reader Response You can respond to the ideas expressed in TESOL Quarterly by writing directlyto editors and staff at [email protected]. This will be a read-only service, but your opinions and ideaswill be read regularly. You may comment on the topics raised in The Forum on an interactivebulletin board at http://communities.tesol.org/�tq.

TESOL Home Page You can find out more about TESOL services and publications by accessingthe TESOL home page on the World Wide Web at http://www.tesol.org/.

Advertising in all TESOL publications is arranged by Suzanne Levine, TESOL Central Office,700 South Washington Street, Suite 200, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 USA, Tel. 703-836-0774.Fax 703-836-7864. E-mail [email protected].

OFFICERS AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2002–2003PresidentAMY SCHLESSMANEvaluation, Instruction, DesignTucson, AZ USANorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaff, AZ USA

President-electMICHELE SABINOUniversity of Houston–

DowntownHouston, TX USA

Past PresidentMARY LOU McCLOSKEYAtlanta, GA USA

SecretaryCHARLES S.

AMOROSINO, JR.Alexandria, VA USA

TreasurerMARTHA EDMONDSONWashington, DC USA

Mabel GalloInstituto Cultural Argentino

NorteamericanoBuenos Aires, Argentina

Aileen GumCity CollegeSan Diego, CA USA

Jun LiuUniversity of ArizonaTucson, AZ USA

Lucilla LoPrioreItalian Ministry of EducationRome, Italy

Anne V. MartinESL Consultant/InstructorSyracuse, NY USA

Jo Ann MillerUniversidad del Valle de

MexicoCol. Copilco el BajoMexico DF, Mexico

Betty Ansin SmallwoodCenter for Applied LinguisticsWashington, DC USA

Mark AlgrenUniversity of KansasLawrence, KS USA

Neil J. AndersonBrigham Young UniversityProvo, UT USA

Mary Ann BoydIllinois State University

(Emerita)Towanda, IL USA

Aysegul DalogluMiddle East Technical

UniversityAnkara, Turkey

Eric DwyerFlorida International

UniversityMiami, FL USA

Bill EggingtonBrigham Young UniversityProvo, UT USA

IN THIS ISSUE 5TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 37, No. 1, Spring 2003

QUARTERLY

Founded 1966

Editor’s Note

� In this issue, the Research Issues section of the Forum introduces newguidelines for research that reflect the diverse approaches taken by research-ers in our interdisciplinary profession. Having been introduced in this issue,these guidelines will be available on TESOL’s Web site (at http://www.tesol.org/pubs/author/serials/tqguides.html) rather than published in eachissue of TESOL Quarterly. I would like to remind readers of the call forspecial-topic issues of TESOL Quarterly that can be found in Information forContributors in the back of this issue and on TESOL’s Web site.

In This Issue

� The articles cover a range of issues of critical concern to TESOLprofessionals, from the learners’ individual learning and reading processesto the classroom and policy issues intended to promote quality instructionfor ESOL learners.

• David Crabbe argues that the concept of quality in language educationneeds to be reconceptualized in view of the weakening of the conceptof a method and the “globalisation” of education, which has empha-sized benchmarking and evaluation to achieve international recogni-tion of quality. Suggesting that current approaches to setting standardsfail to provide a framework for dialogue concerning how quality canbest be achieved in a particular setting, he proposes a reconceptuali-zation centered around the idea of learning opportunity, which refers toaccess to favorable conditions for learning, and he describes howactions working toward quality might be considered within a learningopportunity framework.

• Lía D. Kamhi-Stein reports the results of her research investigating thereading strategies of four college nonnative speakers of English who

6 TESOL QUARTERLY

were considered underprepared for academic study at a U.S. univer-sity. Through analysis of think-aloud protocols, questionnaire re-sponses, and indicators of comprehension, she identifies strategies thatlearners use in their L1, Spanish, and in English. Within this smallgroup of seemingly similar ESL learners, she identifies individualdifferences that she attributes to the learners’ different attitudestoward the use of Spanish for their reading in English. She suggests theneed for further research in the connections between learners’ beliefsabout the use of their L1 and their reading processes.

• Peter Yongqi Gu’s study describes the vocabulary-learning strategies oftwo successful language learners in the “input-poor” environment ofthe Chinese classroom, where the majority of language learning comesfrom intensive reading of English texts. Participants were chosen froma group of successful learners on the basis of responses to a strategyquestionnaire indicating that they took different approaches to vo-cabulary learning. Results showed that, contrary to popular ideas aboutvocabulary learning in the West, the Chinese learners succeed in partthrough intensive, explicit study of lists of vocabulary words. Theresults demonstrate the value in examining individual learning strate-gies in view of language learning tasks, individual beliefs, and thecultural context of language learning.

• Elizabeth Platt, Candace Harper, and Maria Beatriz Mendoza presentresults of their survey of administrators in Florida’s public schools whooversee the implementation of ESL teaching. The authors review theorigins and philosophies of inclusion and separation approaches toESL in the public schools. They report widely varying opinions held byadministrators concerning approaches to ESL, with some arguing forbilingual education, some for separate ESL classes, and others forinclusion of ESL learners in mainstream classrooms. Participants’reasons for supporting one approach over another demonstrate therange of issues that come into play in decisions about ESL programs.The authors argue that prevailing treatment of these issues in U.S.public schools and in some other countries fails to take into accountthe specialized needs of ESL learners or the potential contributions ofthe TESOL profession.

Also in this issue:

• The Forum: Based on their experience teaching graduate courses inTESOL, Robert Yates and Dennis Muchisky raise questions about whathas been called a reconceptualization of teacher education, which advocatesthat teacher education in TESOL focus more on the act of teachingand learning to teach. They argue that this perspective threatens todeemphasize what they believe language teachers need to know aboutlanguage and language acquisition. Mohsen Ghadessy comments onDouglas Biber, Susan Conrad, Randi Reppen, Pat Byrd, and MarieHelt’s “Speaking and Writing in the University: A Multidimensional

IN THIS ISSUE 7

Comparison,” which appeared in the Spring 2002 issue of TESOLQuarterly. Ghadessy questions their definition of register and the scopeof their study, and the authors respond.

• Research Issues: The result of input from many TESOL professionalson the Editorial Advisory Board and beyond, new guidelines forresearch are introduced to replace the Statistical Guidelines andQualitative Guidelines that have served authors and reviewers in thepast.

• Reviews and Book Notices: The following books are reviewed: ThePractice of English Language Teaching (3rd ed., Jeremy Harmer), Teachers’Narrative Inquiry as Professional Development (Karen E. Johnson andPaula R. Golombek, Eds.), Continuing Cooperative Development: A Dis-course Framework for Individuals as Colleagues ( Julian Edge), SecondLanguage Writers’ Text: Linguistic and Rhetorical Features (Eli Hinkel),Genre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspectives (Ann M. Johns, Ed.), Litera-ture-Based Instruction With English Language Learners (Nancy L. Hadaway,Sylvia M. Vardell, and Terrell A. Young), The Power of Tests: A CriticalPerspective on the Uses of Language Tests (Elana Shohamy), Doing andWriting Qualitative Research (Adrian Holliday), and Language as CulturalPractice: Mexicanos en el Norte (Sandra R. Schecter and Robert Bayley).Notices are provided for another four books.

Carol A. Chapelle

9TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 37, No. 1, Spring 2003

The Quality of LanguageLearning OpportunitiesDAVID CRABBEVictoria University of WellingtonWellington, New Zealand

The notion of quality in language education, as in other areas of humanactivity, is increasingly common yet is elusive in its practical meaning.The international trend has been to focus on quality by specifying clearoutcome standards that describe the performance expected of learnersat particular levels. Far less attention has been paid to systematicallymanaging the quality of the learning opportunities that learners needto exploit in order to achieve the desired outcomes. One can assumethat an understanding of the quality of learning opportunity is centralto the process of learning. The challenge for teaching institutions is todevelop a frame of action through which current understanding of L2learning and teaching can be applied and developed. This articleproposes a learning opportunity framework on which to base a dialogueabout the opportunities that are needed and available in any onecontext. It proposes three domains of enquiry: theoretical, cultural, andmanagement, and puts forward arguments in favour of learning oppor-tunity standards as the basis for institutional dialogue about quality inlanguage education.

Acertain degree of cynicism in reaction to the hype that surroundsthe notion of quality in language education is understandable. Yet

serious work on what is called quality is undoubtedly associated withgenuine concern to ensure good practice. One hears the term usedmore frequently as English language teaching becomes more businessoriented and more accountable to funding agencies. Although thesystematic management of learning opportunities might not be a strongfeature in all language teaching organisations, the language teachingprofession is nonetheless committed to the quality of what it does.Conferences, special interest groups, teaching syndicates, and much ofthe literature on language learning and teaching are directly associatedwith an intention to improve teaching. Quality is important, not only forthose who are paying for instruction, an issue of value for money, but alsofor those undertaking the task of designing and implementing a curricu-lum, an issue of professional achievement.

10 TESOL QUARTERLY

It is unlikely that applied linguistics can provide a common notion ofquality for the language teaching profession as a whole. It is probablyalso undesirable. There will always be more to understand about thesocial and cognitive processes of language learning, and the issue of whatcounts as quality should therefore always be open. Nonetheless, ageneral curricular framework, within which to discuss and define thequality of a language learning program in a particular context, wouldhave obvious value.

I consider a curriculum an organisation of learning opportunities, ormeans, for achieving certain outcomes, or ends. This is intended to covercurricula that are organised around detailed objectives1 as well ascurricula that are entirely process oriented, with no prespecified goalsother than increased communicative competence. In such an ends-meansformulation, quality can be sought both in the product—the achieve-ment of specific objectives—and in the process—the availability and useof learning opportunities. Objectives have been a concern of agenciesthat want to ensure quality from the outside (e.g., ministries of educa-tion), whereas process has received more attention from those who wantto ensure quality from the inside (e.g., teachers). The curriculum isbrought to life by the main actors (the learners and the teachers) and isgoverned therefore by their own beliefs and values, which themselves aresubject to influences from the broader social context—from parents,sponsors, institutional management, and professional communities. Talk-ing about quality of outcomes and processes, therefore, means talkingmore about people and context and less about universal principles oflearning.

This article is concerned with how to conceptualise quality of theprocess in a way that makes it an integral part of the discourse aboutlearning in any one community of practice—typically a teaching institu-tion (see Wenger, 1998, for an explanation of the concept of communityof practice). How does one raise awareness of quality learning opportu-nity among teachers and learners so that the parties can hold productivedialogue? Can institutions set standards of learning opportunity thatthen become a reference point for developing a learning program? Ibegin to consider the more complex means-focussed questions by firstexamining how quality has been aimed at through the specification ofends-focussed outcomes.

1 The terms objective, outcome, and goal are used variably in the literature. In this article, goalis used generically to mean any learning target, while objective and outcome are used to refer to agoal that is specifically defined, usually so that its attainment can be measured in some way. Theterm outcome is particularly associated with the concept of standard outcomes—elements of targetcommunicative performance that are measured in a standard way across large numbers ofstudents.

THE QUALITY OF LANGUAGE LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 11

QUALITY THROUGH OUTCOMES

The idea of quality in education has been central to the reform ofcurricula at the national level. This emphasis has undoubtedly beeninfluenced by business concepts of quality (McKay, 1998). In almost allcases, the attention has been on specifying educational objectives oroutcomes: the ends of learning. The general acceptance of outcomesspecification as a desirable mechanism for ensuring quality internation-ally is captured by one of the recent Council of Europe recommenda-tions concerning modern languages:

For all European national and regional languages, develop realistic and validlearning objectives—such as are to be found in “threshold” level typespecifications developed by the Council of Europe—so as to ensure quality inlanguage learning and teaching through coherence and transparency ofobjectives. (cited in Trim, 1998, p. 213)

The emphasis on outcomes or objectives has been a central feature ofcurriculum development for most of the 20th century. Stenhouse (1975,p. 52) traces it back to a U.S. educationist, Franklin Bobbit, writing justafter World War I, and reviews the objectives movement as it developedstrength, particularly after World War II with curriculum developers suchas Tyler (1949), Taba (1962), and Mager (1962, 1991).

In the past two decades particularly, outcomes-based assessment hasbecome well established in national curricula. Such curricula consist ofstatements of target student performance, usually within a framework oflevels. At each level, learners’ performance is described as a series oftasks that they should be able to perform or competencies that theyshould be able to demonstrate. (See Brindley, 1998 for an overview ofoutcome assessment.) Examples abound on the Internet. TESOL’s(1997) ESL Standards for Pre-K–12 Students is perhaps the most wellknown, providing a specification of three goals and three standards foreach goal. The first goal and its three standards are listed below:

Goal 1: To use English to communicate in social settings

Standards for Goal 1

Students will:1. use English to participate in social interaction2. interact in, through, and with spoken and written English for personal

expression and enjoyment3. use learning strategies to extend their communicative competence (p. 9)

Each standard has a set of descriptors and a set of sample progressindicators at different levels. The descriptors for Standard 1 above are

12 TESOL QUARTERLY

• sharing and requesting information

• expressing needs, feelings, and ideas• using nonverbal communication in social interactions

• getting personal needs met

• engaging in conversations• conducting transactions (p. 31)

Such a specification provides a general target for teachers to developmore specific objectives and lesson plans that provide opportunities todevelop the performance specified. Some national systems prefer a moreclosely specified and more assessable set of specifications, particularly ifthey are the basis for assessment and award. The one below for EFL isfrom the Scottish Qualifications Authority (1994/1995). It specifies onediscrete bit of performance: a component of the overall proficiencytarget at that level.

OUTCOMEExchange personal information with speakers of the target language

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA(a) Appropriate forms of address, greeting and leave taking are used clearly

and accurately.(b) Comments and information requested and provided are relevant and

clear.(c) Language is sufficiently clear and accurate to be understood by a

sympathetic speaker of the target language despite inaccuracies, faults inintonation, hesitation and possible mother tongue interference.

EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTSEvidence of oral work in the target language which indicates that thecandidate can fulfil all of the performance criteria for the above context. Allitems listed above under “type of information to be exchanged” must becovered. Evidence may be derived from simulation and role play exercises,conversation with the tutor/trainer/language assistant or naturally occurringsituations. (n.p.)

The rest of the specification gives further detail on the purpose of thestandard and the type of information that the learner should be able tocommunicate, and on suggested learning and teaching approaches.

How do such outcome statements contribute to quality? A dominantclaim is that educational objectives guide teachers and learners indeveloping an effective process to achieve the learning specified. Thispoint is expressed clearly by Mager (1991) in relation to curriculumdesigners:


When clearly defined objectives are lacking, there is no sound basis for theselection or designing of instructional materials, content, or methods. If youdon’t know where you are going, it is difficult to select a suitable means forgetting there. (p. 5)

and in relation to learners:

They provide students with the means to organise their own efforts towardaccomplishment of those objectives. Experience has shown that with clearobjectives in view, students at all levels are better able to decide what activitieson their part will help them get to where it is important for them to go. (p. 6)

The advantages of goal setting for individual motivation have beenreviewed by Dörnyei (1998). He refers to a paper by Locke and Kristof(1996) that itself refers to earlier research (Locke & Latham, 1990)revealing evidence that learners work best toward specific but challeng-ing goals.

In the case of long-lasting, continuous education such as language learningwhere there is a rather distal goal of task completion (i.e. mastering the L2),the setting of proximal subgoals (e.g. taking tests, passing exams, satisfyinglearning contracts) may have a powerful motivating function in that theymark progress and provide immediate incentive and feedback. (Dörnyei,1998, pp. 120–121)

Central to the claim that outcomes thus promote quality by channel-ling effort in a specific direction is the assessment of how well the learnerhas achieved the outcomes specified. At one level, the benefit ofassessment is for those directly involved:

[A further] important reason for stating objectives sharply has to do withfinding out whether the objective has, in fact, been accomplished. Tests orexaminations are the mileposts along the road of learning and are supposedto tell instructors and students alike whether they have been successful inachieving the course objectives. (Mager, 1991, pp. 5–6)

At another level, the benefit is for those who pay for the education,whether the individual learner or a sponsor. At this level, there is aninevitable link between outcomes and accountability. Because outcomesprovide a standard basis for measuring achievement (e.g., againstestablished norms of achievement in a given period of time), they can beused as the basis for accountability of the individual and even theteaching institution, although the extent to which an institution can beheld responsible for the outcomes achieved by a cohort of students islimited by such factors as initial competence, general motivation, atti-tude, and ability.

14 TESOL QUARTERLY

The role of outcomes in relation to quality and accountability issummarised in Table 1. The actual contribution of outcomes to qualityand accountability depends crucially on the quality of the outcomestatements themselves, a quality for which the outcome setters areaccountable through public scrutiny and educational research. Thecriteria for valid outcomes might include that they are• based on a valid construct of proficiency (on this point, see Brindley,

1998; Cumming, 2001)• relevant to the needs of learners• specific enough to guide learner effort• a challenge to the learners, leading to motivation and effort• measurable

Outcomes, then, are a way of representing performance goals that canbe used to compile a standard expectation of a learner for a particularpurpose. The achievement of outcomes requires good process. Goodprocess requires good learning opportunities and good exploitation ofthose opportunities by individual learners, by individual teachers, and bymultiple groups of teachers and learners working together in an institu-tional context. The focus in the rest of this article is on defining the valueof the opportunities that are provided and taken up. In this regard thereare, so far, few benchmarks and little standardisation, apart fromwhatever is considered good professional practice in the teaching/learning context.

TABLE 1

Quality and Accountability in Outcomes

Outcome Criteria for quality Type of accountability

Individualperformance

Individual achieves• against age-group norms• against own previous

achievement• within normal time

expectations

Accountability of individual to self,parents, employers, and othersponsors for skills and knowledgedevelopment through individualcertification

Aggregatedperformance of acohort ofindividuals

Cohorts of students achieveagainst similar cohorts in terms of• spread of levels of

achievement• time taken to achieve levels

Accountability of institution forprovision of quality learningconditions through comparison ofresults with other institutions,other factors being equal


QUALITY IN THE PROCESS

With or without detailed outcome specification, a teacher’s jobremains, by definition, means focussed, and effort goes into doingwhatever is needed to achieve that target. This orientation to the meansis evident in the professional literature, which emphasizes classroomprocedures and the interpretation of research for classroom practice,but what processes are in place to provide for the quality of the means?The traditional framework for quality of the means is the method and itsprescribed procedures. Numerous methods have claimed to provide thebest opportunity for learning a language. In contrast to the fairlyprescriptive methods (e.g., the silent way) is the looser, but nowmainstream, communicative approach, which encourages extensive in-volvement in simulated or real communication as the basis for learning.The literature reports on numerous task types and procedures withinthis approach that claim to promote communication and learning.

As the professional journals burgeon with new crops of articles, theEnglish language teaching materials industry produces textbooks, read-ers, and other resource books that attempt to attract the interest ofteachers and learners through quality of content and presentation.Moreover, models are available for encouraging improvement in teach-ing practice: reflection on practice, action research, peer observation,and so on. The quality of learning opportunity is therefore well lookedafter by the profession and, to the extent to which it can be built intotextbooks, by materials writers and publishers. Or is it?

The Need to Reconsider Quality

Plenty of dialogue about good practice is evident in journals, confer-ences, and staff rooms, but a collective and systematic commitment toimproving practice in any one context is, in my experience, relativelyrare. The quality of the instruction offered in the majority of institutionsis dependent solely on the training and experience of the teachers theyemploy, rather than on a managed procedure for defining and monitor-ing that quality. One might think that in some ways the status quo willsuffice. Learners will learn; teachers will continue to individually im-prove their practice to a variable extent. Two changes in the latter half ofthe 20th century, however, might challenge the status quo on achievingquality.

One is the weakening of the concept of a method. Kumaravadivelu(1994) suggests that L2 teaching is in a postmethod condition because of“the widespread dissatisfaction with the conventional concept of method”

16 TESOL QUARTERLY

(p. 43). He characterises the postmethod as “a search for an alternativeto method rather than an alternative method” (p. 29), autonomy forteachers in reflecting on the best way to teach in their own context, and“principled pragmatism,” which he suggests is a perspective that focusseson “how classroom learning can be shaped and managed by teachers asa result of informed teaching and critical appraisal” (p. 31). In a laterarticle, Kumaravadivelu (2001) develops the concept and practicalities ofa postmethod pedagogy, emphasising the centrality of local context ingenerating theory and practice, and allowing for the influence ofbroader sociopolitical realities on the community of the classroom.Postmethod pedagogy is a compelling idea that emphasises greaterjudgment from teachers in each context and a better match between themeans and the ends.

The second change is the globalisation of education, leading toprocesses of benchmarking and evaluation to achieve internationalrecognition of quality, whether for purposes of accountability or com-merce. In the education world there has been a large growth ininternational movement by students through educational exchanges orprivately funded tuition. In L2 education the work of the Council ofEurope (2001) has been the most prominent so far in setting commonstandards, with the main emphasis being on setting goals that serve thebroader needs of language learners, particularly with reference to futureemployment through the portability of qualifications.

Three Domains of Quality

The profession needs to take a new look at quality in a way that createsa stronger framework for teachers to work within—a framework that wasonce provided through method but is now likely to be a flexibleframework assembled to meet the needs and constraints of a particularlearning-teaching context. This is not to say that one standard would bedeveloped, so much as a common language for talking about standards.I would suggest that three parallel domains of enquiry need to beundertaken in order to fully understand the issue of quality in any onecontext. The first is theoretical enquiry—a universally oriented enquiryinto what conditions need to be met in order for language learning tooccur. What does the literature have to say about motivation, input,interaction, feedback effects, and other “ingredients” of language learn-ing? Second, there is cultural enquiry—a context-oriented enquiry intocurrent teaching practice in any one context, what practice is valued inany one context and what effect it appears to have, and what theestablished roles of teachers and learners are. Rote learning, for ex-ample, so eschewed in Western approaches, may have a positive effect in


certain contexts. Third is management enquiry—how can good practicebe established and fostered in a particular context so that there is aconstant search for improvement in the teaching and learning that takesplace? What is feasible in a given situation taking account of resourceconstraints and human limitations?2

These dimensions of enquiry have resonances with elements used insoft systems methodology. Checkland and Scholes (1990) propose acultural stream of enquiry, a logical stream of enquiry, and then a realitycheck between what is constructed to represent reality and the impact ofthat representation on reality itself. It is beyond the scope of this articleto explore a soft systems approach in relation to standards setting inorder to change behaviour, but the model Checkland and Scholespropose is a potentially productive one in this context.

THEORETICAL ENQUIRY: LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES

In order to address the issue of quality of the means, one needs acommon descriptive unit of means that can apply across many differentteaching contexts. I would argue that the most generic and useful term islearning opportunity. This term is commonly found in educational litera-ture, typically without comment or explicit definition, although in someinstances authors adopt it to represent a key concept.

Definitions of Opportunity

Kumaravadivelu (1994) sets out a list of macrostrategies to guideteachers in developing specific classroom practice. His first macrostrategyis “maximize learning opportunities.”

It is customary to distinguish teaching acts from learning acts, to viewteaching as an activity that creates learning opportunities and learning as anactivity that utilises those opportunities. If we, as we must, treat classroomactivity as a social event jointly constructed by teachers and learners (Breen,1985) then teachers ought to be both creators of learning opportunities andutilizers of learning opportunities created by learners. (Kumaravadivelu,1994, p. 33)

2 The order in which theoretical enquiry and cultural enquiry are addressed is not at issue inthis article (they are seen as parallel enquiries), but Freeman and Johnson (1998) suggest thatthe contextual element, an understanding of belief and practice, is the primary driver of whathappens in classrooms, with SLA research playing a secondary role.

18 TESOL QUARTERLY

The term is also used by Spolsky (1989), who proposes 74 conditions that“are relevant to second language learning” (p. 16). Seventeen of theseconditions involve the provision of learning opportunities, for example,No. 57: “Opportunity for analysis: learning a language involves anopportunity to analyse it, consciously or unconsciously, into its constitu-ent parts” (p. 23).

Pearson (1993) explicitly talks about opportunity standards, which, hesays,

provide an answer to the question, What evidence is there that you have theopportunity to participate in a curriculum that would help develop the skills,understandings, and dispositions that would enable you (to) meet thestandards to which you are being held accountable? (p. 66)

I address the issue of opportunity standards under the discussion ofmanagement enquiry, but the point for the moment is that the termlearning opportunity is used to refer to access to favourable learningconditions, whether access to learning in general (as in educationalopportunity) or, in the sense adopted here, access to specific conditions,such as those required for language learning.

An opportunity for L2 learning, then, might be defined as access toany activity that is likely to lead to an increase in language knowledge orskill. It may be the opportunity to negotiate meaning in a discussion, toread and derive meaning from a printed text, to explore a pattern inlanguage usage, or to get direct feedback on one’s own use of language.Such opportunities are normally available in classrooms in varyingquality and quantity. Outside the classroom, more opportunities topractise and use a foreign language are available to more people thanever before—through print, film, satellite television, the Internet, andCD-ROMs. The development of multilingual communities throughextensive migration, together with affordable travel to other countries,makes real interaction more accessible.

Opportunity is very far from accomplishment, however. Spolsky (1989)suggests that the social context, attitudes, and motivation combine withpersonal factors such as age and personality to explain the uptake ofopportunities. Only the most independent of learners finds it easy totake up and make effective use of language learning opportunitieswithout some guidance. A language curriculum provides such guidanceby organising learning opportunities into a controlled exposure to thelanguage. A slightly modified version of the earlier definition of acurriculum might thus be the organisation and facilitation of learningopportunities (the means) to achieve particular learning outcomes (the ends). Theprofessional task of language teachers is to manage the curriculum and,in particular, to mediate the access to language and language in use by


organising individual and collaborative learning activities, by scaffoldingactivities, by providing positive feedback and information about lan-guage and language learning, and by bridging the gap between public-and private-domain learning (Crabbe, 1993) so that the take-up of theopportunity can be maximised.

An Opportunity Framework

A schematic view of opportunity and opportunity take-up is presentedin Table 2. In the column labeled opportunity categories are types ofopportunities based on current views of second language acquisition(SLA). In order to develop full competence in an L2, learners are likelyto need to receive extensive input, participate in interaction, produceextensive output, rehearse language forms and communicative routines,get direct or indirect feedback on performance, and have access toknowledge about language and about language learning. Although thislist of ingredients for language learning is unlikely to be definitive, eachingredient is well supported by surveys of SLA research (Ellis, 1990, 1994;Lightbown & Spada, 1999).

An indication of the intended coverage of each of these terms isprovided in Table 3. The ingredients or opportunities are likely to beaccessed by individual learners in various combinations but also to bemediated through collaborative work, as promoted by studies within asociocultural framework (Swain, 1999; Swain & Lapkin, 1998).

Columns 2, 3, and 4 in Table 2 refer to key factors that might affect thetake-up of the opportunities. Whereas the provision of opportunities is arelatively straightforward matter, the greater challenge for teachers is tomanage groups of learners in ways that take account of how these factorsmight be influencing opportunity take-up. The three broad and interre-lated factors identified here are ones that are well supported by SLAresearch: affect (Arnold, 1999: Macintyre & Charos, 1996; Schumann,1997), style and prior experience of learning (Reid, 1995, 1998; Willing,1988) and motive (Dörnyei, 2001).

The two final columns represent the action of taking up opportunitieson a routine basis and the immediate perceived result of take-up. Theperceived result for a learner will range from positive to negative andmay encourage learners to seek further opportunities and to use them inthe same or different ways. In some cases it may lead them to avoidfurther opportunities altogether. The bottom row of the table summarisesin broad terms the responsibility of the teacher.

20 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 2

The

Opp

ortu

nity

Fra

mew

ork

Opp

ortu

nit

yT

ake-

up o

f op

port

unit

y af

fect

ed b

y pe

rson

al f

acto

rs s

uch

as

Indi

vidu

al p

rogr

ess

depe

nde

nt

on

cate

gori

esA

ffec

tSt

yle/

expe

rien

ceM

otiv

eA

ctio

nPe

rcei

ved

resu

lt

Lea

rnin

gop

port

unit

y ac

cess

and

use

byla

ngu

age

lear

ner

s

Wor

kin

g in

divi

d-ua

lly o

r co

llabo

r-at

ivel

y, w

hat

ran

geof

for

mal

an

din

form

al o

ppor

-tu

nit

ies,

can

you

get

to•

rece

ive

inpu

t?•

prod

uce

outp

ut?

•pa

rtic

ipat

e in

inte

ract

ion

?•

get

feed

back

?•

reh

ears

e?•

unde

rsta

nd

abou

tla

ngu

age?

•un

ders

tan

dab

out

lear

nin

g?

Are

you

fee

ling

posi

tive

abo

utyo

ur l

angu

age

lear

nin

g? F

orex

ampl

e,•

Do

you

feel

anxi

ous

orre

laxe

d?•

Do

you

belie

veyo

u ar

e lik

ely

to b

esu

cces

sful

?•

Do

you

hav

eh

igh

sel

f-es

teem

?

Are

you

eas

ily a

ble

to t

ake

up t

he

oppo

rtun

itie

s? F

orex

ampl

e,•

Do

you

fin

dso

me

acti

viti

esm

ore

usef

ulth

an o

ther

s?•

Do

you

hav

e a

pref

eren

ce f

orsp

eaki

ng,

liste

nin

g, r

ead-

ing,

or

wri

tin

g?•

Do

you

hav

e a

hab

it o

f re

ad-

ing

in y

our

firs

t la

ngu

age?

Do

you

wan

t to

tak

eup

th

e op

port

unit

y?Fo

r ex

ampl

e,•

Do

you

hav

e a

good

rea

son

to

take

th

isop

port

unit

y?•

Are

you

wor

kin

gto

war

ds a

ttai

n-

able

goa

ls?

•D

o yo

u se

e a

con

nec

tion

betw

een

th

eop

port

unit

y an

dyo

ur g

oal?

•Is

th

e ef

fort

requ

ired

lik

ely

to h

ave

apo

siti

ve e

ffec

t?

Do

you

take

th

eop

port

unit

ies?

•W

ith

wh

atfr

eque

ncy

?•

Col

labo

rati

vely

or i

ndi

vidu

ally

?•

In c

lass

or

out

of c

lass

?

Wh

at i

s th

e re

sult

?•

Did

it

give

per

son

alsa

tisf

acti

on?

•D

id i

t de

mon

stra

tesu

cces

s?•

Was

it

hig

hly

rega

rded

by

som

eon

e?

Tea

cher

resp

onsi

bilit

yPr

ovid

ing

and

rais

ing

awar

enes

sof

opp

ortu

nit

ies

in a

nd

outs

ide

the

clas

sroo

m

Con

trib

utin

g to

apo

siti

ve c

lass

room

and

soci

ocul

tura

len

viro

nm

ent

Mod

ellin

g an

ddi

scus

sion

of

dive

rse

lear

nin

gap

proa

ches

Prov

idin

g in

cen

tive

sto

per

form

, goa

lst

ruct

ure,

pos

itiv

efe

edba

ck, a

war

enes

sof

en

ds-a

nd-

mea

ns

rela

tion

ship

s

Hel

pin

g es

tabl

ish

rout

ine

lear

nin

gbe

hav

iour

Prov

idin

g in

form

edfe

edba

ck a

nd

enco

urag

-in

g se

lf-a

sses

smen

t

Not

e. A

n e

arlie

r ve

rsio

n o

f th

is s

chem

atic

fra

mew

ork

was

dev

elop

ed jo

intl

y w

ith

Jim

Dic

kie.

Th

e co

mpo

nen

ts o

f th

e di

agra

m a

re s

imila

r to

th

e m

odel

prop

osed

by

Spol

sky

(198

9) b

ut a

re n

ot d

eriv

ed f

rom

it.


Advantages of Learning Opportunity as a Unit

Overall, I would suggest that the effectiveness of a program lies in thequality of the process represented by this opportunity framework. Indiscussing quality of the means, the concept of learning opportunity isattractive for several reasons. First, as suggested above, it fits well with anends-means view of language learning. Of course, this may not be astrong recommendation in the eyes of some because of an associationbetween ends-means and the objectives model of teaching (see Stenhouse,1975), here referring particularly to a reductionist specification ofoutcomes as discrete chunks of performance. However, an ends-meansview of language learning is not restricted to the objectives model. Itapplies equally when the end is specified simply as increased language

TABLE 3

Coverage of the Opportunity Categories

Ingredient Activity covered by the concept Example

Elley (1991); Gass(1997)

Swain (1995), Swain& Lapkin (1995)

Gass (1997); Swain(1999)

Hyland (2000); Lyster(1998); Mackey &Philp (1998)

Nation (2001);Ortega (1999); Willis& Willis (1987)

Doughty & Williams(1998); Long &Robinson (1998);Spada (1997)

Benson (2001);Wenden (1998)

Listening to and reading monologue or dialogue thatcan be understood with limited difficulty

Producing meaningful utterances in written or spokenform, either as a monologue or in the context ofinteraction

Speaking and writing with one or more interlocutorsin real or simulated communicative situations

Receiving information relating to one’s ownperformance as a second language user, which mayinclude indirect feedback (e.g., that one has notbeen understood) or direct feedback (e.g., that onehas made a specific error)

Any activity designed to improve through deliberaterepetition specific aspects of performance, includingexperimentation with pronunciation, memorisation ofwords or word patterns, and repeated role play of apiece of communication

Any conscious attention to language that is intendedto lead to an ability to explain or describe or gloss anaspect of grammar or sociolinguistic conventions

Any conscious attention to one’s own languagelearning that is intended to lead to a bettermetacognitive control over that learning, which wouldinclude a detailed representation of the task oflanguage learning, an analysis of the difficultiesencountered and an awareness of strategies toovercome the difficulties and achieve the task

Input

Output

Interaction

Feedback

Rehearsal

Languageunderstanding

Learningunderstanding

22 TESOL QUARTERLY

competence—the aim of the Bangalore project, for example (Prabhu,1987). The concept of learning opportunity enables course designers tothink and talk more generically about the means of reaching selectedoutcomes. Course designers can, for example, ask what input opportuni-ties or interaction opportunities learners are likely to need and howfeedback opportunities will be built in, rather than locking in too earlyinstructional categories such as task or group work or some favouriteclassroom activity that has “always worked well.” This would seem tosuggest a more creative, problem-solving approach to course design,working from principles. Moreover, an ends-means frame that exploreslearning opportunities to achieve established goals facilitates learnerengagement in the process, principally through a dialogue about lan-guage learning as a personal problem-solving activity.

A second advantage of the term opportunity is that it embraces all typesof learning activity. It does not favour one approach or method overanother, thus allowing common ground for discussion about choicesmade and an exploration of the relationships between opportunitycategories. For example, different teachers will place a different value onopportunities to develop an explicit understanding of grammar incontrast to opportunities to actually deploy grammatical patterns incommunication. Using the term learning opportunity allows the options tobe discussed without predetermining their value in the local context.

Third, the term enables the easy separation of the availability of theopportunities from the take-up of the opportunities. This is, of course, acrucial difference that emphasises the personal and strategic variabilityof language learning. Providing or seeking out highly regarded opportu-nities is a public and easily reportable thing; the use of those opportuni-ties tends to be private and less easily reported. One cannot assume thatspecific opportunities will elicit the same response from all learners.

Finally, learning opportunity is a term that is neutral as to who seeks orprovides the opportunities, unlike terms such as instruction or delivery,and as to where those opportunities might be available (outside andinside the classroom). This aspect of the concept allows a teacher toconsider the learner’s role in seeking opportunities and the teacher’srole in encouraging that opportunity seeking. In short, the notion ofopportunity is compatible with the goal of supporting and fosteringlearner autonomy within institutional curricula (Benson, 2001; Crabbe,1993).

The concept of learning opportunity is based on a view of languagelearning as universal, recognising individual differences in the take-up ofthe opportunities available. However, the presentation and mediation ofthe opportunity is likely to be heavily influenced by the local context oflearning. Different opportunities are likely to be valued according toindividual and group beliefs about language learning and the expecta-


tions of classroom activity. We are not, therefore, in a position to assignuniversal value to all opportunities. Course designers can call onresearch to show positive indications for particular opportunities and theways in which they are used, but beyond this, they have to rely on localpractitioners to search for quality through evaluation and throughprofessional dialogue about learning quality. This point brings me to thecultural enquiry.

CULTURAL ENQUIRY: VALUES AND ROLES

The cultural enquiry seeks to understand the specific contexts inwhich language learning and teaching are taking place. The understand-ing may stretch from an understanding of large-scale cultural differencesin the ways in which people are personally motivated (Munro, Schumaker,& Carr, 1997) to an understanding of cultural differences in the rolesand values that are dominant in particular institutions. The concept ofvalues in culture is expressed by Schwartz (1997):

Aspects of culture can be seen by an outside observer, but their meaningremains unclear until the observer comes to understand how the members ofa group evaluate particular practices, symbols, rituals and figures. That is, theheart of culture is formed by values—what people believe is good or bad, whatthey think should or should not be done, what they hold as desirable orundesirable.

Schwartz is writing about culture in general, but it is not difficult to applyhis construction of culture to language classrooms, which are specificdomains in which behaviour can be described with reference not only tolocal cultural patterns (Coleman, 1996) but also to international educa-tional patterns (Holliday, 1999). Each teaching/learning community hasits own practice, ritualistic or otherwise, and forces for and againstchange. Within each community there will be majority value holders anddissenters and an interplay between the local practice and practice that ispromoted on the international circuit. Moreover, the dynamic nature ofindividual and community practice and beliefs means that both valuesand practice will be subject to change.

What does this apparent complexity mean for defining quality inconcrete terms and for promoting change toward better practice? It isclear that a one-off outsider ethnographic account of a teaching/learning culture is less useful than an insider engagement with theculture through continual negotiation of what a common perspective ofquality is. It is for this reason perhaps that stakeholder participation andcontinuous improvement are key elements of the management system

24 TESOL QUARTERLY

known as Total Quality Management3 and can be found in such languageprogram evaluation models as that proposed by Mackay, Wellesley,Tasman, and Bazergan (1998).

The principal task of cultural enquiry, then, is to understand currentlanguage learning and teaching practices and the values and beliefs thatunderlie those practices. There are a number of ways to undertake suchenquiry. An opportunity framework, such as that provided in Table 2above, is one starting point in exploring perceptions of best practice. Ithas the advantage of starting from a theoretical view of languagelearning and eliciting teacher perceptions about extensive reading,interaction, the roles and types of feedback, and so on. Another startingpoint might be elements of current classroom practice, includingteaching materials and teacher tasks like marking assignments, settinghomework, and introducing new tasks. These familiar elements can beexplored in order to establish common perceptions of good practice,which are then measured against theoretical conditions for learning.Whatever the starting point, the product will be an initial list of bestpractices as agreed by a group of teachers and referred as far as possibleto authoritative research.

There is still some way to go from such an aggregated description ofindividual good practice to collective good practice in action. Teachers’perceptions of quality of opportunity are input into a process that needsto• take account of such values and beliefs• develop some consensus through negotiation and reference to

theoretical and empirical enquiry• establish a means to operationalise the resulting accepted view of

quality and evaluate it in an institutional contextThe process is essentially one of management.

MANAGEMENT ENQUIRY

Defining quality requires an initial understanding of theoreticalperspectives on language learning and the cultural context in whichlanguage teaching and learning are taking place. Operationalising and

3 Quality has long been a concern in the business world, represented best by the qualitymanagement standards defined by the International Standards Organisation (ISO). An ISOdefinition of Total Quality Management is reported by Dale (1999) as a “managementapproach of an organisation, centred on quality, based on the participation of all its membersand aiming at long term success through customer satisfaction, and benefits to all members ofthe organisation and to society” (p. 3).


achieving quality is by far the most demanding part of the endeavour andis considered a task of management. The term management here is usedin a broad sense to mean the organisation of collective activity (althoughit could also include individual activity) directed toward specific goalsand outcomes.

The aim is to set up a common set of expectations as to whatconstitutes quality in any one teaching context and to explore ways ofmeeting those expectations. In doing this, one does not want todiscourage new directions or open-ended experimentation by individualteachers and learners. Divergence can be professionally engaging andproductive, and is a characteristic that is valued highly in many contexts.Rather, what is sought is a statement on what colleagues can all agreeconstitutes good practice in providing learning opportunities and facili-tating their take-up. Such a statement in written form would provide acommon reference point both for practice and for debate aboutpractice.

An Example: TESOL Standards Framework

A dominant framework for describing such expectations is a standardsframework. A recent example of this work can be found in a TESOLpublication (2000) in which a set of quality indicators are proposed. Theindicators cover a number of dimensions of program design andmanagement: planning; curriculum (in the sense of course specifica-tions); instruction (learning activities); recruitment, intake, and orienta-tion; retention and transition; assessment and learner gains; staffing,professional development, and staff evaluation; and support services. Anexample of a standard under the instruction category is presented inFigure 1, with the indicator being the desirable practice, the measurebeing the way in which the practice can be observed, and the standardbeing the measurable degree to which the indicator should be present.The authors emphasise that these standards are not meant to beprescriptive for all classrooms and recommend a select-and-adapt ap-proach rather than simple adoption.

Standards such as these identify received wisdom about the quality oflanguage programs. They attempt to move from the individual items ofadvice on good practice to a generic statement of quality with a means ofmeasuring whether or not the specified practice (the indicator) has beenachieved. At this point some educators are likely to throw up their handsin horror at the idea of capturing, guiding, or evaluating professionalbehaviour in this apparently constrained way.

26 TESOL QUARTERLY

Why Quality Standards?

Why might a set of such standards be considered useful? First, from ateacher’s point of view, standards can provide a common reference pointthat enables teaching teams to clarify and reconcile their beliefs aboutlanguage learning and teaching and to discuss the conditions underwhich their learners are most likely to achieve the goals. The goal of theprofessional discussion would be to adopt, modify, or add standards thatwould be the basis for the course design and would be owned byeveryone concerned. As such, they are not so much constraints on newpractice as they are a potential catalyst for change.

Second, a statement of standards would provide a basis for internaland external evaluation that would represent what the institutionintended to provide. It is common practice for internal evaluation to bebased on customer satisfaction and for external evaluation to be basedon the results achieved, with variable attention to the process. Workingfrom a set of explicit opportunity standards seems to attend to theprocess side of the picture in a transparent way.

The third advantage of opportunity standards is that they wouldprovide the basis for international dialogue about what constitutes adesirable program. They would be the basis, for example, for comparingprograms internationally when student exchanges are being discussedand for advertising what is on offer in an attempt to set up realisticexpectations. They would also provide the basis for problem solving ininternational teacher education programs.

FIGURE 1

Sample TESOL Adult Education Program Standard

Indicator Measure Performance standard

III. INSTRUCTIONG. Instructional activitiesincorporate groupingstrategies and interactive tasksthat facilitate the developmentof authentic communicationskills. Techniques thatfacilitate this developmentinclude cooperative learning,information gap, role play,simulations, problem solving,and problem posing.

Interactive tasks or avariety of groupingstrategies are evidenced byclassroom observation,teacher logs, written lessonplans, student journals,and/or directions relatedto the use of classroommaterials.

During classroomobservations, the majority ofthe students are activelyengaged in a task that cannotbe completed withoutappropriate communication.A teacher’s log or lesson plansshow evidence ofcommunicative pair work orsmall group work for ———%of class time each day.

Source: TESOL (2000, p. 26).


Problems With Quality Standards

A number of objections might be raised about the prospect of settingsuch standards. The first is the danger of oversimplifying the conditionsrequired for language learning by reducing them to a set of discretepoints. The opportunities and the take-up of opportunities are aundoubtedly complex affair, yet it is not clear that a reductionistapproach to learning opportunities is counterproductive to promotinggood practice. The evidence either way is more likely to come from anactual implementation than from logical argument. The whole is indeedmore than the sum of the parts, but the specification of some of the partsdoes not necessarily mean a loss of the whole picture.

Secondly, setting standards might be realized as a prescriptive andconfining exercise rather than as encouraging, creative, and problemsolving. This objection is particularly salient in the evaluation of courses—if standards become a tool for evaluating, then this may encourage atrivialisation of the value of the teaching/learning process by onlyquantifying the provision of predetermined opportunities. Such a reduc-tionism would indeed be a problem because it would fail to take accountof the dynamics of running programs.

A third objection to setting opportunity standards is that it may bypassthe students’ preferences with regard to the means by which they learnthe language. Standards could be written in this way, but there is noreason why they should be. Even if a set of standards were to be selectedbefore a particular cohort of students joined a program, that does notpreclude negotiation about learning opportunities. On the contrary, alist of opportunities would seem to be a very good basis from which tostart negotiation. The issue of learner participation in the problem-solvingprocess of learning is a question of willingness rather than somethingthat is precluded by documentation.

Sample Opportunity Standards

What would a set of standards based on the opportunity frameworklook like? Table 4 provides a set of illustrative standards relating topotential learning opportunities for developing an understanding aboutlanguage learning (one of the categories of opportunities listed inTable 2), and in particular an understanding of how to diagnosedifficulties in learning and communication and make a strategic re-sponse to them. A set of standards of this kind is of interest to thoseprograms that aim at fostering learner autonomy.

Table 4 provides a sample standard for each of the broad teacher

28 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 4

Sam

ple

Opp

ortu

nity

Sta

ndar

ds f

or R

aisi

ng A

war

enes

s A

bout

Lan

guag

e L

earn

ing

Opp

ortu

nit

y C

ateg

ory:

Opp

ortu

nit

ies

to d

evel

op u

nde

rsta

ndi

ng

abou

t la

ngu

age

lear

nin

g by

•di

agn

osin

g le

arn

ing

and

com

mun

icat

ion

dif

ficu

ltie

s ex

peri

ence

d•

expe

rim

enti

ng

wit

h a

str

ateg

ic l

earn

ing

resp

onse

to

the

diffi

cult

y ex

peri

ence

d

Tea

cher

resp

onsi

bilit

yPr

ovid

ing

and

rais

ing

awar

enes

sof

opp

ortu

nit

ies

in c

lass

room

an

dou

tsid

e

Con

trib

utin

g to

posi

tive

cla

ssro

oman

d so

cioc

ultu

ral

envi

ron

men

t

Mod

ellin

g an

ddi

scus

sin

g di

vers

ele

arn

ing

appr

oach

es

Prov

idin

g in

cen

tive

sto

per

form

, goa

lst

ruct

ure,

pos

itiv

efe

edba

ck, a

war

enes

sof

en

ds-a

nd-

mea

ns

rela

tion

ship

s

Hel

pin

g es

tabl

ish

rout

ine

lear

nin

gbe

hav

iour

Prov

idin

g in

form

edfe

edba

ck a

nd

enco

urag

ing

self

-ass

essm

ent

Exa

mpl

e of

sta

n-

dard

(de

velo

ped

thro

ugh

pro

fes-

sion

al d

iscu

ssio

n,

taki

ng

into

acco

unt

inte

r-n

atio

nal

an

d lo

cal

rese

arch

, val

ues,

and

belie

fs)

Lea

rner

s w

ill b

epr

ovid

ed w

ith

at

leas

t 10

dif

fere

nt

case

stu

dies

of

lear

nin

g or

com

-m

unic

atio

n d

iffi

-cu

ltie

s ex

peri

-en

ced

by l

earn

ers

toge

ther

wit

hpo

ten

tial

str

ate-

gies

to

deal

wit

hth

ose

diffi

cult

ies.

Lea

rner

s w

ill b

epo

siti

vely

enco

urag

ed t

ore

flec

t w

ith

on

ean

oth

er a

nd

the

teac

her

on

tas

k-re

late

d di

fficu

ltie

sth

at t

hey

exp

eri-

ence

in

lea

rnin

gan

d co

mm

uni-

cati

ng.

For

each

tas

k th

atis

un

dert

aken

in

the

clas

s, w

ays

ofen

han

cin

g le

arn

-in

g fr

om t

he

task

will

be

mod

elle

d,w

ith

in

put

from

stud

ents

an

dte

ach

ers.

Th

e go

als

of a

llla

ngu

age

lear

nin

gta

sks

will

be

mad

ecl

ear

wit

h a

lin

kbe

twee

n t

he

acti

vity

and

the

goal

an

dh

ow i

n-c

lass

act

iv-

itie

s m

igh

t be

rep

li-ca

ted

or e

xten

ded

out

of c

lass

.

Reg

ular

refl

ecti

onon

th

e pu

rpos

ean

d po

ten

tial

of

diff

eren

t le

arn

ing

acti

viti

es w

ill b

een

cour

aged

.

Lea

rner

s w

ill b

een

cour

aged

to

prov

ide

thei

r ow

n e

valu

atio

n o

fh

ow w

ell

spec

ific

stra

tegi

es w

orke

d.

Rat

ion

ale

(rep

rese

nti

ng

aco

nte

stab

le c

laim

abou

t la

ngu

age

lear

nin

gop

port

unit

ies)

Exp

lori

ng

the

dim

ensi

ons

ofle

arn

ing

and

com

mun

icat

ion

diffi

cult

ies

lead

sto

bet

ter

prob

lem

repr

esen

tati

onan

d be

tter

sol

u-ti

ons

and

a be

tter

unde

rsta

ndi

ng

ofex

ploi

tin

g le

arn

-in

g op

port

unit

ies.

Th

e sh

arin

g of

prob

lem

sol

vin

gab

out

lear

nin

gle

ads

to r

eas-

sura

nce

th

atpr

oble

ms

are

ofte

n s

har

ed b

yot

her

s. C

olle

ctiv

epr

oble

m s

olvi

ng

isa

prod

ucti

vepr

oces

s.

Var

iabl

e re

spon

ses

to t

he

chal

len

ges

of l

earn

ing

and

com

mun

icat

ion

enco

urag

ele

arn

ers

toev

alua

te a

nd

expe

rim

ent

wit

hso

luti

ons.

Un

ders

tan

din

g th

ego

als

of t

asks

an

dh

ow t

hey

mig

ht

beac

hie

ved

lead

s to

agr

eate

r m

otiv

atio

nan

d ab

ility

to

unde

rtak

e th

e ta

sks

both

in

cla

ss a

nd

out

of c

lass

.

Reg

ular

ly a

skin

gth

e qu

esti

on“W

hat

is

the

purp

ose

and

pote

nti

al o

f th

isac

tivi

ty?”

will

enco

urag

e a

hab

itof

refl

ecti

ng

onle

arn

ing

and

eval

uati

ng

its

effe

ctiv

enes

s.

Self

-eva

luat

ion

of

stra

tegi

c be

hav

iour

enco

urag

es m

ore

effe

ctiv

e st

rate

gic

plan

nin

g fo

r co

nti

nue

dla

ngu

age

lear

nin

g.


responsibilities in Table 2. The stated rationale for each standardeffectively constitutes a claim about language learning—a claim that isopen to investigation through action research or with reference to theresearch literature. The rationale is an important component in thestandard because it represents a claim and adds an element of enquirythat might be met in the form of action research. For example, therationale for the first standard, on case studies of difficulties, claims acausal link between the ability to represent a problem or difficulty inlearning and communication and the ability to find a solution. Thisrationale is based on general problem-solving theory (e.g., Anderson,1995, chapter 8; Newell & Simon, 1972). The fact of stating it in this wayraises a claim that can be discussed and investigated by teachers throughclassroom observation.

Standards-Setting Issues

The sample standards in Table 4 raise several issues about settingopportunity standards. Obviously, a number of standards such as thesecannot capture every possible learning opportunity. Opportunity stan-dards cannot, therefore, be seen as limiting. What they do is captureopportunity targets agreed by an institution or a group of teachers andthe learners, together with an agreed minimum strategy for achievingthose targets. Stating expectations in this way seems a good starting pointin establishing the nature of the program without preempting furthercreative ways of providing learning opportunities. New targets and newways of achieving targets would in time also be incorporated as standardsinto a bank of standards that would be available to select from and workwith for a particular course. Moreover, each set of standards would be thebasis for discussion and reflection, when appropriate, by the students,thus adding further value to their understanding of language learning.

A second point is that drawing up such standards requires a construc-tion of the teaching/learning process that will not be universally shared.There is likely to be dissonance in views of what it takes to learn alanguage—dissonance between local practice and the internationalliterature, for example, or dissonance within groups of teachers orbetween learners and teachers. A degree of dissonance is almost alwayspresent in a teaching/learning situation. A reasonable claim for theprocess of defining opportunity standards is that any dissonance betweenthe practice valued by individual teachers and that valued by others ismore likely to be brought into the open and negotiated to a satisfactoryconclusion than if the dissonance is simply ignored.

A third question is how specific one would want to be in setting upsuch standards. I think the answer is, as specific as one needs to be in any

30 TESOL QUARTERLY

one context. In an institution that wants only to draw up the broadestparameters and leave the rest to the creativity of the teachers, theopportunity standards may be rather loosely specified (e.g., regulardiscussion of communication difficulties experienced). In a contextwhere those with responsibility for the curriculum want greater controlover specifying what counts as quality, one would expect greater specific-ity (e.g., “10 different case studies of communication difficulties of thefollowing types will be provided . . .”). The effect of greater or lesserspecification can be monitored.

Finally, standards are, by their nature, measurable. Without a measurethat reasonably reliably shows that a standard has been met, there is nopoint in drawing up standards. The simplest way to measure is to count.The TESOL examples in Figure 1 have a quantitative measure, as doesthe first standard in Table 4. The obvious danger in this, particularly ifthe standards are being used for course evaluation, is that the numbersmay receive greater attention than the qualitative intention behind thestandard. A learning opportunity standard is a statement of valuedpractice and of a collegial expectation that teachers will attempt toprovide that opportunity for their learners. A qualitative measure istherefore more likely to take account of the essential intention of thestandard and, in addition, address the issue of whether the opportunityis being taken up. For example, in the discussion of the 10 case studies ofcommunication difficulty in Table 4, one might want to add that the casestudies should be relevant and that the learners should be engaged inthe case studies. Again, such measurement links well with action re-search, peer observation, and other means of professional development.

Evaluation of Standards

The use of standards as a program management tool will raise thequestion of how to evaluate whether or not the use of opportunitystandards is effective in bringing about a change in quality. On the basisof the arguments put forward above, one would want to see evidence ofsome or all of the following when a program adopts a set of suchstandards:• participation by teachers in negotiating what counts as good prac-

tice, selecting standards and committing to them, a criterion thatdraws on the cultural element that is essential in setting the stan-dards in the first place

• evidence of meaningfulness of standards for learners, thus facilitat-ing negotiation of opportunities between teachers and learners andenhanced learner understanding of language learning


• evidence of the standards being realised in classroom practice over agiven period of time

• institutional dialogue about the quality of teaching and learning• support for processes of peer review, action research, and so on to

evaluate the standards themselvesSuch criteria would form a basis for evaluating how effective the use ofopportunity standards has been in specific teaching contexts.

FINAL COMMENT

This article has attempted to frame language teaching in a way that isintended to enhance the quality of learning opportunity in a program inseveral ways. First, a framework of learning opportunity standards linkspractice and understanding (theoretical or otherwise) by encouragingteachers and learners to work from basic principles rather than fixedroutines as provided by materials or unanalysed tasks. Fixed routineshave their value, but a thinking teacher or learner is primarily a problemsolver following a heuristic path to identify the appropriate learningopportunities to reach the intended learning goals.

Second, such a framework is intended to foster discussion aboutquality. The very fact that a group of teachers sets about selecting anumber of opportunity standards for their program raises the questionsof how they define and implement good learning opportunities andwhat the literature has to say about learning. In this way, standardsemphasise the institutional role in promoting quality beyond the indi-vidual teacher’s role. At the same time, they can be an instrument fordeveloping the learner’s role by providing a reference point for learnersto talk about learning. Dialogue about learning works toward thecapacity to self-direct. A framework of opportunities demystifies lan-guage learning by exposing the underlying processes aimed at by tasksand materials. Opportunity standards as goals are as relevant to thelearners as they are to teachers.

Third, an opportunity framework provides a proactive basis forevaluation by stating the salient features of program quality from thebeginning. It does not claim that all quality features of a program can bedescribed—an unobtainable and undesirable goal—but it provides aframe of action that is at least a safety net and at best a productive tool forprogram development.

Quality is comparative by its nature. Working with quality targets thathave been adopted by a teaching team implies that current practice isbeing critically evaluated and compared with a notion of improvedpractice. Improved practice may be derived from creative thinking, or it

32 TESOL QUARTERLY

may be founded on exposure to ideas from other programs, otherinstitutions, or other countries. This view of quality as something that isdefined, owned, and developed locally, with input from research onteaching and learning, is to be distinguished from a view of quality thatis defined and managed entirely through external specification. Ac-countability can nevertheless be achieved through a combination ofstudent achievement, student satisfaction, and evidence of a strongquality management and evaluation system in place. Internally setopportunity standards provide a partial basis for this system. Moreover,they allow for some degree of common currency for any comparativeprocesses, such as benchmarking, that might be deemed useful.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to Jim Dickie for an early and, as always, thought-provoking discussionon opportunity standards, and to Janet Holmes and the TESOL reviewers for theirhelpful responses.

THE AUTHOR

David Crabbe is currently the head of the School of Linguistics and AppliedLanguage Studies at Victoria University of Wellington. His interests lie in languagecurriculum development and learner autonomy as means to fostering effectivelanguage learning.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications (4th ed.). New York:Freeman.

Arnold, J. (1999). Affect in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Benson, P. (2001.) Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Harlow,

England: Pearson Education.Brindley, G. (1998). Outcomes-based assessment and reporting in language learning

programmes: A review of the issues. Language Testing, 15, 45–85.Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action. New York: Wiley.Coleman, H. (1996). Shadow puppets and language lessons: interpreting classroom

behaviour in its cultural context. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the languageclassroom (pp. 64–85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Council of Europe, Council for Cultural Cooperation. (2001). Common Europeanframework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Crabbe, D. (1993). Fostering autonomy: The teacher’s responsibility. System, 21, 443–452.

Cumming, A. (2001). The difficulty of standards, for example in L2 writing. InT. Silva & P. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 209–229). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Dale, B. G. (1999). TQM: An overview. In B. G. Dale (Ed.), Managing quality (pp. 3–33). Oxford: Blackwell.


Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. LanguageTeaching, 31, 117–135.

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow, England: PearsonEducation.

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. InC. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second languageacquisition (pp. 197–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Elley, W. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of thebook-based programs. Language Learning, 41, 375–411.

Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. (1998). Reconceptualising the knowledge-base of

language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397–417.Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20, 237–264.Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students.

Language Teaching Research, 4, 33–54.Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for

second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 27–48.Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35,

537–560.Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Locke, E. A., & Kristof, A. L. (1996). Volitional choice in the goal achievement

process. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linkingcognition and motivation to behaviour (pp. 363–384). New York: Guilford Press.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. InC. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second languageacquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts and explicit correction in relation toerror types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48,183–218.

Macintyre, P., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes and affect as predictors ofsecond language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 3–26.

Mackay, R., Wellesley, S., Tasman, D., & Bazergan, E. (1998). Using institutionalself-evaluation to promote the quality of language and communication trainingprogrammes. In P. Rea-Dickens & K. Germaine (Eds.), Managing evaluation andinnovation in language teaching: building bridges (pp. 111–131). New York: Longman.

Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second languagedevelopment: Recasts, responses and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal,82, 338–356.

Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives. London: Kogan Page.Mager, R. F. (1991). Preparing instructional objectives (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.McKay, E. A. (1998). Business concepts in language curriculum design. Unpublished

master’s thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.Munro, D., Schumaker, J. F., & Carr, S. C. (Eds.). (1997). Motivation and culture. New

York: Routledge.Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

34 TESOL QUARTERLY

Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human problem-solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148.

Pearson, P. D. (1993). Standards for the English language arts: A policy perspective.Journal of Reading Behaviour, 25, 457–475.

Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Reid, J. (Ed.). (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston: Heinle &

Heinle.Reid, J. (1998). Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.Schumann, J. (1997). The neurobiology of affect in language. Language Learning, 48

(Supplement).Schwartz, S. H. (1997). Values and culture. In D. Munro, J. F. Schumacher, & S. C.

Carr (Eds.), Motivation and culture (pp. 69–84). New York: Routledge.Scottish Qualifications Authority. (1994/1995). National certificate module: Unit specifi-

cation unit, English as a foreign language 1 (Unit No. 7340024). Retrieved June 30,2002, from http://www.sqa.org.uk

Spada, N. (1997). Form-focussed instruction and second language acquisition: Areview of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73–85.

Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London:Heinemann.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook& B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour ofH. G. Widdowson (pp. 12–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (1999). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborativetasks. In C. Ward & W. Renandya (Eds.), Language teaching (pp. 125–147).Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes theygenerate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Twoadolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern LanguageJournal, 82, 320–337.

Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt,Brace & World.

TESOL. (1997). ESL standards for pre-K–12 students. Alexandria, VA: Author.TESOL. (2000). Program standards for adult education ESOL programs. Alexandria, VA:

Author.Trim, J. (1998). Introduction to European perspectives on modern language

learning: Contributions to the Modern Languages Project of the Council ofEurope. Language Teaching, 31, 206–213.

Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Wenden, A. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Lin-guistics, 19, 515–537.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning meaning and identity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Willing, K. (1988). Learning styles in adult migrant education. Adelaide, Australia:National Curriculum Resource Centre.

Willis, D., & Willis, J. (1987). Varied activities for variable language. ELT Journal, 41,12–18.


Reading in Two Languages:How Attitudes Toward Home Languageand Beliefs About Reading Affect theBehaviors of “Underprepared”L2 College Readers*

LÍA D. KAMHI-STEINCalifornia State UniversityLos Angeles, California, United States

This study explores the relationship between L1 and L2 readingstrategy use and affective factors, including readers’ views of their homelanguage and their beliefs about reading. The study participants werefour L2 college readers of Spanish and English, all from an immigrantbackground and all considered academically underprepared for col-lege. Data were collected through think-aloud protocols, open-endedinterviews, self-assessment inventories, and reading comprehensionmeasures in Spanish and English. Qualitative data analyses showed thatreaders’ attitudes toward their home language influenced readingbehavior. Specifically, in contrast to the two readers who viewed their L1as a problem, the readers who viewed their L1 as a resource chose topurposefully translate mentally into their home language when readingin the L2, regardless of their level of L2 reading proficiency or length ofEnglish study. Qualitative data analysis also showed that, at least to someextent, the readers’ beliefs about reading influenced reading behavior,which was multistrategic and flexible for the two readers who viewedreading as a process of meaning construction and logocentric for thetwo who viewed reading as a word-centered process. These findings callfor further research examining the connections between learners’beliefs about reading and their reading processes.

Effective reading in English is essential for learners’ academic success,and therefore teachers and researchers continually attempt to

understand the factors affecting success in reading comprehension.Research on L1 reading investigates the role that readers’ beliefs play in

* An earlier version of this article was presented at the 17th Annual Reading ResearchColloquium at the 32nd Annual TESOL Convention in Seattle, Washington, March 1998.

36 TESOL QUARTERLY

the reading comprehension process. As noted by Horowitz (1994),beliefs, understood as personal convictions reflecting social and culturaltruths to which people adhere in daily living, can deeply influencereaders’ understanding of textual meaning. In L2 reading, one mightexpect that readers would develop such beliefs based on L1 readingexperience, but within the extensive literature on L2 reading, compara-tively little research has focused on the relationship between homelanguage and L2 reading, or what Bernhardt (2000) calls “cross-lingualprocessing strategies” (pp. 801–802). Even less research has dealt withhow bilingual readers’ beliefs about reading and attitudes toward theirL1 and L2 influence the cross-lingual reading process. This investigationis grounded on the premise that affective factors, including readers’attitudes toward their L1 and L2 and their beliefs about reading, mayinfluence the cross-lingual reading process, and it examines links amongL1 and L2 reading behaviors, readers’ beliefs about reading, and theirattitudes toward their L1 and L2.

BACKGROUND

Research on Cross-Lingual Reading Strategies

The past decade has witnessed growing interest in the cross-lingualuse of reading strategies. Research in this area has relied on the use ofthe think-aloud technique, in which readers verbalize their thoughtprocesses while reading a text (Wade, 1990). Cross-lingual readingstrategy research has shown that Mandarin-English bilinguals use similarstrategies when reading in their L1 and L2 (Tang, 1997) and that use ofbackground knowledge can compensate for low foreign languageproficiency (Davis & Bistodeau, 1993).

More revealing is research designed to identify and compare themetacognitive strategy use of immigrant bilingual middle school read-ers—considered successful or less successful as determined by test scoresand teachers—from a Spanish-speaking background. Comparisons ofsuch readers have shown that successful readers articulate a multistrategicapproach to reading, focus on unknown vocabulary (although thisattention does not interfere with overall comprehension), and monitortheir reading process. Less successful bilingual readers have been foundto implement counterproductive reading behavior and exhibit a lack ofcoordinated strategy use ( Jiménez, García, & Pearson, 1995). The resultsof research by Blonski Hardin (2001), focusing on elementary schoolSpanish-dominant readers considered to be able, average, or less ablereaders as determined by the Aprenda test, were consistent with Jiménez

READING IN TWO LANGUAGES 37

et al.’s findings. Specifically, Blonski Hardin found that, compared withless able readers, able and average readers were more strategic Englishand Spanish readers and exhibited similar strategic behaviors whenreading in Spanish and in English.

At present, research focusing on readers’ use of bilingual strategies,that is, strategies drawing on the readers’ bilingual status, is still veryscarce. An investigation by Jiménez, García, and Pearson (1996) hasshown that successful bilingual (Spanish-English) middle school readersuse three strategies particular to their bilingual status: (a) relying ontheir knowledge of cognate words (words that are similar in orthographyand meaning in the two languages); (b) transferring information learnedin one language to the other language; and (c) mentally translating fromone language to the other, involving the mental reprocessing of L2words, phrases, or sentences into the L1 while reading texts written inthe L2. Much like the middle school readers in this study, elementaryschool Mexican American students who were bilingual readers werefound to rely on code mixing (using two languages within the samesentence) and code switching (“switching between languages at sentenceboundaries”; García, 1998, p. 254). These readers also relied on threetypes of translation (“using one language to explain what was read in theother”; García, 1998, p. 254): word-for-word, paraphrased, and summary.Further research into the use of mental translation has shown itsmultidimensional role in L2 readers’ comprehension process. Specifi-cally, mental translation has been found to facilitate readers’ semanticprocessing; to be used in response to specific obstacles to comprehen-sion; and to allow readers to consolidate meaning, retain information,clarify syntactic difficulties, verify information, and check comprehen-sion (Kern, 1994).

Beliefs About Reading

Readers’ beliefs play an important role in the reading process; theycan deeply influence readers by influencing their attention and affectingcomprehension of a reading passage (Garner & Alexander, 1994), asGarner and Hansis (1994) found in a study of adults’ responses to fliers(“street texts”; p. 57) aimed at persuading readers. The results of thestudy showed that, although the participants understood the facts aboutthe events described in the street texts, their understanding of one textfocusing on a riot was affected by stereotypes about African Americansthat could not be traced back to the text. Garner and Hansis concludedthat researchers need to acknowledge the important role of beliefstructures in the construction of text. Their finding could also beexplained by the literature on belief change, which suggests that people,

38 TESOL QUARTERLY

including trained scientists, may not carefully consider evidence whenreading text (Chambliss, 1994). Instead, they usually search for evidencethat supports what they already believe. Chambliss and Garner (1996)further argue that a number of conditions need to exist for readers’beliefs to change after reading a persuasive text: (a) The text must becarefully written to counter the readers’ original beliefs and present acoherent and comprehensible argument, (b) the readers’ originalbeliefs must not be too extreme, and (c) the readers must be motivatedto consider and evaluate the evidence presented.

In investigating the likelihood that individuals will be persuaded bytext, Alexander, Murphy, Bueh, and Sperl (1998) found that the mostlikely candidates to change their beliefs were readers exhibiting moder-ate but favorable positions on the topic, moderate to high interest in thetopic, and moderate levels of knowledge on the topic—whether or notreaders perceived or demonstrated the knowledge. In another studyfocusing on beliefs, Borko, Davinroy, Flory, and Hiebert (1994) hypoth-esized that, to change classroom practices, teachers need to have theknowledge necessary to make changes and the beliefs that support suchchanges. In their study, third-grade teachers’ instruction in summarywriting did not change dramatically as a result of their participation in aset of workshops; instead, instruction reflected elaborations of theirclassroom practices before the training.

Readers’ beliefs about reading have also been found to influence thereading process. An investigation by Devine (1984, as cited in Devine,1988) found that L2 readers exhibited three different sets of beliefsabout reading (i.e., reading as a sound-centered, word-centered, andmeaning-centered process), which were reflected in reading behaviors.For example, sound-centered readers focused on the graphic informa-tion in the text, and meaning-centered readers, on understanding whatthe author wanted to say. Devine concluded that readers’ theoreticalorientation to reading may determine, to some extent, the degree towhich low proficiency in the language restricts L2 reading ability.Another investigation (Blonski Hardin, 2001) showed that able bilingualreaders viewed reading as gathering meaning whereas less able bilingualreaders viewed reading as focusing on words.

In an investigation on bilingual readers’ beliefs about reading, Jiménez(1997) found that low-literacy Latino/Latina middle school readersseemed to understand that learning to read requires effort but viewedreading as “an almost complete mystery” (p. 235). These findingscontrast with others ( Jiménez et al., 1995, 1996) showing that successfulbilingual Latino/Latina readers of English viewed reading as a pleasur-able activity and as a means to learn new information.


Attitudes Toward the Home Language

Ruíz (1984) identified three orientations toward language planning:language as problem, language as right, and language as resource. Thefirst orientation views minority languages as problems and associateslanguage issues with problems identified within language minoritygroups (e.g., poverty, low educational achievement). According to thisorientation, teaching the majority language, even at the expense of theL1, is the solution to social problems. A language-as-right orientationviews minority languages as a basic human right and seeks affirmation ofthe speakers’ language rights. The third orientation views minoritylanguages as a resource for their speakers and the community at large.According to Ruíz, the implementation of a language-as-resource orien-tation to language planning can improve the status of minority lan-guages and ease tensions between majority and minority communities.

Although the three orientations have been used to describe macrolevellanguage planning issues (e.g., Ruíz, 1984; Wiley, 1996), they also appearin research studies dealing with local settings, including but not limitedto studies focusing on individual communities, homes, schools, andclassrooms. Several studies have shown that the perceptions of the homelanguage as a problem or as a resource lead to the use of the majority orthe minority language, respectively. In an ethnographic investigation of aNew York Puerto Rican community, Zentella (1997) described the caseof María, a child whose doctors attributed her seemingly slow rate ofEnglish language acquisition to the confusion caused by her family’scode switching. In contrast, other children in the community whoseparents engaged in code switching did not exhibit signs of confusion andacquired both English and Spanish faster than María did.

The notion of home language as problem or as resource was alsoinvestigated by Jiménez et al. (1995, 1996) in their studies on the readingstrategies of successful and less successful readers. The successful bilin-gual readers were found to view their home language as a resource andrely on its use for understanding written text. In contrast, less successfulbilingual readers were found to view their home language as a problemand avoid using it because, according to the readers, the home languagecaused confusion. In a related study, Hakuta and D’Andrea (1992) foundthat attitudinal orientation was effective in predicting the languagechosen for use in contexts other than the home.

In supporting the notion of home language as resource, Freeman(1996) concluded that equal distribution of the minority and majoritylanguages elevated the status of the minority language. Specifically, in aschool that implemented a two-way Spanish-English bilingual programdesigned for limited English proficient and limited Spanish proficient

40 TESOL QUARTERLY

students, the Spanish language played an official educational function.Students therefore saw Spanish as a resource and Spanish speakers aslegitimate participants in the educational discourse. Smith (1999) showedthat the perception of a home language as lacking in prestige can lead tolanguage shift. In the bilingual classroom investigated, Spanish-dominantchildren avoided using their home language because they perceived thatit was not as prestigious as English and wanted to escape the negativebehaviors associated with the use of Spanish in school.

The Current Study

To meet the needs of L2 readers, TESOL professionals need informa-tion on learners’ internal reading processes (Block, 1986). Moreover,affective factors, including readers’ attitudes toward their home lan-guage and the L2, and readers’ beliefs about text and reading, mayinfluence the cross-lingual reading process. Think-aloud research meth-ods provide a means of revealing evidence about readers’ mentalprocesses. The use of think-aloud data in L2 reading research dates tothe late 1970s (e.g., Hosenfeld, 1977, 1984), and the think-aloudtechnique became widely used in the 1990s (Anderson, 1991; Block,1992; Davis & Bistodeau, 1993; Jiménez et al., 1995, 1996; Kern, 1994).

Concerns about think-aloud methods have included their unfamiliar-ity to readers (Olson, Duffy, & Mack, 1984), their interference with thereaders’ cognitive processes (Afflerbach & Johnston, 1984), and thedifficulty of reporting automated processes (Olson et al., 1984). L2reading researchers have also raised concerns regarding the addedcognitive demands such methods place on L2 readers and the limitationsencountered when readers are asked to think aloud in their L2 (Cohen,1996), although allowing L2 readers to choose the language of verbalreport is a solution to this problem (Cohen, 1996). Despite theselimitations, L1 and L2 reading researchers agree that the use of thethink-aloud technique allows researchers and practitioners to form agood understanding of the readers’ mental processes, which otherwisewould be impossible to access (Afflerbach & Johnston, 1984; Block, 1986;Cohen, 1996; Ericsson & Simon, 1984; Jiménez et al., 1995).

This study, descriptive in nature, focuses on four university-level nativeSpanish speakers from an immigrant background—a population whoseachievement is below that of their native-English-speaking peers. All fourwere considered underprepared for the academic demands of college.The following research questions guided the study:1. What is the relationship between the reading behavior of the four

underprepared readers when reading in English and in Spanish and


affective factors, including the readers’ (a) attitudes toward theirhome language and (b) beliefs about reading in English and inSpanish?

2. What is the relationship between the four underprepared readers’use of L1 and L2 reading strategies?

METHOD

Participants

Four bilingual, native-Spanish-speaking female college freshmen par-ticipated in this study (see Table 1). All were considered underpreparedto meet the academic language demands of college-level courses, asindicated by their scores on (a) the reading skills section of theCalifornia State University (CSU) English Placement Test, (b) the verbalskills section of the Scholastic Assessment Test, and (c) the English skillssection of the American College Testing examination. Therefore, theywere required to enroll in a series of prebaccalaureate courses, including

TABLE 1

Participants’ Background

Language used Test scores

Partici- Birth- Years U.S. At At Place- Read- Grade pointpant place in U.S. schooling school home menta ingb average

Lupita Mexico 8 Grade 5– Spanish Spanish 139 49 1.50college in Mexico;

English inU.S.

Edith Mexico 3 Grade 10– Spanish Spanish 124 23 —college in Mexico;

English inU.S.

Albita Mexico 17 K– Bilingual Spanish 131 37 2.00college programs

in K–4;Englishstarting inGrade 5

Beatriz El 5 Grade 2, Spanish Spanish 139 29 2.00Salvador 3, 6, 11– in El

college Salvador;English inU.S.

aCalifornia State University English Placement Test. bGates MacGinitie Reading Test.

42 TESOL QUARTERLY

an English language development class for L2 speakers and two writingcourses, prior to taking the required Freshmen English Compositionclass.

The study participants were solicited according to four criteria: (a)prior participation in the Summer Bridge Program (which provides thelowest one-fourth quartile of graduating high school students enrollingin the CSU system with 6–8 weeks of instruction in mathematics, Englishfor academic purposes, and a content area); (b) representation of thepopulation of freshmen at CSU, Los Angeles, where 75% of the enteringfreshmen are language minority students and 82% of these are requiredto enroll in prebaccalaureate reading and writing courses; (c) ability tospeak fluent Spanish and English and self-reported ability to read well inSpanish; and (d) willingness to participate in the study in exchange forassistance with their reading.

Materials

The think-aloud texts (see Appendix A) were two excerpts, one eachin Spanish and English, that presented information about minoritywomen in the United States, a topic that had been addressed in theSummer Bridge Program. The Spanish text (655 words; Madrigal, 1998),available in a popular Spanish language magazine published in theUnited States, presented a chronological sequence of events. TheEnglish text, published in a book used in the Summer Bridge Program(850 words; Anzaldúa, 1995), had features of a comparison-and-contrastand a descriptive text (Meyer, 1981).

Before each think-aloud task, I assessed the readers’ prior knowledgeof the topics in the texts by asking them to (a) answer questions aboutthe topics and (b) define key vocabulary terms from the two texts( Jiménez et al., 1995) (see Appendix B). In addition, in an interviewconducted in their language of choice, the readers answered 13 open-ended questions (adapted from Jiménez et al., 1995) on their views onreading in Spanish and in English (see Appendix C). The readers alsocompleted an inventory designed to provide information on theirperceptions regarding their L1 and L2 reading skills as well as theirperceived problems when reading in English (see Appendix D).

Comprehension measures included the readers’ (a) retelling of thetexts and (b) answers to multiple-choice, true-false, and fill-in-the-blankquestions (see Appendix E). In the retelling task, readers looked overthe text for 1–2 minutes, turned it face down, and recounted everythingthey remembered about the text. The participants were allowed to lookat the text as they answered the questions.


Procedures

Data Collection

After completing the self-assessment inventory in a reading class inwhich they were enrolled, each participant met privately with me. Themeetings, which were audio- and videotaped, started with an interviewabout the reader’s views of reading. Then I modeled the think-aloudtechnique, and the participant practiced using a passage different fromthose used for data collection. The actual think-aloud task began whenthe students indicated that they were comfortable with the technique.

In completing the think-aloud task, participants were instructed to useSpanish, English, or both languages as they wished. Readers werereminded to use whichever language they normally used when reading athome and “to read silently or out loud, as they usually did, and to sayeverything that they were thinking when they read” (Kamhi-Stein, 1998,p. 612). Although the texts included red dots after each sentence (Block,1986), the readers were not required to think aloud after each sentence.Three dictionaries were readily available during the think-aloud task: (a)a Spanish-Spanish dictionary (Diccionario de la Lengua Española; RealAcademia Española, 1970), (b) an English-English dictionary (The NewGrolier Webster International Dictionary of the English Language; Kellerman,1976), and (3) a Spanish-English and English-Spanish dictionary (NuevoDiccionario General Inglés-Español, New Comprehensive English-Spanish Dictio-nary EDAF; Di Benedetto, Nicholson, O’Kelly, Huerta Tejadas, & QuintelaFerreiro, 1975). The readers were instructed to refer to the dictionariesas much or as little as they normally would when reading at home.Finally, before engaging in the think-aloud task, the participants weretold that, after reading each of the texts, they would perform severalexercises focusing on the texts.

Data Analysis

The analysis involved two phases. First, I calculated comprehensionscores by counting the number and percentage of correct answers on themultiple-choice, true-false, and fill-in-the-blank questions in English andin Spanish. Two bilingual readers analyzed the recall tasks in bothlanguages by reading the recall protocols, determining whether or notthe participants had identified the theses of the texts, and tallying thenumber of main ideas present in the recall protocols.

The second phase of the study involved analyzing the four partici-pants’ reading behaviors and attitudes toward reading. This analysisinvolved the following steps:

44 TESOL QUARTERLY

1. The results of the self-assessment inventory were recorded.2. Think-aloud data were transcribed, and two raters jointly identified

categories of individual reading strategies adapted from Block (1986)through a process of recursive reading.

3. The reading strategies were grouped under three major categories(adapted from Jiménez et al., 1996; see Table 2): (a) comprehension-monitoring strategies (designed to help readers evaluate the com-prehension process, e.g., detecting comprehension problems, at-tempting to solve the problems), (b) text-based strategies (designedto help readers understand text at the word, phrase, and sentencelevel, e.g., paraphrasing, using the dictionary, using context), and (c)

TABLE 2

Classification of Reading Strategies

Not drawing on the readers’ bilingual status

Drawing on thereaders’ bilingual Comprehension-

status monitoring Text-based High-level

• Mentally trans-lating: “mentallyreprocessing L2words, phrases,or sentences inL1 forms whilereading L2 texts”(Kern, 1994,p. 442)

• Detecting com-prehensionproblems: express-ing lack ofunderstanding

• Attempting to solvecomprehensionproblems: takingaction to correctcomprehensionproblems

• Paraphrasing: rephrasingindividual words andphrases using differentwording

• Using the dictionary:looking up words in thedictionary

• Using context: guessingthe meaning ofunknown words ordifficult text fromnearby information

• Recognizing text structure:identifying importantinformation, supportingfacts by relying on thestructure of the text, orboth

• Rereading: rereading aportion of the text

• Recognizing importantinformation: identifyingimportant information

• Summarizing importantinformation: constructingan oral summary thatintegrates informationfrom different sectionsof the text

• Integrating infor-mation: findingconnectionsbetween newinformation andideas previouslystated in the text

• Making inferencesabout the text:hypothesizingabout or inter-preting the text

• Questioning thetext: questioningthe significanceof the content

• Making predic-tions: anticipat-ing what the textwill be about

• Reacting affec-tively: respond-ing to the textwith affectivecomments


high-level strategies (designed to activate the world knowledgereaders bring to the text, e.g., integrating information, makinginferences about the text, questioning the text). Within these threecategories, the strategies were classified as drawing or not drawing onthe participants’ status as bilingual readers.

4. Data from the open-ended interviews were transcribed and analyzed.5. Individual case studies were created by combining the information

gathered on each participant in Steps 1, 3, and 4.The use of the various data-gathering techniques, including the self-

assessment inventory, the think-aloud task, and the open-ended inter-views, allowed for triangulation of the data collected. This processcontributed to the creation of reliable and detailed case studies.

FINDINGS

This section presents detailed case studies for the four L2 readers.Each case study includes the results of the comprehension measures (seeTable 3), information on the reader’s beliefs about reading in Englishand in Spanish, and patterns of L1 and L2 reading behaviors uncoveredfor each reader

Lupita

Comprehension Measures

Lupita answered correctly all five multiple-choice, true-false, and fill-in-the-blank questions for the Spanish text (see Table 3). Additionally,

TABLE 3

Results of the Comprehension Measures for the Spanish and English Texts

Recall task

Comprehension measure(n correct/total) Spanish article English article

Spanish English Main ideas Main ideasParticipant text text Thesis (n correct/total) Thesis (n correct/total)

Lupita 5/5 3/4 + 5/12 + 4/8

Edith 5/5 3/4 + 5/12 + 3/8

Albita 5/5 1/4 + 4/12 + 4/8

Beatriz 5/5 1/4 + 5/12 � 0/8

46 TESOL QUARTERLY

she identified the thesis of the text and recalled 5 of the 12 main ideascontained in the Spanish text. Lupita also answered correctly three ofthe four questions on the English text, recalled the thesis of the text, andrecalled 4 of the 8 main ideas contained in the text.

View of L1 as a Resource

During the interview, Lupita explained that she viewed her homelanguage as a resource. She added that mentally translating into Spanishwhen reading in English was a strategy that facilitated the construction ofmeaning, involving building a coherent representation of the text:

Leo en inglés y pienso en español. Trato de ponerlo en mis propias palabras.Puedo escoger más palabras en mi idioma. Puedo ponerme un ejemplo a mímisma; entonces con una palabra saco más de todo. (I read in English andthink in Spanish. I can put it [the reading] into my own words. I can choosemore words in my language. I can give my own examples; therefore, with oneword, I can understand more.)

Lupita’s view of mental translation into Spanish as a resource wasconfirmed in the think-aloud task, during which she chose to think aloudin Spanish continuously. As shown in the quotation above, the use ofmental translation seemed to facilitate semantic processing because itallowed her to represent the English text successfully in Spanish.Following is an example of how Lupita mentally translated into Spanishafter reading the English text:

(printed text) The first time I drove from El Paso to San Diego, I saw a signthat read Watch for Falling Rocks. And though I watched and waited for rocks toroll down the steep cliff walls and attack my car and me, I never saw any fallingrocks. Today, one of the things I’m most afraid of are the rocks we throw ateach other.

(Lupita’s response) Yo creo que lo que está tratando de decir es que ellapensaba que como ella pasó por El Paso le iban a caer rocas encima y teníamiedo. Estaba esperando que le cayeran pero nunca le cayeron y ahora no ledan miedo esas rocas. Le dan miedo las rocas que le puede tirar la gente. Norefiriéndose a rocas rocas, sino a las palabras, insultos, todo eso que la gentepuede tener contra ella. (I think that what she [the author] is trying to say isthat she thought that since she went through El Paso rocks were going to rolldown and she was afraid. She was waiting for the rocks to roll down, but theynever did, and now she is not afraid of those rocks. She is afraid of the rockspeople can throw at her. She is not referring to rock rocks, but to words,insults, all that people may throw at her.)


Reading Behavior as Meaning Construction

In her interview, Lupita expressed the idea that good readers read formeaning:

Un buen lector es una persona que entiende. Un mal lector lee por leer y nose da cuenta si eso lo beneficia o es algo útil. Un buen lector hace un repasode lo que está leyendo tanto en español como en inglés, es lo mismo. (Goodreaders understand what they read. Poor readers read for the sake of readingand do not understand whether they are getting any benefits or if what theyare reading is useful. Good readers review what they are reading, whetherthey are reading in Spanish or in English; it’s the same thing.)

Lupita’s approach to reading in English confirmed her statements inthe interview. The think-aloud protocols showed that, when reading inEnglish, she focused on the construction of meaning, which she under-stood as reading for the purpose of building a coherent representationof the text. In this process of meaning construction, she employed amultistrategic approach that integrated a variety of comprehension-monitoring, text-based, and high-level strategies.

Lupita used two comprehension-monitoring strategies to read theEnglish text: She detected comprehension problems at the level of wordsand sentences, and she attempted to solve the comprehension problemsby rereading the text, as shown below:

(printed text) That is, isolating them, pushing them out of the herd,ostracizing them.

(Lupita’s response: detecting comprehension problems; attempting to solvecomprehension problems) La verdad esto [ostracizing] no lo entiendo muybien [She rereads.]. (The truth is that I don’t understand this [ostracizing]well [She rereads.].)

Two high-level strategies Lupita used as she read the English text weremaking inferences about the text and questioning what the text had tosay, as shown respectively below:

(printed text) We shun the white-looking Indian, the “high yellow” Blackwoman, the Asian with the white lover, the Native woman who brings herwhite girl friend to the Pow Wow, the Chicana who doesn’t speak Spanish, theacademic, the uneducated.

(Lupita’s response: making inferences about the text) Trata de decir querechazamos a la gente de otras razas, como las mujeres chicanas que nohablan español y aún así traen sangre de hispano, traen sangre latina y nohablan español. ¿Por qué razón? ¿Por qué motivo? ¿Porque no se les enseñó?

48 TESOL QUARTERLY

Por qué no se les enseña? ¿Están avergonzados de eso? (She is trying to saythat we reject other races, like Chicanas who don’t speak Spanish and stillhave Hispanic blood, they have Latin blood, and they don’t speak Spanish.Why? What’s the reason for this? Because they weren’t taught Spanish. Whynot? Are they ashamed of that?)

(printed text) In the “dominant” phase of colonialism, European colonizersexercise direct control of the colonized, destroy the native legal and culturalsystems, and negate non-European civilizations in order to ruthlessly exploitthe resources of the subjugated with the excuse of attempting to “civilize”them.

(Lupita’s response: questioning) Pero ¿qué es civilizar realmente? Es hacereso. Lo que ellos [los europeos] hicieron es dominar. (But what does civilizereally mean? That is what it means. What they [the Europeans] did wasdominate.)

Lupita interacted with the Spanish text for the purpose of makingmeaning, as evidenced in her use of two high-level strategies: makinginferences and reacting affectively to the text:

(printed text) Al poco tiempo de trabajar allí, creé nuevos procedimientos decontratación y logré una mejor comunicación con los miembros del sindicato.La situación me fue llevando a involucrarme cada vez más en la ayuda a lostrabajadores. Hoy considero que en aquel momento respondí más a unllamado que a una decisión personal. (After working there for some time, Ideveloped new contract procedures, and I developed better communicationwith the union members. The situation encouraged me to become more andmore involved in helping workers. Today, I believe that, in those days, ratherthan making a personal decision, I was responding to a calling.)

(Lupita’s response: making inferences) Es una ventaja que ella tenía [hablarespañol]. Iba subiendo poco a poco. Sufrió pero iba subiendo poco a poco. . . porque ella quería que otra gente no pase tal vez lo que ella miró que sufamilia pasó . . . por ser gente que el inglés es su segundo idioma. (SpeakingSpanish is an advantage she had. She advanced step by step. She suffered, butshe advanced step by step because she did not want other people to gothrough what she saw her family go through . . . because she and her peoplespeak English as a second language.)

(printed text) Lo que serían sus primeros pasos en las lides sindicalescomenzaron cuando apenas tenía 20 anos. (She took what would be her firststeps in the union arena when she was 20 years old.)

(Lupita’s response: reacting affectively) Vaya que no perdió tiempo. (Wow!She did not waste any time.)


In the first quotation, Lupita hypothesized that Linda Chávez did notwant other people to go through what she had experienced to becomesuccessful. At the same time, she attributed some of Linda Chávez’sdifficulties in life to the fact that she was an immigrant for whom Englishwas an L2. The second quotation reflects one of the affective responsesto the original text that Lupita provided during the Spanish reading task.

When reading the Spanish text, Lupita used three text-based strate-gies: paraphrasing, using the structure of the text as a comprehensionaid, and summarizing important information from different sections ofthe text:

(printed text) Cuando Linda Chávez-Thompson ocupó el puesto de vice-presidenta ejecutiva de la AFLCIO (Federación Americana del Trabajo yCongreso de las Organizaciones Industriales) en 1995, millones de latinosresidentes en Estados Unidos se sintieron inmensamente orgullosos de quefuera una méxico-americana quien llegara a esta importante posición en laorganización sindical más grande del país. (When Linda Chávez-Thompsonwas appointed executive vice president of the AFL-CIO [American Federationof Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations] in 1995, millions ofHispanics living in the United States felt immensely proud that a MexicanAmerican had arrived at this important position in the biggest union of thecountry.)

(Lupita’s response: paraphrasing) Este . . . . Parecería que lo que sucede esque esta muchacha es hija de inmigrantes . . . de gente mexicana que vino aeste país y ella es de una generación que nació en los Estados Unidos.Entonces ella ha sobresalido a todo lo del racismo y todo lo que ocurre eneste tiempo . . . . Entonces ella ocupa un puesto muy importante aquí y lagente mexicana, la gente latina, está muy orgullosa de que ella esté alcanzandoesta meta. (Eh . . . . It looks like what is happening is that this woman is thedaughter of immigrants . . . of Mexican people who came to this country, andshe is part of a generation that was born in the United States. Then sheovercame everything related to racism and everything that happens in thesetimes . . . . Therefore, she has a very important position here, and Mexicanpeople, Hispanics, are very proud of her achievement.)

(printed text) Su sueño se había tronchado por el trabajo de limpiar casas ygranjas a cambio de un salario nada envidiable: un dólar por hora. (Herdream had broken because she had to clean houses and farms in exchangefor the unenviable salary of one dollar per hour.)

(Lupita’s response: recognizing text structure) Aquí hay otro ejemplo de que. . . como ella ha sufrido. (Here’s another example of . . . how much she’ssuffered.)

(Lupita’s response: summarizing important information) No importa queraza seas, si eres mujer o hombre, si eres inteligente, si sabes salir adelante,

50 TESOL QUARTERLY

nada te detiene, es lo que ella trata de decir. (Your race does not matter,neither does it matter whether you are male or female; if you are smart,nothing will stop you. That is what she is trying to say.)

Reading Behavior as Linear

Lupita did not construct a goal for reading the text. Absent from herprotocols when reading in both Spanish and English were strategies thatcharacterize good readers, such as reading the texts’ titles or subtitlesand looking at pictures and generating a hypothesis about the texts.Lupita’s first encounter with the Spanish and the English texts consistedof reading the first sentence of the texts and then diving in and readingthem through in a linear—that is, nonselective—manner.

Edith


Edith answered correctly the five multiple-choice, true-false, and fill-in-the-blank questions for the Spanish text; additionally, she identifiedthe thesis of the text and recalled 5 of the 12 main ideas in the text (seeTable 3 above). She answered correctly three of the four questions onthe English text, recalled the thesis of the text, and recalled 3 of the 8main ideas in the text.

View of L1 as a Resource

During the interview, Edith expressed concern about her lack ofvocabulary in English. She attributed this problem to the fact that, at thetime of the study, she had been in the United States for only 3 years andhad received limited instruction in English. Edith also reported viewingher home language as a resource. As she explained, mentally translatinginto Spanish when reading in English facilitated the construction ofmeaning,

Cuando leo en inglés, me pongo a pensar en español, si esto, no esto. Alprincipio tenía que traducir palabra por palabra para entender. Ahora tratode agarrar el significado de la lectura en español. (When I read in English, Ithink in Spanish, Is this right? Is this not right? At the beginning, I had totranslate word for word to understand. Now I try to understand the meaningof the text in Spanish.)


Edith’s view of mental translation as a resource was confirmed in thethink-aloud task. She continuously processed the English text in Spanish.According to Edith, translating into Spanish allowed her to clarify andconsolidate the meaning of the text. However, as shown in the excerptbelow, Edith’s mental translation was sometimes unproductive in that itdid not result in accurate comprehension of the text:

(printed text) One of the changes that I’ve seen since This Bridge Called MyBack was published is that we no longer allow white women to efface us orsuppress us. Now we do it to each other. We have taken over the missionary’s“let’s civilize the savage role.” Fixating on the “wrongness” and moral orpolitical inferiority of some of our sisters, insisting on a profound differencebetween oneself and the Other.

(Edith’s response: mentally translating) Este es el título de su libro, pero ellano mira ninguna diferencia entre una mujer blanca y una mujer así comonosotras. O sea todos somos iguales y todos tenemos los mismos derechos. Noimporta si está más civilizada o es más salvaje que las demás. (This is the titleof her book, but she does not see any differences between a white woman anda woman like this, like us. So that means that we are all the same, and we allhave the same rights. It does not matter whether she is more civilized or moresavage than the others.)

Reading Behavior as Meaning Construction

Edith expressed the idea that good readers read for meaning. In herinterview she said,

Un buen lector, como yo en español . . . es cuando voy a tomar un artículoque realmente me interesa y le voy a poner todo el empeño del mundo ycomprender lo que la lectura quiere decirme, lo que el autor trató de decirleal lector. (A good reader, like I am in Spanish, is when I grab a text I’m reallyinterested in and I do my best and understand what the reading wants to say,what the author tried to tell the reader.)

Edith’s approach to reading in English reflected her notion thatreading involves the construction of meaning. In this process, sheemployed a multistrategic approach that included comprehension-monitoring, text-based, and high-level strategies. Her comprehension-monitoring strategy was to detect comprehension problems and attemptto solve them through two text-based strategies: rereading and lookingup selected words. Edith resorted to looking up words in the dictionaryonly after she had completed reading the English text. As she explained,the words she chose to look up—generic and ostracizing—prevented herfrom understanding ideas in the text:

52 TESOL QUARTERLY

(printed text) In the “dominant” phase of colonialism, European colonizersexercise direct control of the colonized, destroy the native legal and culturalsystems, and negate non-European civilizations in order to ruthlessly exploitthe resources of the subjugated with the excuse of attempting to “civilize”them.

(Edith’s response: detecting comprehension problems) Una sentence que nole agarro; no lo entiendo y lo vuelvo a leer. (A sentence that I don’tunderstand; I don’t understand it, and I read it again.)

Edith employed the high-level strategy of making inferences whenreading in English:

(printed text) We have been indoctrinated into adopting the old imperialistways of conquering and dominating, adopting a way of confrontation basedon differences while standing on the ground of ethnic superiority.

(Edith’s response: making inferences about the text) Lo que yo entiendo quequiere decir es que nadie tiene más por nada más sino que a ellos lesenseñaron a adaptarse a la vieja o al viejo imperio o al viejo imperialismo.Como nuestra situación, ¿no? (What I understand that the author is trying tosay is that we don’t have things just because, but they were taught to adapt tothe old Empire or to the old imperialism. Like us, right?)

Edith’s approach to reading the Spanish text was characterized bywhat at first seemed to be a lack of visible engagement with it until shehad finished reading the passage. She read it rapidly (“de corridito”).After reading, she repeated the text to herself following its structure. Inthis recall task, Edith summarized important information, a text-basedstrategy. As shown in the excerpt below, she incorporated much impor-tant information from different sections of the article:

(Edith’s response: summarizing important information) Este artículo se tratade Linda Chávez que es una méxico-americana nacida en Texas y que está enun sindicato ocupando gentes que eran bilingües y que ella no perdió eltiempo, no descuidó el tiempo y cuando empezó le pagaban un sueldo queno era nada. Y este . . . después de eso ella estaba trabajando como secretariapero antes de eso su padre le pidió que dejara de estudiar para que se fueraa trabajar a las labores a la recogida de algodón y al cosechamiento y todoesto, y ya después cuando se casó . . . . (This article is about Linda Chávez, aMexican American born in Texas who works for a union that hires bilingualpeople, and she did not waste any time, she did not waste time and when shebegan to work she was paid a miserable salary. And . . . after this, she wasworking as a secretary, but before working as a secretary, her father asked herto drop out of school to work in the cotton fields and to pick cotton and allof that, and then when she married . . . .)



When reading in either language, Edith did not use strategies thatcharacterize good readers, such as reading the texts’ titles or subtitles orlooking at pictures and generating hypotheses about them. For bothtexts, she simply read the first sentence and continued to the end in alinear, nonselective manner.

Albita


Albita answered correctly only one of four multiple-choice, true-false,and fill-in-the-blank questions in English (see Table 3 above). Sheanswered correctly the five questions on the Spanish text. Additionally,she identified the theses of the Spanish and the English texts andrecalled 4 of the 12 main ideas in the Spanish text and 4 of the 8 ideas inthe English text.

View of L1 as a Problem and a Resource

During the interview, Albita expressed conflicting views of her bilin-gualism. She explained that knowing both English and Spanish wasuseful for doing business in a city like Los Angeles but sometimesproduced confusion:

El saber inglés y español ayuda pero hay veces que causa problemas porquelas palabras se miran iguales. Hay veces que miro algo en una pared y despuésme doy cuenta que es en español y no en inglés. (Knowing English andSpanish is helpful, but there are times when it causes problems because thewords look alike. Sometimes I read something on a wall, and then I realizethat it is in Spanish and not in English.)

Reading Behavior as Word-Driven

Albita conceptualized reading as a process of understanding themeaning of words:

Los buenos lectores saben como entender las palabras, que significan laspalabras. En mi caso, si estoy leyendo un libro y no entiendo la palabra, noparo de leer en ese mismo instante pero al terminar de leer la oración. Ybusco la palabra y me hace entender lo que leo. En inglés y en español.

54 TESOL QUARTERLY

(Good readers know how to understand words, what words mean. In my case,if I am reading a book and don’t understand a word, I don’t stop reading atthat very moment, but when I finish reading the sentence. And I look up theword, and that helps me understand what I read. I do this both in English andin Spanish.)

Albita’s view of reading as word centered was confirmed during thethink-aloud tasks in English and Spanish. While reading the English andSpanish texts, she looked up nine English words (capitulation, imperialis-tic, legitimacy, neo-colonialism, ostracizing, othering, scrupulously, subjugate,subordination) and five Spanish words (sindicales, síndico, sindicato, faena,tronchado). In looking up words, Albita did not pay attention to or wasunaware of parts of speech or prefixes or suffixes. For example, she firstlooked up the word in the form she had encountered (e.g., scrupulously,neo-colonialism). She read the first dictionary entry and, if she did notunderstand it, proceeded to look up the words in the entry. Central toher approach was the fact that, contrary to what she indicated in theinterview, she immediately stopped reading whenever she detected acomprehension problem in English or in Spanish to look up the wordthat prevented her from understanding the text. Because the strategywas the only one Albita had for solving problems in both languages, herreading process was very fragmented. Following are two examples ofwhat Albita said and did when she encountered an unknown word in theEnglish or Spanish text:

(printed text) We have been indoctrinated into adopting the old imperialistways of conquering and dominating, . . . .

(Albita’s response) I don’t know what imperialist means. I’m going to look itup. [She looks it up and then rereads the sentence.]

(printed text) Eran largas horas de faena. (Those were long days of work.)

(Albita’s response) Faena. No se lo que significa faena. [She looks up the wordin the dictionary.] (Work. I don’t know what work means. [She looks up theword in the dictionary.])

Reading Behavior as Getting Through the Text

Albita’s interaction with the English and Spanish texts was limited inthat she employed a small number of reading strategies. Specifically,besides looking up every unknown word she encountered in either text,the only other text-based strategy she used was paraphrasing, as shown bythese excerpts rom the think-aloud protocols on the English and theSpanish texts:


(printed text) The first time I drove from El Paso to San Diego, I saw a signthat read Watch for Falling Rocks. And though I watched and waited for rocksto roll down the steep cliff walls and attack my car and me, I never saw anyfalling rocks. Today, one of the things I’m most afraid of are the rocks wethrow at each other.

(Albita’s response: paraphrasing) In this text, they do not mean literallyfalling rocks. They mean the insults and the prejudice against them.

(printed text) Lo que serían sus primeros pasos en las lides sindicalescomenzaron cuando apenas tenía 20 años. Todo empezó cuando su tío larecomendó al agente del sindicato local de Lubbock, Texas, la ciudad dondevivía. Allí necesitaban una secretaria bilingüe, debido a que mas del 65 porciento de los miembros eran méxico-americanos. (What would be her firststeps in the union arena started when she was 20 years old. Everything startedwhen her uncle recommended her to a local union agent in Lubbock, Texas,where she lived. There, they needed a bilingual secretary because over 65% ofthe members were Mexican American.)

(Albita’s response: paraphrasing) Linda Chávez es importante para losmexicanos. Empezó a trabajar a los 20 de secretaria. (Linda Chávez isimportant to Mexicans. She started to work as a secretary when she was 20years old.)

As shown in the example below, Albita employed inferencing, a high-level strategy, when reading in Spanish.

(printed text) Para Linda, todo hubiera marchado bien si su padre no lehubiera pedido que abandonara los estudios. (For Linda, everything wouldhave gone well if her father had not asked her to give up studying.)

(Albita’s response: making inferences about the text) Tuvo que dejar deestudiar. Se robó parte de sus sueños. (She had to give up studying. It stolepart of her dream.)


Albita’s approach to reading in the two languages was linear. She didnot construct a goal for reading either the Spanish or the English text,reading them from beginning to end in a nonselective manner.

56 TESOL QUARTERLY

Beatriz


Beatriz answered correctly the five multiple-choice, true-false, and fill-in-the-blank questions for the Spanish text (see Table 3 above). Incontrast, she answered correctly only one of the four questions on theEnglish text. Although she was able to identify the thesis of the Spanishtext, she did not identify the thesis of the English text. Beatriz recalled 5of the 12 main ideas in the Spanish text and none of the 8 ideas in theEnglish text.

View of L1 as a Problem and as a Resource

During the interview, Beatriz expressed conflicting views of herbilingualism. For example, she explained that knowing Spanish wasadvantageous because it allowed her to keep in touch with her relativesin El Salvador but said that she usually avoided mental translationbecause it caused confusion. The following excerpt reflects Beatriz’sconflict regarding her bilingualism:

En mi caso, yo leo en inglés pero no lo leo tan bien. Inglés no lo leo con tantafacilidad. . . . Lo único que aprendí en español es vocabulario, y eso me ayuda.Pero en español lees como lo escribes, las palabras las pronuncias igual. Eninglés los sonidos no son iguales. Un buen lector en español tiene que saberlas reglas de la lectura, acentos. En inglés, tiene que estar bien concentrado ysaber pronunciar las palabras. Hay algunas [palabras] que se parecen y tienendiferente significado. Por eso, cuando leo en inglés, trato de pensar en inglés.(In my case, I read in English, but I don’t read too well. . . . The only thing Ilearned in Spanish is vocabulary and that helps. But in Spanish you read theway you write, the words are pronounced in the same way. In English, youdon’t read the way you write. A good Spanish reader has to know readingrules, tildes. In English, a reader has to concentrate and know how topronounce words. Some words look alike and have different meanings. Thatis why, when I read in English, I try to think in English.)

Reading Behavior as Driven by the Pronunciation of Individual Words

Beatriz viewed reading as a process of knowing how to pronouncewords, as confirmed during the think-aloud task in English. Whenevershe encountered a word she had difficulty pronouncing in English (e.g.,cliff, efface, othering, subjugation, and subordination), she immediately usedthe text-based strategy of looking up the word in the dictionary. AsBeatriz indicated in her interview, the decision to look up the word was


driven by her inability to pronounce it. The following excerpt shows whatBeatriz said when she encountered an unknown word:

(printed text) And though I watched and waited for rocks to roll down thesteep cliff walls and attack my car and me, I never saw any falling rocks

(Beatriz’s response) Oh. I don’t know what this [cliff ] means. I don’t knowhow to say it. [She looks it up in the dictionary.]

In contrast, when Beatriz detected a comprehension problem in Span-ish, she either kept reading or reread the sentence that she had troubleunderstanding:

(printed text) Eran largas horas de faena. (Those were long days of work.)

(Beatriz’s response) Faena. ¿Que es faena? (What does faena mean? [Shekeeps reading.])

(printed text) Hoy lleva más de treinta años haciéndolo y, al contrario de loque la gente se imagina, Linda no tiene queja alguna de discriminación en elcargo que ocupa.

(Beatriz’s response) Pero, ¿qué es lo que ella hace? [She rereads.] Oh, quesiempre dicen que las mujeres no pueden hacer nada, ella no se sintió así.(What does she do? [She rereads.] Oh, they always say that women can’t doanything, but she never felt this.)

Reading Behavior as Dependent on the Language of the Text

Beatriz’s approach to reading was dependent on the language of thetext. She read the English text straight through from beginning to end,but when reading the Spanish text, she exhibited characteristics typicalof strategic readers. For example, she employed the high-level strategy ofreading the title and making a prediction about the topic. In addition,after reading the text, Beatriz read the title and looked over the picturesand the captions that accompanied the text as a means to confirm herunderstanding of the article.

(printed text) Linda Chávez

(Beatriz’s response: making inferences about the text) [She reads the title.]Esto va a ser sobre Linda Chávez. (This is going to be about Linda Chávez.)

Sí, está relacionada. (Yes, there is a connection [between the picture and thetext].)

58 TESOL QUARTERLY

When reading in Spanish, Beatriz also made inferences and summarizedinformation from different paragraphs. Following are examples fromBeatriz’s think-aloud protocol:

(printed text) Para Linda, todo hubiera marchado bien si su padre no lehubiera pedido que abandonara los estudios. (Everything would have gonewell if her father had not asked her to give up studying.)

(Beatriz’s response: making inferences about the text) Okay. Como todo elmundo, ¿no? El sueño de todos, de la mayoría de las personas, es entrar en launiversidad . . . . Pero a veces los padres tienen la culpa. Eso es lo que le pasóa Linda. (Okay. Like everyone else, right? Everyone’s dream is to go tocollege. . . . But sometimes it is the parents’ fault. That’s what happened toLinda.)

(Beatriz’s response: summarizing important information) Ella quería mejorarel trabajo en LA. Quería que los trabajadores—esos son los campesinos deverdad. . . . Ella quería mejor tratamiento, igual tratamiento para lostrabajadores. (She wanted to improve the working conditions in LA. Shewanted the workers—those are the true field workers. . . . She wanted bettertreatment, equal treatment, for the workers.)

When reading the English text, Beatriz paraphrased the original.Following is an example from the think-aloud protocol:

(printed text) In the “dominant” phase of colonialism, European colonizersexercise direct control of the colonized, destroy the nation’s legal andcultural systems, and negate non- European civilizations in order to ruthlesslyexploit the resources of the subjugated with the excuse of attempting to“civilize” them.

(Beatriz’s response: paraphrasing) In this sentence, she is saying that theywanted to civilize the people who were already there; civilize them the waythey lived.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

The results of this study contribute to an in-depth understanding ofthe role that affective factors, such as readers’ views of their homelanguage and beliefs about reading, may play in L2 reading. As shown bythe results of the qualitative analysis, including the interviews and think-aloud protocols summarized in Table 4, the reading behaviors exhibitedby the four underprepared readers were influenced, at least to someextent, by their attitudes toward their home language as well as by theirbeliefs about reading in both languages.


TA

BL

E 4

Sum

mar

y of

Qua

litat

ive

Find

ings

Rea

din

g st

rate

gies

ide

nti

fied

Not

dra

win

g on

rea

der’

s bi

lingu

al s

tatu

s

Self

-per

ceiv

edD

raw

ing

onV

iew

s of

App

roac

hdi

fficu

ltie

s w

hen

read

er’s

bili

ngu

alC

ompr

ehen

sion

-Pa

rtic

ipan

tre

adin

gto

rea

din

gre

adin

g E

ngl

ish

stat

usm

onit

orin

gT

ext-b

ased

Hig

h-le

vel

Lup

ita

•R

eadi

ng

asm

ean

ing

con

stru

ctio

n•

Men

tal

tran

slat

ion

into

L1

ash

elpf

ulre

adin

gst

rate

gy

•M

ean

ing

cen

tere

d•

Mul

tist

rate

gic

•L

inea

r•

L1

driv

en

•V

ocab

ular

y•

Com

preh

en-

sion

•C

once

n-

trat

ion

•B

ored

om

Wh

en r

eadi

ng

inE

ngl

ish

,•

Men

tally

tran

slat

es i

nto

Span

ish

Wh

en r

eadi

ng

inE

ngl

ish

,•

Use

s ba

ckgr

oun

dkn

owle

dge

•D

etec

ts a

nd

atte

mpt

s to

sol

veco

mpr

ehen

sion

prob

lem

s

Wh

en r

eadi

ng

inE

ngl

ish

,•

Rer

eads

Wh

en r

eadi

ng

inSp

anis

h,

•Pa

raph

rase

s•

Rec

ogn

izes

tex

tst

ruct

ure

•Su

mm

ariz

es

Wh

en r

eadi

ng

inE

ngl

ish

,•

Mak

es i

nfe

ren

ces

abou

t th

e te

xt•

Que

stio

ns

the

text

Wh

en r

eadi

ng

inSp

anis

h,

•M

akes

in

fere

nce

s•

Rea

cts

affe

ctiv

ely

to t

he

text

Edi

th•

Rea

din

g as

mea

nin

gco

nst

ruct

ion

•M

enta

ltr

ansl

atio

nin

to L

1 as

ah

elpf

ulre

adin

gst

rate

gy

•M

ean

ing

cen

tere

d•

Mul

tist

rate

gic

(wh

enre

adin

g in

En

glis

h)

•L

inea

r•

L1

driv

en

•V

ocab

ular

y•

Con

cen

-tr

atio

n•

Rat

e

Wh

en r

eadi

ng

inE

ngl

ish

,•

Men

tally

tran

slat

es i

nto

Span

ish

Wh

en r

eadi

ng

inE

ngl

ish

,•

Det

ects

an

dat

tem

pts

to s

olve

com

preh

ensi

onpr

oble

ms

Wh

en r

eadi

ng

inE

ngl

ish

,•

Rer

eads

•L

ooks

up

sele

cted

wor

dsaf

ter

com

plet

ing

the

read

ing

pass

age

Wh

en r

eadi

ng

inSp

anis

h,

•Su

mm

ariz

esim

port

ant

info

rmat

ion

aft

erre

adin

g th

e ar

ti-

cle

“de

corr

idit

o”

Wh

en r

eadi

ng

inE

ngl

ish

,•

Mak

es i

nfe

ren

ces

abou

t th

e te

xt

Con

tinue

d on

p.

60

60 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 4

con

tinue

d

Sum

mar

y of

Qua

litat

ive

Find

ings

Rea

din

g st

rate

gies

ide

nti

fied

Not

dra

win

g on

rea

der’

s bi

lingu

al s

tatu

s

Self

-per

ceiv

edD

raw

ing

onV

iew

s of

App

roac

hdi

fficu

ltie

s w

hen

read

er’s

bili

ngu

alC

ompr

ehen

sion

-Pa

rtic

ipan

tre

adin

gto

rea

din

gre

adin

g E

ngl

ish

stat

usm

onit

orin

gT

ext-b

ased

Hig

h-le

vel

Alb

ita

•R

eadi

ng

asw

ord-

cen

tere

d(m

ean

ing

ofw

ords

)•

Bili

ngu

alis

mas

pro

blem

and

reso

urce

•W

ord-

boun

d•

Lin

ear

•L

2 dr

iven

wh

en r

eadi

ng

in L

2•

Low

en

gage

-m

ent

wit

h t

he

text

•V

ocab

ular

y•

Com

pre-

hen

sion

•C

once

ntr

atio

n•

Rat

e•

Bor

edom

Wh

en r

eadi

ng

inE

ngl

ish

an

dSp

anis

h,

•D

etec

ts a

nd

atte

mpt

s to

sol

veco

mpr

ehen

sion

prob

lem

s

Wh

en r

eadi

ng

inE

ngl

ish

an

dSp

anis

h,

•L

ooks

up

ever

yun

know

n w

ord

•Pa

raph

rase

s

Wh

en r

eadi

ng

inSp

anis

h,

•M

akes

in

fere

nce

sab

out

the

text

Bea

triz

•R

eadi

ng

asw

ord-

cen

tere

d(p

ronu

ncia

tion

of w

ords

)•

Bili

ngu

alis

mas

pro

blem

and

reso

urce

•W

ord-

boun

d(w

hen

rea

d-in

g in

En

glis

h)

•L

inea

r in

En

glis

h,

stra

tegi

c in

Span

ish

•L

2 dr

iven

wh

en r

eadi

ng

in L

2•

Low

en

gage

-m

ent

wit

h t

he

text

•V

ocab

ular

y•

Com

pre-

hen

sion

•C

once

ntr

atio

n•

Rat

e•

Bor

edom

•Fa

tigu

e

Wh

en r

eadi

ng

inE

ngl

ish

,•

Det

ects

an

dat

tem

pts

to s

olve

com

preh

ensi

onpr

oble

ms

Wh

en r

eadi

ng

inSp

anis

h,

•R

elie

s on

tex

tst

ruct

ure

•D

etec

ts a

nd

atte

mpt

s to

sol

veco

mpr

ehen

sion

prob

lem

s

Wh

en r

eadi

ng

inE

ngl

ish

,•

Loo

ks u

p al

lun

know

n w

ords

•Pa

raph

rase

sW

hen

rea

din

g in

Span

ish

,•

Use

s co

nte

xt

Wh

en r

eadi

ng

inSp

anis

h,

•M

akes

apr

edic

tion

•M

akes

in

fere

nce

sab

out

the

text

•Su

mm

ariz

esin

form

atio

n


Views and Approaches to Reading

Lupita and Edith viewed their home language as a resource andbelieved that mental translation was a helpful strategy. Accordingly, theychose purposefully to mentally translate into their L1 when reading inEnglish. For Lupita, mental translation allowed the processing of infor-mation at a deep level (Cohen, 1994; Jiménez et al., 1995; Kern, 1994).As Lupita explained during her interview, mental translation facilitatedthe representation of text because it allowed her to expand on the ideasof the source text by drawing on Spanish, her “more familiar language.”In Edith’s case, mental translation seemed to play a different function.According to Edith, when she first started reading in English, she reliedheavily on the use of word-by-word translation. This practice supports thenotion that Edith’s limited English vocabulary controlled her initialreading process. As a result, her reading was characterized by a lack ofautomaticity and a heavy reliance on the text. In contrast, at the time ofthe investigation, Edith used mental translation as a means to under-stand chunks of text, which allowed her to clarify the ideas in the textand, subsequently, to store information in her short-term memory.However, mental translation did not always lead to accurate comprehen-sion of the English text, a result supported by prior research ( Jiménezet al., 1996; Kern, 1994). In Edith’s case, lack of vocabulary in Englishcould have prevented her from accurately comprehending the writtentext.

Albita and Beatriz viewed their home language as both a resource anda problem. In the interview, both said that knowing Spanish wassometimes helpful. However, they also explained that words that “lookalike” in Spanish and English caused problems in reading. This viewabout their home language led them purposefully to avoid the use ofmental translation. This conflicting view of their bilingualism, alsoidentified by Jiménez et al. (1995) in their study of a successful and a lesssuccessful bilingual reader, suggests that Albita and Beatriz were notaware of how their home language could be used as an aid in the L2reading process. The four readers’ decision to rely or not to rely on theuse of mental translation was dependent on their view about their homelanguage rather than on their length of residence in the United States ortheir length of English study.

Views of and Strategies for Reading

The results suggest that reading strategies in both languages may beinfluenced by readers’ beliefs about reading, although the extent to

62 TESOL QUARTERLY

which reading behavior transfers seems to depend on the text’s complex-ity or reader’s level of proficiency in the language of the text. In thecurrent study, Albita and Beatriz’s approach to reading was influenced bytheir beliefs about reading but also seemed to be affected by thelanguage of the text. In their interviews, Albita and Beatriz reportedviewing reading as a logocentric process, involving understanding themeaning of words and the pronunciation of words, respectively. Whenreading in English, this logocentric approach was realized in a smallrepertoire of strategies, all designed to uncover the meaning of unknownwords rather than to negotiate the meaning of the text. Specifically,when reading in English, Albita’s and Beatriz’s only strategy was to detectcomprehension problems and attempt to solve them by looking up everyunknown word in the dictionary. In contrast, Beatriz’s reading process inSpanish was not bound by the words she did not know. In fact, whenreading in Spanish, Beatriz integrated strategies that characterize goodreaders: She looked over pictures and captions, read the title of the text,and reread sentences when she had trouble understanding their mean-ing. These findings suggest that the lack of reading fluency observed inAlbita’s and Beatriz’s English reading may have resulted, in part, fromtheir view of reading as a word-centered process as well as from their lackof L2 vocabulary.

Lupita and Edith viewed reading in both languages as a process ofmeaning construction, and their approach to reading was consistent withthis belief. When reading in English, both readers employed a multi-strategic approach integrating a variety of comprehension-monitoring,text-based, and high-level strategies, although Edith’s reading processwas sometimes short-circuited in that it did not result in accuratecomprehension. When they read the Spanish text, they adapted theirreading strategy to fit the perceived demands of the text (Anderson,1991; Block, 1986; Carrell, 1989; Devine, 1988; Kamhi-Stein, 1998). ForLupita, this flexible strategy use involved text-based and high-levelstrategies designed to help her negotiate the meaning of the text.Equally flexible was Edith’s approach to reading the Spanish text: Inreading it quickly and repeating it to herself afterward, she adapted herstrategy to the point of exhibiting what at first seemed to be limitedinteraction with the text. On further analysis, this lower level of interac-tion was attributed to Edith’s automaticity in reading, which perhapsresulted in part from Edith’s status as a proficient Spanish reader andfrom the notion that the text was not difficult to understand.


Reading Strategies and Recall

Although reading strategy behavior transferred across languages, thefour readers exhibited individual differences. However, differences inreading strategy use or approach to reading (logocentric versus meaningcentered) did not produce major differences in the readers’ perform-ance on the recall tasks in either language. All four recalled the thesis ofthe Spanish text and nearly the same number of main ideas. Three of thefour readers recalled the thesis of the English text and nearly the samenumber of main ideas. Perhaps the nature of the recall task, in which thereaders were asked not to look at the original texts they were attemptingto recall, affected their ability to recall information. Another plausibleexplanation is that the lack of reading purpose, resulting from thereaders’ lack of awareness that they would be asked to complete recalltasks, affected their ability to recall information.

The findings also showed that the four readers took a linear approachto reading in English. None considered a goal in reading; instead, theyall read it straight through from beginning to end. As Pressley andAfflerbach (1995) noted, lack of planning, which is typical of poorreaders, “often affects subsequent reading” (p. 32). In the current study,lack of planning when reading the English text may have resulted in thereaders’ failure to activate prior knowledge, which ultimately could haveresulted in better understanding of the text. In particular, Edith andBeatriz’s lack of planning may have resulted in their failure to activateprior knowledge regarding the European colonization of Latin America,an important topic in the curriculum of Latin American schools.Additionally, the linear approach observed in this investigation couldhave been an artifact of the think-aloud task, which instructed the studyparticipants to think aloud in the presence of the researcher. It is notclear whether the readers would have set a goal for the reading or readin a nonlinear manner if the think-aloud instructions and task beendifferent. Nor is it clear whether the task would have discriminated theparticipants’ L1 reading abilities more if the Spanish text had been moredifficult.

An unexpected finding in this study was that none of the four readersshowed an awareness of cognate relations, regardless of their views oftheir home language. Interestingly, the words that Edith chose to look upafter reading the English text (generic and ostracizing) were cognateterms. When asked why she had selected them, she answered that theyprevented her from understanding the ideas in the passage. Similarly,many of the words that Albita and Beatriz looked up when they read theEnglish text were cognate terms. The fact that Edith and Beatriz did notshow an awareness of cognate terms was rather surprising given that most

64 TESOL QUARTERLY

of their schooling had been in Spanish in Mexico and El Salvador.However, Beatriz’s lack of reliance on cognate relations could beexplained by her belief that bilingualism is confusing. As she explainedin her interview, the fact that some words look the same in Spanish andEnglish confused her; therefore, she avoided “thinking in Spanish.”

None of the three readers who looked up words in the dictionary paidattention to or was aware of how content words in English and Spanishcan change their form by adding derivational affixes. For example, whenAlbita encountered the word sindicales (union) in the Spanish text, shelooked up the term, read the first dictionary entry, and engaged in a“word hunt” in which she proceeded to look up síndico (trustee) andsindicato (union). These findings suggest that readers like Albita couldgreatly benefit from instruction in how to use dictionaries. Additionally,readers like Albita would benefit from learning how to recognize wordparts in order to gain control of the word-building process.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that affective factors, includingreaders’ views of their home language and beliefs about reading, mayplay an important role in reading. Further think-aloud studies need toprovide more in-depth information on the relationship between affectivefactors and reading behavior in two languages. However, such researchneeds to engage readers in two or more reading tasks in each languageto provide a more reliable picture of the relationship between affectivefactors and reading strategies in two languages.

Future studies need to focus on three broad areas. The first is thenotion that the use of mental translation may be a function of thereaders’ views of their home language. Research in this area would focuson the following questions: To what extent, if any, is the use of mentaltranslation related to the views of so-called underprepared L2 readersabout their home language, to their proficiency in the target language,or to the difficulty of the reading tasks or texts? Second, future researchneeds to investigate whether the findings of this study, which point to thenotion that L1 and L2 reading behavior is, at least to some extent,influenced by readers’ beliefs about reading, can be replicated. This lineof study would help to answer the following questions: What relation-ship, if any, is there between the beliefs about reading of L2 readers whoare seen as underprepared, and these readers’ L1 and L2 strategy use?Specifically, to what extent, if any, are readers’ beliefs about readingrelated to the L1 and L2 reading strategies implemented by readers atdifferent L2 proficiency levels? Finally, the results of this investigation,which point to the logocentricity exhibited by two of the readers, suggest


the need for longitudinal training studies—a point made by Carrell(1998)—designed to answer the following questions: Can reading in-struction promote vocabulary development? If so, to what extent wouldvocabulary development promote changes in the readers’ logocentricapproach to reading? Or should instruction focus on promoting changesin the readers’ beliefs about reading? And to what extent would suchinstruction affect the reading behavior exhibited by L2 readers seen asunderprepared?

Research studies in these three areas would help develop a betterunderstanding of the relationship between reading behavior in twolanguages and affective factors. Such an understanding would greatlyassist in the development of programs designed to improve the readingperformance of the growing numbers of L2 readers who are consideredunderprepared for their academic work.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Patricia L. Carrell and Andrew Cohen for their valuable feedback on earlierversions of this paper and the two anonymous readers for their valuable insights andsuggestions.

THE AUTHOR

Lía D. Kamhi-Stein is an associate professor at California State University, LosAngeles, where she teaches in the TESOL MA Program. Her teaching interests areESL/EFL methodology, the teaching practicum, and computer-assisted languagelearning. Her research interests are academic literacy, teacher education, andnonnative-English-speaking professionals.

REFERENCES

Afflerbach, P., & Johnston, P. (1984). Research methodology on the use of verbalreports in reading research. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16, 307–322.

Alexander, P. A., Murphy, P. K., Bueh, M. M., & Sperl, C. T. (1998). The influence ofprior knowledge, beliefs, and interest on learning from persuasive text. NationalReading Conference Yearbook, 47, 167–181.

Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second languagereading and testing. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 460–472.

Anzaldúa, G. (1995). En rapport, in opposition: Cobrando cuentas a las nuestras. InP. S. Rothenberg (Ed.), Race, class, and gender in the United States: An integrated study(3rd ed., pp. 540–546). New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Bernhardt, E. B. (2000). Second language reading as a case study of readingscholarship in the 20th century. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, &R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 791–811). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language learners. TESOLQuarterly, 20, 463–494.

66 TESOL QUARTERLY

Block, E. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2readers. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 319–344.

Blonski Hardin, V. (2001). Transfer and variation in cognitive reading strategies ofLatino fourth-grade students in a late-exit bilingual program. Bilingual ResearchJournal, 25, 417–439.

Borko, H., Davinroy, K. H., Flory, M. D., & Hiebert, E. H. (1994). Teachers’knowledge and beliefs about summary as a component of reading. In R. Garner &P. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 155–182).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. TheModern Language Journal, 73, 121–134.

Carrell, P. L. (1998, March). Response to Reading in Two Languages: Profiles of“Underprepared” Native Spanish-Speaking Freshmen. Paper presented at the17th Annual Reading Research Colloquium, 32nd Annual TESOL Convention,Seattle, WA.

Chambliss, M. J. (1994). Why do readers fail to change their beliefs after readingpersuasive text? In R. Garner & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text andinstruction with text (pp. 75–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chambliss, M. J., & Garner, R. (1996). Do adults change their minds after readingpersuasive text? [Electronic version]. Written Communication, 13, 291–323.

Cohen, A. D. (1994, March). The processing of foreign-language reading tasks in immersionclassrooms. Paper presented at 28th Annual TESOL Convention, Baltimore, MD.

Cohen, A. D. (1996). Verbal protocols as a source of insights into second languagelearner strategies. Applied Language Learning, 7, 5–24.

Davis, J. N., & Bistodeau, L. (1993). How do L1 and L2 reading differ? Evidence fromthink-aloud protocols. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 459–472.

Devine, J. (1988). A case study of two readers: Models of reading and readingperformance. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches tosecond language reading (pp. 127–139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Di Benedetto, U., Nicholson, S. C., O’Kelly, L., Huerta Tejadas, F., & QuintelaFerreiro, L. (1975). Nuevo diccionario general inglés-español. New comprehensiveEnglish-Spanish dictionary EDAF (Vols. 1–2). Madrid: EDAF.

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Freeman, R. D. (1996). Dual-language planning at Oyster bilingual school: “It’smuch more than language.” TESOL Quarterly, 30, 557–582.

García, G. E. (1998). Mexican-American bilingual students’ metacognitive readingstrategies: What’s transferred, unique, problematic? National Reading ConferenceYearbook, 47, 253–263.

Garner, R., & Alexander, P. A. (Eds.). (1994). Beliefs about text and instruction with text.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Garner, R., & Hansis, R. (1994). Literacy practices outside of school: Adults beliefsand their responses to “street texts.” In R. Garner & P. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefsabout text and instruction with text (pp. 57–73). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hakuta, K., & D’Andrea, D. (1992). Some properties of bilingual maintenance andloss in Mexican background high-school students. Applied Linguistics, 13, 72–99.

Horowitz, R. (1994). Adolescent beliefs about oral and written language. In R. Garner& P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 1–24).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hosenfeld, C. (1977). A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies ofsuccessful and nonsuccessful second language learners. System, 5, 110–123.

Hosenfeld, C. (1984). Case studies of ninth graders. In J. C. Alderson & H. H.Urquhart (Ed.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 231–249). London: Longman.


Jiménez, R. T. (1997). The strategic reading abilities and potential of five low-literacyLatina/o readers in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 224–243.

Jiménez, R. T., García, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1995). Three children, two languages,and strategic reading: Case studies in bilingual/monolingual reading. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 32, 67–98.

Jiménez, R. T., García, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1996). The reading strategies ofbilingual Latina/o students who are successful English readers: Opportunitiesand obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 90–113.

Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (1998). Profiles of underprepared second-language readers.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41, 610–619.

Kellerman, D. F. (Ed.). (1976). The new Grolier Webster international dictionary of theEnglish language (5th ed., Vols. 1–2). New York: Grolier.

Kern, R. (1994). The role of mental translation in second language reading. Studiesin Second Language Acquisition, 16, 441–461.

Madrigal, O. (1998, January). Linda Chávez. Cristina: La Revista, 8(1), 52–53.Meyer, B. J. F. (1981). Prose analysis: Procedures, purposes, and problems (Prose Learning

Series, Research Report No 11). Tempe: Arizona State University. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. ED201972)

Olson, G. M., Duffy, S. A., & Mack, R. L. (1984). Thinking-out-loud as a method forstudying real-time comprehension processes. In D. E. Kieras & M. A. Just (Eds.),New methods in reading comprehension research (pp. 253–286). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature ofconstructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Real Academia Española. (1970). Diccionario de la lengua española [Dictionary of theSpanish language] (19th ed.). Madrid: Editorial Espasa-Calpe.

Ruíz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8, 15–34.Smith, H. L. (1999). Bilingualism and bilingual education: The child’s perspective.

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2, 268–281.Tang, H. (1997). The relationship between reading comprehension processes in L1

and L2. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 18, 249–301.Wade, S. E. (1990). Using think-alouds to assess comprehension. The Reading Teacher,

43, 442–453.Wiley, T. (1996). Language planning and policy. In S. L. McKay & N. H. Hornberger

(Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 103–147). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Zentella, A. C. (1997). Growing up bilingual. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

APPENDIX A

Think-Aloud Texts

En rapport, in Opposition: Cobrando cuentas a las nuestras1

Watch for Falling Rocks

The first time I drove from El Paso to San Diego, I saw a sign that read Watch for Falling Rocks.And though I watched and waited for rocks to roll down the steep cliff walls and attack my carand me, I never saw any falling rocks. Today, one of the things I’m most afraid of are the rockswe throw at each other. And the resultant guilt we carry like a corpse strapped to our backs for

1 From Race, Class, and Gender in the United States (3rd ed., pp. 540–546), by P. Rothenberg,Ed., 1995. Copyright © by P. Rothenberg. Reprinted with permission of Palgrave Macmillan.

68 TESOL QUARTERLY

having thrown rocks. We colored women have memories like elephants. The slightest hurt isrecorded deep within. We do not forget the injury done to us and we do not forget the injurywe have done another. For unfortunately we do not have hides like elephants. Our vulnerabilityis measured by our capacity for openness, intimacy. And we all know that our own kind is driventhrough shame or self-hatred to poke at all our open wounds. And we know they know exactlywhere the hidden wounds are.

I keep track of all distinctions. Between past and present. Pain and pleasure. Living andsurviving. Resistance and capitulation. Will and circumstances. Between life and death. Yes. Iam scrupulously accurate. I have become a keeper of accounts.—Irena Klepfisz

One of the changes that I’ve seen since This Bridge Called My Back was published is that we nolonger allow white women to efface us or suppress us. Now we do it to each other. We havetaken over the missionary’s “let’s civilize the savage role,” fixating on the “wrongness” and moralor political inferiority of some of our sisters, insisting on a profound difference between oneselfand the Other. We have been indoctrinated into adopting the old imperialist ways of conqueringand dominating, adopting a way of confrontation based on differences while standing on theground of ethnic superiority.

In the “dominant” phase of colonialism, European colonizers exercise direct control of thecolonized, destroy the native legal and cultural systems, and negate non-European civilizationsin order to ruthlessly exploit the resources of the subjugated with the excuse of attempting to“civilize” them. Before the end of this phase, the natives internalize Western culture. By the timewe reach the “neocolonialist” phase, we’ve accepted the white colonizers’ system of values,attitudes, morality, and modes of production. It is not by chance that in the more rural townsof Texas Chicano neighborhoods are called colonias rather than barrios.

There have always been those of us who have “cooperated” with the colonizers. It’s not thatwe have been “won” over by the dominant culture, but that it has exploited pre-existing powerrelations of subordination and subjugation within our native societies. The great White ripoffand they are still cashing in. Like our exploiters who fixate on the inferiority of the natives, wefixate on the fucked-upness of our sisters. Like them we try to impose our version of “the waysthings should be,” we try to impose one’s self on the Other by making her the recipient of one’snegative elements, usually the same elements that the Anglo projected on us. Like them, weproject our self-hatred on her; we stereotype her, we make her generic.

Just How Ethnic Are You?

One of the reasons for this hostility among us is the forced cultural penetration, the rape ofthe colored by the white, with the colonizers depositing their perspective, their language, theirvalues in our bodies. External oppression is paralleled with our internalization of thatoppression. And our acting out from that oppression. They have us doing to those within ourown ranks what they have done and continue to do to us Othering people. That is, isolatingthem, pushing them out of the herd, ostracizing them. The internalization of negative imagesof ourselves, our self-hatred, poor self-esteem, makes our own people the Other. We shun thewhite-looking Indian, the “high yellow” Black woman, the Asian with the white lover, the Nativewoman who brings her white girl friend to the Pow Wow, the Chicana who doesn’t speakSpanish, the academic, the uneducated. Her difference makes her a person we can’t trust. Paraque sea “legal,” she must pass the ethnic legitimacy test we have devised. And it is exactly ourinternalized whiteness that desperately wants boundary lines (this part of me is Mexican, thisIndian) marked out and woe to any sister or any part of us that steps out of our assigned places,woe to anyone who doesn’t measure up to our standards of ethnicity. Si no cualifica, if she failsto pass the test, le aventamos mierda en la cara, le aventamos piedras, la aventamos. We throw shit inher face, we throw rocks, we kick her out. Como gallos de pelea nos atacamos unas a las otramexicanas de nacimiento contra the born-again mexicanas. Like fighting cocks, razor bladesstrapped to our fingers, we slash out at each other. We have turned our anger against ourselves.And our anger is immense. Es un acido que corroe.


Linda Chávez2

Como en un cuento de hadas, la hija de un humilde campesino tejano alcanza una carrerabrillante como dirigente sindical en Estados Unidos. Pero en su historia no hay encantos nihechizos, solo dedicación y mucho esfuerzo.

Por Orietta Madrigal

Cuando Linda Chávez-Thompson ocupó el puesto de vice-presidenta ejecutiva de la AFLCIO(Federación Americana del Trabajo y Congreso de las Organizaciones Industriales) en 1995,millones de latinos residentes en Estados Unidos se sintieron inmensamente orgullosos de quefuera una méxico-americana quien llegara a esta importante posición en la organizaciónsindical más grande del país.

Lo que serían sus primeros pasos en las lides sindicales comenzaron cuando apenas tenía 20años. Todo empezó cuando su tío la recomendó al agente del sindicato local de Lubbock,Texas, la ciudad donde vivía. Allí necesitaban una secretaria bilingüe, debido a que más del 65por ciento de los miembros eran méxico-americanos. Linda no perdió tiempo en presentarseen el lugar y así obtuvo el empleo. Corrían los años sesenta ye en aquel entonces ella era unajoven sin experiencia que sólo había trabajado en labores de limpieza. Linda recuerda así susegundo trabajo como secretaria:

“Al poco tiempo de trabajar allí, creé nuevos procedimientos de contratación y logré unamejor comunicación con los miembros del sindicato. La situación existente me fue llevando ainvolucrarme cada vez más en la ayuda a los trabajadores. Hoy considero que en aquelmomento respondí más a un llamado que a una decisión personal.”

Un remedio para su dolor

Linda nació en Lorenzo, un pequeño pueblo de Texas, situado a 20 millas de Lubbock,donde creció. Su familia, muy humilde, estaba compuesta de sus padres y 8 hermanos. Su padreera un campesino texano que se dedicaba a la cosecha y recogida de algodón. Linda, al igualque sus hermanos mayores, comenzó a trabajar en los campos de algodón siendo apenas unaniña.

“Eran largas horas de faena,” recuerda. “Trabajábamos en las plantaciones de algodóndurante diez horas al día, de lunes a viernes durante el verano, y en invierno lo recogíamosdespués de las clases, incluso los sábados”.

Para Linda, todo hubiera marchado bien si su padre no le hubiera pedido que abandonaralos estudios. Era necesario que ella trabajara jornadas completas para poder ayudar a sustentarsu hogar. Apenas había terminado el noveno grado y su sueño era poder entrar a la universidad.

Su sueño había sido tronchado por el trabajo de limpiar casas y granjas a cambio de unsalario nada envidiable: un dólar por hora. Pero, en poco tiempo, la necesidad la ayudó aencontrar un remedio para su dolor.

“Trataba de leer cuanto libro cayera en mis manos,” recuerda Linda hoy. “Cuando no podíacomprarlos, los pedía prestados. Era la mejor forma que tenía de aprender con lo que tenía ami alcance.”

Después que cumplió los 20 años, se casó con José Luis Ramírez—el padre de sus dos hijos:Marisela y Pedro Javier—y ambos trabajaron en una compañía de limpieza. Para la joven tejana,la vida seguía siendo muy dura.

Sin embargo, algo le decía que no podía rendirse. Y ese momento llegó. Nunca se sintió tansegura de su sueño como cuando trabajó ayudando a los damnificados de un tornado quearrasó a Lubbock en 1970. Fue suficiente para saber que era capaz de hacer cosas y de cambiarotras.

Entonces Linda decidió que no regresaría más a su puesto de secretaria. “Iba a luchar y atratar de ayudar a otros,” cuenta emocionada.

Hoy lleva más de treinta años haciéndolo y, al contrario de lo que la gente se imagina, Lindano tiene queja alguna de discriminación en el cargo que ocupa. Ni siquiera por ser mujer: “Esepunto de ser mujer no fue preocupación para mi. Yo fui capaz de trabajar a la par de ellos ypude mantenerme firme hasta lograr el respeto que yo sentía que merecía,” afirma Linda.

2 From “Linda Chávez,” by O. Madrigal, 1998, Cristina: La Revista, 7(12), pp. 52–53.Copyright © Cristina: La Revista. Reprinted with permission of Cristina: La Revista.

70 TESOL QUARTERLY

APPENDIX B

Prior Knowledge Assessment

English Text1. What did the European colonizers do when they came to America?2. What does “efface” mean?3. What does “indoctrinate” mean?

Spanish Text1. ¿Qué es una “cenicienta”?2. ¿Qué es una “organización sindical”?3. ¿Conoces a Linda Chávez?

APPENDIX C

Interview Protocol (English Version)3

Would you like to be interviewed in English or Spanish?

1. How did you learn English?

2. What does the word “reading” mean to you?

3. What are the characteristics of good and poor readers? What are the differences betweengood and poor readers? Are you a good reader in Spanish? Are you a good reader inEnglish? Please explain.

4. What are the characteristics of a reader who has learned ESL and of a reader who is anative English speaker? Are there any differences between the two?

5. What does a person need to know to be a good English reader? To be a good Spanishreader? Is there a difference?

6. Does being able to read in English help you to read in Spanish? Explain.

7. Does being able to read in Spanish help you to read in English? How?

8. Does being bilingual help you or hurt you when you read? Please explain.

9. Is reading English different from reading Spanish? If so, how?

10. Why do you read?

11. What kind of materials do you read in Spanish? And in English?

12. Do you ever translate from English into Spanish when reading English? If so, pleasedescribe what you do.

13. Do you ever translate from Spanish into English when reading Spanish? If so, pleasedescribe what you do.

APPENDIX D

Self-Assessment InventoryThe purpose of this questionnaire is to collect information about your reading skills and needs.Please make an X in the boxes or fill in the spaces below where appropriate.

1. How well would you say you are able to read in Spanish?

� very well � well � not well � poorly � very poorly

3 The Spanish version is available from the author.


2. How well would you say you are able to read in English?


3. How well would you say you understand what you read in English?


4. How well would you say you are able to read in English?


What do you believe are your main difficulties when reading in English? Mark all that apply:

Yes No

5. Vocabulary � �

6. Comprehension � �

7. Concentration � �

8. Speed � �

9. Fatigue � �

10. Boredom � �

11. Other. Please specify:

APPENDIX E

Multiple-Choice, True-False, and Fill-in-the-Blank Questions

English TextAnswer the questions below. You may look over the article.

1. Gloria Anzaldúa believes that women of color easily forget when they are hurt or when theyhurt other people.Right or wrong? Please explain.

2. According to Anzaldúa, European colonizers conquered by:a. understanding the natives’ values b. destroying the natives’ cultural system

3. Anzaldúa believes that colored women are like the colonizers because________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. By “othering people,” Anzaldúa means:a. identifying with people b. disqualifying peoplec. believing in people d. dissenting with people

Spanish TextResponde las preguntas a continuación. Puedes mirar el texto.

1. Linda comenzó su carrera sindical como __________________a. secretaria bilingüe b. campesinac. empleada de limpieza d. voluntaria

2. La familia en la que nació Linda era muy pequeña. ¿Verdad o mentira? Explica tu elección.

3. Linda comenzó a trabajar cuando cumplió 30 años. ¿Verdad o mentira? Explica tu elección.

4. Cuando Linda terminó el noveno grado,a. entró a la universidad c. entró a limpiar casas y granjasb. entró a trabajar en plantaciones d. entró a trabajar como secretaria

de algodón en un sindicato

5. Linda siempre estuvo interesada en la lectura. ¿Verdad o mentira? Explica tu elección.


Fine Brush and Freehand1:The Vocabulary-Learning Art ofTwo Successful Chinese EFL LearnersPETER YONGQI GUNanyang Technological UniversitySingapore

Two successful non-English-major EFL learners at Beijing NormalUniversity took part in a think-aloud and an interview session, respec-tively, on how they handled vocabulary learning during and afterreading. Results show that, like successful learners everywhere, theselearners (a) saw vocabulary as but one aspect of language learning thatneeds to be integrated with language use, (b) demonstrated high levelsof self-initiation and selective attention, and (c) employed a wide rangeof vocabulary-learning strategies. The two learners also displayed reveal-ing differences in learning style. Their highly flexible, skilful integra-tion and execution of strategies may be due to a combination ofChinese conceptions of learning, traditional schooling, and literacypractice, the prevailing methods for teaching and learning English inChina, the demands of the vocabulary-learning task, and individuallearning style.

A successful learner is in effect a learning theorist (Brown, Bransford,Ferrara, & Campione, 1983). The strategies such learners decide to

use are determined by their analysis of the task at hand, their ownlearning characteristics, and the learning context. Empirical work onlanguage learning strategies has come to the conclusion that goodlearners are good because they know where their strengths are and whento use certain strategies to tackle certain learning problems flexibly(Cohen, 1998).

This article illustrates the interwoven relationship among person, task,context, and learning strategies by focusing on two successful Chineselearners of vocabulary in an input-poor Chinese EFL context. It shows

1 One way to classify Chinese paintings is into the categories fine brush (gongbi) and freehand(xieyi). The first school is characterised by meticulous attention to detail, and the second, bysimple, bold, and expressive strokes.

74 TESOL QUARTERLY

how vocabulary learning and learning strategies are influenced by alearning culture that differs from the orthodox conceptions of learningchampioned by theorists and researchers in the West. It also demon-strates how these two learners wielded their particular configurations ofstrategies masterfully in the art of vocabulary learning.

LEARNING STRATEGIES:PERSON, TASK, AND CONTEXT

Chinese Learners and the Chinese Culture of Learning

Teachers and researchers often describe Chinese learners as rotelearners who learn mechanically without meaningful understanding(Ballard & Clanchy, 1984; Bradley & Bradley, 1984; Samuelowicz, 1987).Some researchers kindheartedly attempt to teach their Asian learnersbetter, deeper, and more sophisticated learning strategies, often result-ing in ungrateful resistance from these learners (O’Malley, Chamot,Stewner-Manzanares, Kupper, & Russo, 1985; Politzer & McGroarty,1985). Anecdotes abound, and feelings are strong. However, surprisinglylittle empirical research has investigated how Chinese learners go aboutachieving their equally often reported academic success with these so-called rote learning strategies. Still fewer researchers have tried toexplain the apparent discrepancy between learning strategy and learningresult.

The most comprehensive attempt at explaining the paradox ofChinese learners’ achieving academic success using rote strategies andsurface learning approaches was a collection edited by Watkins and Biggs(1996). These researchers argued that learning should be construed incontext and that Chinese learners do not fit into Western learningtheories because such theories impose Western cultural concepts on theunderstanding of Chinese learners’ learning process. Biggs (1996), forexample, made a distinction between “rote” learning, that is, mechanicallearning without meaning, and “repetitive” learning, “which uses repeti-tion as a means of ensuring accurate recall” (p. 54). He argued thatwhereas the use of repetition as a strategy is more common in “Confucian-heritage cultures” (p. 46) due to traditional beliefs about learning andChina’s longstanding examination culture, Westerners often mistakerepetition for rote learning. Likewise, Marton, Dall’Alba, and Tse’s(1996) interview study of Chinese conceptions of learning revealed that,for Chinese learners, memorisation and understanding are not mutuallyexclusive. Furthermore, “memorisation with understanding” could in-clude both “memorising what is understood” and “understanding through

FINE BRUSH AND FREEHAND 75

memorisation” (p. 77). Marton et al. concluded that the Western notionof rote learning does not seem to capture adequately practices associatedwith memorisation and repetition in the Chinese learning culture.

Vocabulary Learning

Applied linguists contend that learning vocabulary in a foreignlanguage is much more than making form-meaning correspondencesand simply piling up individual words (Nation, 2001; Richards, 1976).Knowing a word means knowing at least its form, its meaning, and itsbasic usage in context receptively and productively. A word is also relatedto other words in the mental lexicon along paradigmatic and syntagmaticdimensions.

A crucial distinction is often made between knowing a word and usinga word; that is, for every vocabulary item, there is a knowledge dimensionand a skill dimension. Knowing a word should only be a prerequisite for,and does not necessarily entail, using the word automatically in a widerange of contexts (McCarthy, 1984). In fact, evidence suggests that theknowledge aspect requires conscious and explicit learning mechanismswhereas the skill aspect involves mostly implicit learning and memory(Ellis, 1994).

Vocabulary-learning strategies, therefore, should include strategies forusing as well as for knowing a word. Knowledge-oriented strategiesinclude those for remembering form-meaning pairs (e.g., most mne-monic devices); skill-oriented strategies involve the use of words inmeaningful contexts and aim to develop automaticity in retrieving andproducing those words (e.g., reading extensively and deliberately using anewly learned word in one’s own writing). And perhaps more impor-tantly, neither knowledge nor skill should be neglected. In other words,teachers and learners should aim for integration rather than separationof knowledge-oriented strategies based on depth of processing and skill-oriented strategies based on the frequency, recency, and regularity ofappearance and the power law2 of practice.

2 According to the power law of learning, which has been found to be a ubiquitous rulegoverning the acquisition of skills (Anderson, 1982; Kolers, 1979; Neves & Anderson, 1981),rapid increases in speed occur during initial stages of learning and performance, after whichspeed improves only slightly and over a long period of time. Expressed in terms of logarithms,the logarithm of the time to perform a task is a linear function of the logarithm of the numberof practice trials.

76 TESOL QUARTERLY

Empirical Work on Vocabulary-Learning Strategies

If Chinese students have traditionally been seen as rote learners, theirforeign language vocabulary learning has been associated with word listsand repetition. Fortunately, the field is much more mature now, asevidenced by the robust line of empirical research on deep processingstrategies such as mnemonics and semantic mediation. Another area thathas received extensive attention in recent years (most notably by Coady& Huckin, 1997; Huckin, Haynes, & Coady, 1993; Wesche & Paribakht,1999) and has shed significant light upon the understanding of vocabu-lary acquisition is incidental learning through reading (see Huckin &Coady, 1999, for a review). Nevertheless, intentional learning of vocabu-lary has not received its fair share of research effort, and the majority ofresearch has concentrated on the what (the target or product) ratherthan the how (the process) of vocabulary learning (Crow, 1986; McNeill,1990; Meara, 1980).

A number of studies have focused on naturally occurring vocabulary-learning strategies. Most have used a quantitative approach and tried tofind patterns (e.g., Ahmed, 1989; Gu & Johnson, 1996; Kojic-Sabo &Lightbown, 1999); others have attempted to closely observe learners’strategy choice and use (Parry, 1991, 1993, 1997; Sanaoui, 1995). Besidesestablishing a link between students’ choice and use of individualvocabulary-learning strategies on one hand and their language learningoutcomes on the other, all the studies mentioned above found thatlearners seemed to fall into types and that each type was associated withpreferred strategy combinations. Ahmed’s (1989) cluster analysis ofthink-aloud data from 300 Sudanese learners of English produced threeclusters of good and two clusters of poor learners. A previous large-scalesurvey of 850 Chinese EFL learners (Gu & Johnson, 1996) also producedfive clusters of learners with distinctive preferences for vocabulary-learning strategies. Of particular interest here are the two types of goodlearners in that study. One cluster, active strategy users, were characterisedas hardworking and motivated, using a wide range of strategies. Theother type of good learners, readers, whose self-initiation was equallystrong, used a narrower range of strategies that were associated mainlywith reading and contextual learning.

Despite the interesting patterns seen in the quantitative studies, theydo not show how a particular type of strategy is used in the developmentof vocabulary. In this regard, the qualitative approach has been insight-ful. Parry’s exemplary case studies (e.g., Parry, 1991) showed not onlyhow vocabulary development was achieved over time but also how it wasassociated with two styles of vocabulary learning, holistic and analytic.More importantly, Parry (1997) concluded that “both approaches are


necessary but that neither is appropriate at all times” and that “studentsneed to develop flexibility” (p. 67). Similarly, Sanaoui’s (1995) casestudies illustrated two distinct styles of vocabulary learning, a structuredapproach characterised by systematic planning, organising, and study-ing, and an unstructured approach with little self-management. UnlikeParry, however, Sanaoui found that “learners who had a structuredlearning approach were more successful in retaining vocabulary taughtin their classes than learners who had an unstructured learning ap-proach” (p. 26) and that the structured approach was more effectivethan the unstructured approach for both beginning and advancedlearners.

The Current Study

Although different tasks demand different strategies, learners bringwith them preferred learning styles, which might initiate strategies thatrelate more to the learner than to the task. Likewise, learners fromdifferent linguistic, cultural, and educational backgrounds cannot beexpected to benefit from the same strategies in the same manner. In thisregard, this study focuses on Chinese EFL learners, arguably the largestgroup of English learners in the world and one that is understudied andoften stereotyped.

In particular, in this study I examine two successful adult Chinese EFLlearners and portray in detail what they do in vocabulary learning. Ishow, for example, how these learners conduct rote learning such asmemorising word lists.3 In so doing, I attempt to account for theapparent discrepancy between the rote style of learning and the highlevels of success achieved by these learners. This study also attempts toconfirm what other researchers (e.g., Ahmed, 1989; Gu & Johnson, 1996;Parry, 1997) have indicated, directly or indirectly: that learners canachieve success through different approaches to and styles of learning. Iexamine three stages of learning a word (Brown & Payne, 1994; Gu &Johnson, 1996): (a) initially identifying and handling a new word, (b)committing the word to memory, and (c) attempting to use the newlylearned word.

The focus is on the learning of vocabulary through intensive reading,the single most important source of English input in the Chinese EFL

3 Word lists here refer to decontextualised lists of words, including lists compiled by learnersfrom various sources and dictionary-type lists of words in alphabetical order, and includingsimple lists of L1-L2 meaning equivalents and more sophisticated lists containing, for example,L1 equivalents, L2 synonyms, usage information, and examples.

78 TESOL QUARTERLY

context. Intensive reading is a reading-based intensive language trainingcourse on which students and teachers in China spend most of theirtime. For Chinese students, intensive reading means much more thanreading for in-depth comprehension. Its aims are at least twofold:reading to comprehend texts and reading to learn English, the latterbeing probably the most important form of English learning in China. Ina typical intensive reading session, the teacher goes over the text(normally around 1,000 words in length) sentence by sentence, explainsthe meaning, clarifies the grammar, pinpoints important and difficultvocabulary items, and shows how to use them. Conscientious studentspreview the text and locate difficulties of textual understanding andvocabulary usage before class, listen to the teacher’s explanations inclass, and review the text after class by rereading it and revisiting newwords.

In addition, this report illustrates the role of metacognitive knowledgeand beliefs and metacognitive control (Flavell, 1979; Wenden, 1987) insuccessful language learning. In particular, the report shows how thelearners orchestrated their beliefs, made strategic choices, and deployedtheir strategies.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were chosen from 978 third-year non-English majors atBeijing Normal University based on their scores on the annual nation-wide English proficiency test, College English Test (CET) Band 4. Allstudents took the test at the end of their fourth semester, about 3 monthsbefore this study took place. All 27 students (fewer than 3%) scoringabove 90 (maximum possible score = 100) were contacted. Elevenparticipated in this study; most others were not available due to thesummer holidays.

A preliminary analysis of the data based primarily on the type andnumber of strategies these participants used revealed two types oflearners (obtained as described below). Nine of the 11 followed theirtextbooks closely and paid meticulous attention to details; the other 2focused on large quantities of extracurricular reading (cf. active strategyusers and readers in Gu & Johnson, 1996). Two participants, 1 exempli-fying each type, were selected for case study in this report (see Table 1).The top student of the year, Chi Wei,4 who scored 96.5%, epitomised the

4 Names of participants are pseudonyms.


first group. Another top student, Chen Hua, who scored 91.0%, wasselected to represent the second group. In choosing these 2 subjects, Iconsidered only how well they represented each of the two groups anddisregarded gender and social class.

Instruments

Task

The task was a familiar one to all participants: read a text similar totheir intensive reading textbook passages and verbalise their strategiesfor handling new vocabulary items they encountered during reading.Any contextual vocabulary learning normally starts from an initialencounter and handling of a new word. At this stage, students wouldquickly decide whether they could guess the word or whether learningthe word required dictionary work or note taking. They would thendecide whether committing the word to memory required consciouseffort. A student might try to use words considered to be particularlyvaluable. Decontextualised word-list learning is only one of the stages alearner might go through in learning words. A student may or may notemploy list learning exclusively (see Ahmed, 1989; Brown & Payne,1994).

Text

All subjects read an intensive reading passage on pollution in Athens(Walter, 1982, pp. 48–51; see Appendix A). This text was selected

TABLE 1

Participants

Characteristic Chi Wei Chen Hua

Sex Male Female

Age 21 21

Department Radio electronics Chemistry

Grade Year 3, Semester 1 Year 3, Semester 1

College entrance English score (%) 80 86

CET Band 4 score (%) 96.5 91.0

Years of English study 8 9

Previous school Provincial key school Beijing municipal key school

Parents’ occupation Peasants Teachers

80 TESOL QUARTERLY

because it was not available to the participants and because it was similarin genre and difficulty level to the texts in their textbook. A pilot new-word density analysis among 13 randomly selected third-year non-English majors at the same university revealed that the text’s ratio offamiliar to unfamiliar words was 43.7:1.0 (about 98% vocabulary cover-age, the safe threshold for text comprehension and learning; see Laufer,e.g., 1992, for details).

The text was broken up into meaningful segments, normally sen-tences or long clauses, depending on the length of the sentence. Thesesegments were separated by means of small red strokes, which acted asreminders for the subjects to stop reading and verbalise their thinkingprocesses (Cohen, 1998).

Think-Aloud Protocols

I obtained think-aloud protocols on reading processes as well as onvocabulary learning during and after reading. For learning strategyresearchers who focus not only on strategic behaviours but also on thedecision-making processes that lead to these behaviours, the use ofverbal reports, arguably the best available means to get into the learner’smind, so to speak, is standard practice (Cohen, 1998). Most concernsabout verbal reports centre on the intrusive effect of think-aloudtechniques (see Ericsson & Simon, 1993, for a review of the pros andcons of verbal reports). However, relative to tasks on cognitive process-ing, thinking aloud should intrude less on tasks that focus on theconscious strategies being attended to. In addition, careful planning andtraining, and thinking aloud at sentence intervals, help reduce theintrusive effect (Cohen, 1998).

Interviews

To capture information on strategies that think-aloud data could notreveal, I conducted two types of interviews: immediate retrospectiveinterviews and general interviews. The immediate retrospective inter-views were based on field notes of subjects’ performance, and were thusindividualised and spontaneous. In the general interview, however, allparticipants were asked roughly the same questions (see Appendix B).The purpose of the immediate retrospective interview was to elicit task-specific vocabulary-learning strategies, whereas that of the general inter-view was to uncover general vocabulary-learning strategies and beliefs aswell as emotional reactions to vocabulary learning.


Procedures

To become familiar with the think-aloud procedure, the participantstook part in a 10–20 minute training session. They were informed aboutthe purpose of the study and asked to read a text entitled “The TownThat Kids Built” (Walter, 1982, pp. 28–31) that is similar in new-worddensity to the passage used in the study. Subjects were told to read thepassage in exactly the same way as they would usually read a passage fromtheir intensive reading textbook before the text is taught, a commonpractice among Chinese EFL learners. They were asked to verbaliseeverything in their minds as they went through the passage. Audiorecordings of all think-aloud tasks after the training session wereobtained with the explicit approval of the subjects.

After the training session, strategies for (a) initially identifying andhandling new words in context and (b) remembering new words afterinitial reading were elicited through the intensive reading passage onpollution in Athens. The participants were then asked what they usuallydid after reading and processing their intensive reading text. All partici-pants indicated that they would try to remember the new words in adecontextualised list, resulting in a list-learning session immediately afterreading. Think-aloud protocols were audiotaped as subjects carried outthese tasks. Immediately after, I conducted a retrospective interview toelicit specific strategies not voiced during the think-aloud sessions (e.g.,“I notice you paused for a while at Line [X]. What were you thinking atthe moment?”). One week later, I interviewed the subjects on theirgeneral learning strategies. To obtain accurate information on strategyuse while not overburdening the participants with L2 processing (Cohen,1998), I conducted all think-aloud and interview sessions in Chinese.Data shown in this article are English translations.

Analyses

After transcribing the think-aloud and interview data, I derivedcategories from existing research (e.g., O’Malley & Chamot, 1990) andthe transcriptions. I then applied these categories to the data to identifythe strategies each participant used, for what purposes, and in whatcontext. A Chinese EFL teacher who was experienced in teaching collegestudents in Beijing also coded the data; our coding matched more than80% of the time. I resolved disagreements through discussion with athird coder, another experienced learning-strategy researcher. Results ofthe strategy analysis along with my observations and the interviews wereused as evidence for how the learners handled vocabulary learningthrough reading, and how they tried to remember and use new words.

82 TESOL QUARTERLY

RESULTS

Data from the think-aloud protocols and interviews yielded a descrip-tion of each participant’s vocabulary learning in general and examplesshowing how they had learned a particular new word. In presentingthese data, I describe the following vocabulary-learning activities: howthe learners selectively attended to different vocabulary items, how theyguessed using contextual clues, how they looked up a word in thedictionary, whether and how the learners noted down the word for laterreference, how the word was committed to memory through list learn-ing, and how the learners used the word. I also draw conclusions aboutwhat might have made the learners successful and how they differedfrom each other as language learners. I then relate these two successfullearners’ strategy patterns to current theories of vocabulary learning,and attempt to construe their strategies of vocabulary learning in termsof their particular configuration of task, person, and learning context.

Chi Wei: Learning to Excel

Whatever I learn, I always aim to be the best, at least among the best. . . . Asfar as English is concerned, I think being able to speak is the most important.Sure we learn English to pass tests, but it’ll be such a pity if you can’t use it.When you’re speaking English, you feel you’ve learned the real thing. . . . I goto the China-Canada Language Centre [an English training centre at BeijingNormal University providing training for the CanTest] privately just to talk tosomeone in English, and I go to the English Corner very often. I also mumbleto myself in English.

Vocabulary Learning From Reading

Chi Wei read the passage three times: an initial reading for gist, adetailed reading for vocabulary learning, and a final reading for overallcomprehension. Table 2 shows the new vocabulary items Chi Weiidentified and the way he reported handling each one. He treateddifferent words in different ways: Words that he regarded as commonlyused he not only guessed at and looked up in the dictionary but alsoreinforced intentionally later so as to commit them to memory.

During the first reading, Chu Wei went through the passage trying toget the gist. He underlined words that were unfamiliar to him and wordshe thought he would go back to later. He guessed at the meaning ofunfamiliar words at this stage, and did not bother to stop reading andcheck them in the dictionary. In the second reading, he scanned thepassage for his underlined words and any other unfamiliar words he had


overlooked during the first reading. He then looked up these words inhis dictionary and located the meaning that he thought was appropriateto the context. For words that were important and interesting to him, helooked up information on usage, and other meanings and usage that hadlittle to do with the context. Occasionally, he browsed through the pagein the dictionary on which he found the target word to see if there wereany other words of particular interest to him—for example, words thatresembled the target word in spelling or sound and would be easily

TABLE 2

Chi Wei’s Treatment of New Words and Phrases

Word or Initial guessing Dictionary work Reinforcement 1 Reinforcement 2phrase (first reading) (second reading) (third reading) (after reading)

honk �

horn �

smart � � � �

choke � � �

sense � � �

Plato �

Pericles �

sewerage � �

hem � � �

ruins � � � �

in ruin � � � �

marble � � �

Parthenon � �

eat away �

treasure � � �

Acropolis � �

Premier � � � �

Constantine �

Karamanlis �

hinterland � � �

citizenry � �

killing level �

issue �

representative � � �

ministry � �

unclog � �

in-migration � �

stay put � � � �

master plan � �

fringe � �

in the works � �

literally �

suffocate � � �

84 TESOL QUARTERLY

confused with it. Sometimes he became so interested in a word he foundin a definition that he went on to look up that word.

During the second reading, Chi Wei took two types of notes. For wordsthat he thought were especially interesting and useful to him, he noteddown meanings, usage, and sometimes examples on a piece of paper,which served as his notebook (see Figure 1). Also included in his noteswere pronunciations of words that he thought were difficult (e.g.,sewerage) and synonyms from the text and from his own vocabularyrepertoire. For example, in writing “hem: n. edge, fringe; v. hem in:enclose, surround” in his notes, Chi Wei identified hem, hem in, andfringe, which appeared in the reading text, as new vocabulary items butretrieved edge, enclose, and surround from his own lexical repertoire. Thushe not only regrouped and hence recoded words semantically forhimself, linking new words with words he already knew, but also classifiedwords according to their grammatical functions (here, the part ofspeech). For the rest of the unfamiliar words that were useful in textcomprehension, he wrote their meanings along the margins or betweenthe lines of the original text.

Finally, Chi Wei went through the whole text quickly a third time,focusing on overall understanding of the passage. He paused only whenhe thought certain words or phrases were worthy of special attention.

FIGURE 1

Excerpt From Chi Wei’s Vocabulary Notebook

1. Smart: a � blow henhen yi jivi. ci tongas � as a new pin feichang xiaosa

2. choke the sensesqiang ganguan

3. Sewerage /su:ərid�/ n. wu shui, gou qu xitong4. Hem n. bian edge

fringev. baowei ( . . . in, shut)

enclose, surround5. In ruin (lie . . ., be laid . . .)6. Marble dalishi7. treacherous

treasure jinyintreasurer ren

8. Premier of the State Council guowuyuan zongli9. Hinterland qiongxiang pirang

10. A people’s representative renmin daibiao11. Stay put liu zai yuan chu budong12. Suffocate, be �ed with (by) excitement13. In the works

Note. Italics represent Chinese characters in the original.


After he had read the text three times, Chi Wei usually reinforcedvocabulary items he had identified as unfamiliar or partially familiarduring reading, which included 32 vocabulary items (about 8% of theentire text). He paid by far the most attention to the words and phraseshe had written in his notebook. First, he glanced quickly at his defini-tion/explanation of each item in either Chinese or English and lookedaway to recall the original English word or phrase. Words that he thoughtwere long or difficult to spell—for example, treasurer—he scribbledrapidly on a piece of paper. He attempted to recall not just the word’sreferential meaning but everything he had gone through to understanda particular item, from the contextual meaning to other related orunrelated meanings, and from words that looked similar, to synonyms, tophrases and examples he had found in the dictionary (e.g., treasure,treasurer, treacherous). He also made up sentences using some of the itemsof special interest to him. Finally, he went through his list swiftly twomore times, first from the top down and then from the bottom up. Thewhole process, interview time excluded, took roughly 90 minutes.

An Example From Chi Wei: Smart

Chi Wei’s treatment of the verb smart illustrates his vocabulary-learning procedures during and after reading. First encountering theverb during his initial reading, he inferred its meaning from its wordclass and his general knowledge before deciding to underline the wordand postpone thorough study of it until he had finished reading thepassage:

I know it’s an adjective, but here it must be a verb, a verb. “Smart the eyes”must be hurting the eyes. I’m not absolutely sure about it, though. Shouldhave it confirmed later. Needs to be carefully studied when I have time later.

After getting the gist of the passage, he focused on the details. Thistime, he went directly into the dictionary to look up the underlinedword, again using the part of speech to locate the applicable meaningamong all the meanings in the dictionary entry:

Smart is usually an adjective, but it doesn’t seem to be an adjective here. Smarts[reading from dictionary] smart, smart is definitely not an adjective here, soI’ll go for the verb. Oh, there is such a meaning for smart, it means to sting.

He then tried to put the meaning back into the context and test hishypothesis: “No? “Smarts the eyes” . . . oh, yes, it is to sting. So it’s thismeaning, then.”

After Chi Wei had found the right meaning of smart for the context,

86 TESOL QUARTERLY

he went on to use the dictionary as a learning tool, paying specialattention to phrases that he thought were commonly used: “Let me see ifthere’re any set expressions that go with it. Aah, I see an adjective with arelated meaning here. ‘A smart blow, a smart blow,’ a good beating. This,need to remember this.” At the same time, he was monitoring his ownperformance and reminding himself that his dictionary expeditionshould be centred on the contextual meaning: “I need to go back to theverb. For the verb, it’s only the meaning to sting.”

Next, Chi Wei looked for information on the usage of smart, attendingonly to information that interested him:

Let me see the example sentences. Wha- what’s this? It can be an intransitiveverb, and then, “feeling painful,” “with, from, from.” Here’s an expression,but I don’t want to remember it. Can’t remember everything anyway. Arethere any other expressions? “As smart as a new pin, very handsome,” ahh,this I’ll remember. Very handsome is something quite often used.

At this point, he was bemused by the word pin and could not resistlooking it up in the dictionary to learn what it had to do with lookingsmart. Realising that he could not solve his problem, he decided just toremember the phrase as it was and wrote it down in his vocabulary notes.

During the third reading of the text, Chi Wei reinforced what he hadlearned during the second reading:

“Smog smarts the eyes and chokes the senses.” Now here, when I come acrosssmart, when I read “smarts the eyes,” I tell myself to remember it, toremember “smarts the eyes,” it’s to sting the eyes painfully. And also “chokesthe senses,” because I remember I took it down in the notes. Now I betterreinforce it. It’s no more than telling myself to pay attention to it, and I’llcertainly read on.

Chi Wei’s last step in learning the word smart was to use it. During thelist-learning session after reading, he looked at the Chinese equivalentsin his notes, recalled the original English words and phrases, and madeup his own sentences in English for the two phrases that interested him.He repeated each sentence at least twice: “I gave him a smart blowyesterday”; “He is as smart as a new pin,” telling himself how useful eachsentence was and laughing, perhaps about the contexts in which thesesentences could be used. By this time, Chi Wei was well aware that he hadlearned a useful word.

List Learning

“Learning English without memorising words, that must be daydream-ing!” Chi Wei stressed the importance of list learning in the subsequent


interview. He saw list learning as a major strategy for vocabulary learning,not just a supplement to other strategies. This section summarises theinterview data on how Chi Wei learned vocabulary through lists.

“What’s in the textbooks certainly needs to be remembered. And thenext thing I have in mind is to expand beyond that.” Perhaps like themajority of Chinese learners, Chi Wei was course centred, and hisambition was to excel in examinations. His priority was to fulfill all therequirements of the textbooks and remember all the new words thatappeared there. Unlike the majority of learners, however, he did not stopthere; he wanted to build a larger vocabulary so as to ensure betterperformance on examinations. This self-initiated, well-planned, almostruthlessly implemented vocabulary expansion goal involved three typesof work:1. memorising examination-oriented word lists: Word lists of this kind he had

memorised in the previous 2 years included the required word listsfor CET Band 4, CET Band 6, and the English Test for PostgraduateMatriculation.

2. memorising other word lists and dictionaries: In this category werelearners’ dictionaries and volumes of commercially available wordlists with Chinese equivalents, basic usage, and example sentencesfor each word.

3. paying close attention to English words he encountered in everyday life. Forexample, he learned the word jade from a brand of toothpaste withthat name.

To memorise words on commercial word lists in his spare time, ChiWei started from page 1, with words beginning with A, and “read”through to the last page, to those that began with Z, at least two or threetimes, one after another. The first time he went through the list slowly,picking out every word he did not know. He read the informationprovided on the list and decided if it was enough. “Nouns and the likeare easy,” he claimed. “I just go through them like that. But verbs aredifferent, especially commonly used verbs and phrasal verbs, you need toknow what precedes them and what follows them.” He looked up a newword on a list in his dictionaries to find out more about it, read theexamples, and see how it was used. For words he regarded as commonlyused, he made up sentences. The second and subsequent times he wentthrough the list quickly, using at most one fourth of the time spent in thefirst round. Each time he went through the list he marked the words.Words he did not remember after the second time he recorded in hisvocabulary notebook as a reminder to give them special attention.

Chi Wei claimed that he rarely attempted to remember the spelling ofwords. He placed supreme importance on being able to pronounce anew word:

88 TESOL QUARTERLY

I will normally be able to spell it out if I can pronounce a word, and I seldomwrite new words again and again. Words are stored as sounds in my mind. Iremembered only one word letter by letter, student, S-T-U-D-E-N-T, see? Andnever again have I ever tried to do that.

He explained that remembering the pronunciation of new words helpedhim not only reduce memory load but also speak.

Chi Wei insisted that list learning never bored him:

There’s one principle: I never force myself to remember anything. I just goover them a couple of times, and they sink in. It may be a little monotonous,but since I don’t put any pressure on myself, I never feel bad about it. I evenenjoy it.

Successful Chinese EFL learners may find Chi Wei’s strategies familiar.After hearing the above description at the data analysis stage, a Chinesefriend immediately shouted, “That’s me!” Most of Chi Wei’s learningstrategies (e.g., meticulous study of selected texts, list learning, andrepetition) are either deeply rooted strategies for the acquisition of L1literacy in Chinese or strategies commonly recommended by Chineseexperts in the field of foreign languages. For example, some expertshave told of tearing up a dictionary page by page as they learned thewords on each page. The very availability of books that contain nothingbut word lists speaks to how common list learning is in China.

Chen Hua: A Love Affair With English

I enjoy the beauty of English. Probably because I read a lot of prose andnovels, and I don’t like their jerky translations, so when I read the originalversion, I can, as it were, feel the humanism brimming over the smoothstructure of the sentence. The same thing goes with listening. When I hearsomething read beautifully, like a dramatised story with music, it feels likespring water tinkling through my heart.

Vocabulary Learning From Reading

Chen Hua read the passage twice. She spent 3–4 minutes going overthe whole passage silently and then started verbalising:

This essay seems to be about a city, the wretched environment of the city. Andit goes on to say something about the measures that the government is takingin order to reduce environmental pollution and noise pollution and the like.At first, I felt I wasn’t clear enough about the passage, its logical developmentand stuff, and then I felt I needed to read it faster and see what it really is. So


I didn’t underline anything, and thought that I would go for a deeperunderstanding of the logical relations and so on when I read it a second time.

Chen Hua started paying attention to details during the secondreading. She identified 15 new vocabulary items: stinking, honk, smart,Plato, Pericles, sewerage, hem, eat away, marble, hinterland, unclog, stay put,fringe, literally, and suffocating. She treated these items in one of threeways: (a) She either guessed their meaning, or she ignored them,underlined them, and said she would like to hear what the teacher hadto say about them (e.g., smart, Plato, Pericles, literally); (b) she guessedtheir meaning, and then looked up other words and wrote down theirmeanings (and sometimes their pronunciation) in the margins of thetext (e.g., honk, sewerage, marble, hinterland, stay put, fringe); or (c) sheidentified them as unknown, guessed their meanings, looked them up inher dictionary, wrote down their meanings in the margins of the textwhere they appeared, and wrote them on the small cards that oftenserved as her notebook (e.g., the verbs stink, hem, eat away, unclog, andsuffocate).

Of the words written in the notebook (see Figure 2), two, stink andsuffocate, received more attention than the others. For suffocate, forexample, Chen Hua wrote basically a shortened version of the entry forthe word in A New English-Chinese Dictionary (1985, p. 1388), with

FIGURE 2

Excerpt From Chen Hua’s Vocabulary Notebook

Stink /stik/ (stank, stunk) vi. Fa e chou That fish stinks.He stank of garlic.stink with moneystink in somebody’s nostrils

vt. Stink somebody outn. e chou

stinker

hem in the enemy baowei zhu diren

Eat away, boys. There’s enough time yet.

Clog /klɔg/ n. zhangai, fangaivt. Zhangai, fangai

unclog

suffocate /�s�fəkeit/ vt. shi . . . zhixibe suffocated by (with) excitementsuffocate the fire

vi. men si, zhixisuffocation n.suffocative a. shi ren zhixi de

Note. Italics represent Chinese characters in the original.

90 TESOL QUARTERLY

apparent attention to usage. She noted suffocation and suffocative to-gether, but they were separate entries following suffocate in the dictionary.

When asked in the immediate retrospective interview about thecriteria she used in choosing new words to give special attention to, ChenHua said,

For proper nouns, terminology and words like that, they normally don’t needspecial attention. I don’t try to remember their example sentences and usage.Knowing what they mean will be enough. But if a word, when I translate itinto Chinese, its Chinese equivalent is used pretty often, I’ll try to rememberits usage and the like, because I assume it’s used pretty often in English aswell. And I’ll need to remember its usage and example sentences, so thatwhen I use it myself, it’ll sound more idiomatic. And also, when I see a wordwith a lot of related meanings illustrated in the dictionary, it must be animportant word and a high-frequency word as well. But when I’m reading,when I can’t understand the sentence or the context without knowing aparticular word, that word is a very important word, and I have to look it up.

Chen Hua was an experienced reader. She read the passage the fastestof all 11 participants and had the least difficulty understanding thecontent. When dealing with specific vocabulary items, she never lostsight of the meaning of the whole passage. Her reading process seemedto combine the two functions of reading: reading for information andreading to learn, with the former taking precedence. In comprehendingthe passage, Chen Hua employed a classic hypothesis-testing approach.She constantly jumped from individual words, dictionary entries, andimmediate contexts to make global sense of the passage, saying, forexample, “‘A city is dying,’ this passage must be about this city havingserious problems”; “Oh, I thought it was an American city at first, now Iknow it’s in Greece”; and “This whole paragraph talks about the extent towhich the city is polluted. I guess the next paragraph should be abouthow these problems demand attention.” At the same time, she paidhighly selective attention to new words, their meanings, and their usage,limiting her attention to two verbs: stink and suffocate.

An Example From Chen Hua: Stink

Chen Hua thought that her lack of knowledge about the word stinkprevented her from understanding the context clearly, and she pro-ceeded to look it up in the dictionary. She located the contextualmeaning by going over the major meanings in the dictionary entry andnegotiating back and forth between the dictionary entry and the text:

It has a lot of meanings here. Let me read it first. /stink/. Stink means givingout a bad smell, intransitive verb; driving somebody out with a bad smell,


transitive verb; and unpleasant smell, noun. What follows here are thecompounds and phrases. So it must be this meaning, this giving out a badsmell here. “Stinking buses, their passengers pale and tired . . . .” so we’retalking about the buses that give out a bad smell, and the passengers that lookpale and they look exhausted as well. So it must be this meaning.

She then wrote down the Chinese equivalent and the pronunciationin the margins. As she read the dictionary entry, she realised thatperhaps it was worth noting down in her notebook as well. “Stink, stank,stunk,” she mumbled to herself as she did so, repeating the irregularforms so as to remember them.

Like Chi Wei, after getting the contextual meaning from the dictio-nary, Chen Hua went on to learn the usage from sample sentences sothat she could use the idiomatic expressions in her own speaking andwriting:

The first meaning is to give out a bad smell. The example sentence here is:“That fish stinks,” and it means that the fish is giving out a bad smell. The nextsentence, “He stank of garlic,” he gave out this garlic smell. If I said it myself,I wouldn’t be able to use the word this way, so I’ll copy this down as well.

Chen Hua copied down a few more sentences illustrating the word’suse as an intransitive verb, a transitive verb, and a noun (see Figure 2).She constantly evaluated her progress and monitored her own learningbehaviour as she wrote:

I think I now have a basic feel of the word.

This is simple; simply copying the sentence down will be enough.

I think I can use the verb form now, and the noun form is much easier.

I won’t try all those phrases, because I don’t have to remember things that canbe guessed when I see them later.

The whole sentence becomes much clearer after the first word is understood.I’ll go on.

Vocabulary Learning After Reading

After making sure that she understood the passage in general and thenew words in particular, Chen Hua went through her new words again bybrowsing through the text and her notes. She scribbled each new wordthree or four times, mumbling its pronunciation to herself while tryingto recall the meaning. Unlike Chi Wei, however, Chen Hua said that sheremembered her words primarily through visual stimulation, because

92 TESOL QUARTERLY

“there is no one-to-one correspondence between spelling and sound inEnglish.” She reiterated this point later, saying she could not do anythingto new words she heard in listening practice unless she saw them inwriting. She paid attention to the pronunciation of words simply becauseshe wanted to use them in speaking. Next, Chen Hua read her notes andtried to remember the meaning and usage of the new word. She read hersample sentences and told herself whether a particular word was a verbor a noun, or whether a verb was used transitively or intransitively.

“New words that I take from my readings,” she said, “I normally copyonto my small cards.” She then drew a rectangle measuring about 2 cmby 5 cm:

I copy the word on one side of the card, and its pronunciation and meaningon the other side, so that when I look at the word on this side, I can recall itspronunciation and meaning, and when I look at the other side, I can recallthe English word.

List Learning

Chen Hua employed basically two types of lists: (a) the cards on whichshe recorded words encountered in reading and (b) commerciallyavailable word lists. She rarely used vocabulary notebooks.

Vocabulary cards. Chen Hua had developed the habit of collecting newwords on vocabulary cards, described above, early in her Englishlearning experience, and it was one of her favourite strategies forvocabulary learning. Cards thus accumulated were bound together in noparticular order with rubber bands. Every week or so, she took out thecards and went over them once, picking out words she had forgotten atthat point.

When I was little, I had to remember a lot of these words, with my little cards.But because of the high frequency of those words, I got to see them a lotduring reading, so gradually I could remember them all. I discovered that Iwas picking out fewer and fewer forgotten words. Things are different now.I’m getting a lot of cards that I don’t remember, because they’re low-frequency words most of the time, and I don’t come across them oftenenough.

Volumes of word lists. Like other Chinese learners, Chen Hua made use ofcommercially available word lists, simply because her preferred way oflearning vocabulary was “too slow” and the quantity of words “notenough for exams.” She recognised the compensatory nature of thismethod while realizing that words thus learned are “not as deep as words


you remember from your own readings.” Chen Hua said that she wentthrough a 5,000-word list twice and a 10,000-word list one and one-halftimes, simply reading the list word by word from A to Z and testingherself by trying to recall them. “It might’ve helped,” she added,referring to her attempt at memorising word lists, “but it’s certainly notas helpful as reading.”

In fact, time spent on word lists constituted only a fraction of the timeChen Hua had spent on English. From memorising word lists, tocollecting and reviewing vocabulary from context on cards, to usingEnglish (mainly by reading), Chen Hua can be said to have employed awhole range of vocabulary-learning strategies on a continuum fromdecontextualised to contextualised.

Using English

Chen Hua stood out from the 11 learners studied because of theextent to which she had been using English. (In fact, because Chu Weispent the overwhelming majority of his time studying English, I cannotdescribe his use of English here.) She did a great deal of reading andlistening, and a considerable amount of speaking and writing as well.

I don’t think you need to pay special attention to learning grammar, becausegrammar sinks itself in naturally when you read a lot. I never tried to analysea sentence. What’s the purpose of doing that anyway when you can under-stand the sentence?

Listening. Chen Hua used four types of materials for listening practice:(a) listening textbooks; (b) listening practice textbooks, listening skillbooks, and test samples for the Test of English as a Foreign Language(TOEFL); (c) short stories, plays, and adapted novels on audiotape; and(d) radio programmes. She used the first two types for intensive listeningand the second two for extensive listening:

I walked around with my Walkman and my earphones. Every evening from10:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m., when other girls were chatting in the dorm, I wouldplug my pair of earphones into my ears. When I look back now, it reallyworked.

Speaking. Chen Hua used to have a conversation partner, her best friend,who started learning English with her in the same Primary 5 class. Fromjunior middle school until they parted to attend different universities,the two girls chatted in English during every class break, whenever theymet outside class, and over the telephone. She said regretfully,

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

But my university classmates never speak English, so I get very subdued everynow and then, then I have to mumble to myself in English. Occasionally, afterI finish listening to a nice story or after watching an English movie, myEnglish channel is turned on, so to speak, and I feel the urge to speak inEnglish. And if I happen to be at home [laugh], my parents have to suffer,because whatever they say to me in Chinese, I talk back in English. They don’tunderstand a word, and I don’t care either. I must’ve done this pretty often tothem, because they seem to have got used to it.

Reading. As intensive reading, Chen Hua claimed that, since Junior 1, shehad read aloud the passages in her textbooks so many times that she hadmemorised every one. She had also memorised a few selected readingsthat she thought were beautifully written. “Not that I wanted to recitethem; they get memorised after you read them a few times. And oncethey’re there, they become part of you, the sentence structures, the setphrases, and the new vocabulary.” Obviously, repetition and memorisationwere integrated with understanding and enjoyment (cf. Marton et al.,1996).

Moreover, Chen Hua had an extensive reading programme. Duringher middle school years, she read almost all the simplified readersavailable in China. After entering the university, she read originalEnglish prose and novels with Chinese notes and explanations. She alsofound chemistry textbooks in the library and studied them on her own.By the time this study took place, she was reading English worksexclusively in the original (e.g., Readers Digest and novels such as Jane Eyre,The Great Gatsby, Tom Sawyer, and Gone With the Wind). She said,

I go for content, and I look up a word only if it prevents me fromunderstanding the paragraph or if it appears again and again and I think it’simportant to learn to use it myself. I look it up only after I finish reading atleast the whole paragraph.

Writing. Chen Hua did less writing practice compared with other skills.She wrote in a diary in English two to three times a week, wrote anoccasional letter to her best friend in English, and, like Chi Wei, wroteEnglish compositions to prepare for examinations.

Chen Hua appeared to be intrinsically interested in English whileseeing its instrumental importance. She knew how much time sheneeded to learn English well, and estimated that, during the first 2 yearsof her university life, she spent about two thirds of her time and effort onEnglish, entirely on her own initiative, and kept a close eye on herchemistry courses.5 From Junior 1 on, she devoted every vacation to

5 After being in the top third of her chemistry courses in the first 2 years, she decided tospend less time on English and concentrate on chemistry courses in order to “get ascholarship.” Within a few months she climbed to the top 5%.


reading in English. Like Chi Wei, Chen Hua emphasised that she neverforced herself to learn anything and that English learning had alwaysbeen “natural” to her: “I’ll stop when I’m tired. I’ll stop before I’mbored. I never care about making mistakes. Mistakes are natural. It’s notmy mother tongue anyway.”

Chen Hua represents only a small minority of successful non-Englishmajors. Although the proportion of time she spent on English was notunusual, the extent to which she used English for authentic andmeaningful purposes was rare among this group of Chinese learners.Second, Chen Hua’s overall English use was the best among the 11learners in the sample, although her score of 91% on the CET Band 4did not reflect this superior skill. Third, as one of the more sociallyadvantaged learners in the sample, Chen Hua had more resourcesavailable to her than other Chinese learners do. The fact that her parentswere intellectuals and lived in Beijing ensured the availability of booksand contributed to the type of education she received. That said, ratherthan discourage other Chinese learners, Chen Hua’s success shouldencourage them to aim for a more communicative approach to learningin a noncommunicative and input-poor environment. Chen Hua’s socialbackground was not unique; her unusual motivation and learningstrategies may have made the difference.

Summary

Chen Hua succeeded in vocabulary learning in a far different wayfrom Chi Wei. Although their basic procedures of vocabulary learningthrough intensive reading were surprisingly similar, Chi Wei focused onthe details of word learning, identifying many new or partially newwords, whereas Chen Hua was more concerned with overall understand-ing of the passage, focusing only on new words that she found importantor interesting. Chi Wei made up sentences on the spot for his chosenwords, but Chen Hua said she would try to use them later in realsituations. Chi Wei spent a great deal of time learning through thepassage because intensive reading had been his main source of Englishinput. Chen Hua, on the other hand, spent less time on intensivereading passages and much more time on extensive reading, whichensured the natural recurrence of words she had tried to learn inintensive reading. Chi Wei spent about 90 minutes completing thelearning tasks whereas Chen Hua spent only 40 minutes. If languagelearning is an art, then Chi Wei’s style corresponds to gongbi (fine brush)and Chen Hua’s to xieyi (freehand).

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

Approaches to Success

Chi Wei and Chen Hua correspond almost precisely to the two types ofvocabulary learners, active strategy users and readers, that emerged fromGu and Johnson’s (1996) cluster analysis results. These two learnersunderscore an important point: Not all successful Chinese learners arealike.

One difference between Chi Wei and Chen Hua was their learningstyles: Chi Wei preferred auditory learning, and Chen Hua might be saidto have a slight preference for visual learning, although both learnersused some strategies consistent with each style. Chi Wei was meticulousabout details and focused mainly on textbooks (the fine brush style)whereas Chen Hua focused on reading and enjoying extracurricularmaterial (the freehand style). Motivation was another area of difference.Chi Wei was learning to excel whereas Chen Hua was learning because ofher intrinsic interest in English. Chi Wei persevered, and Chen Huaenjoyed her learning process.

Nevertheless, distinct as they were in their approaches to vocabularylearning, the two learners showed more similarities than differences.Both demonstrated high levels of motivation, revealing a link betweenmotivation and the use of strategies (Oxford, 1996), especially meta-cognitive strategies such as self-initiation. Metacognitively, both learners• had high levels of self-initiation in learning and went well beyond

what was required in their English course• consciously chose to treat different words with different strategies• selected vocabulary to learn based on three criteria: (a) its relevance

to text comprehension, (b) its interest to them, and (c) an on-the-spot evaluation of its importance

• consciously emphasized multiword units such as phrasal verbs andidiomatic expressions as well as other words of their choice

Cognitively, both learners• employed a wide range of vocabulary-learning strategies• engaged in frequent contextual inferencing using a variety of clues• used the dictionary for comprehension purposes, negotiating be-

tween dictionary definitions and contextual meaning• used the dictionary for vocabulary-learning purposes, taking various

types of notes when they felt necessary• spent considerable time on and demonstrated remarkable skill in

memorising word lists


• tried to use some of the words they had just learned so as to cater tothe knowledge and skill aspects of vocabulary learning (Ellis, 1994)

• tried to find and create opportunities to use English in authentic orsemiauthentic situations

Learning Strategies With Chinese Characteristics

These strategies do not seem to differ dramatically from thoseemployed by successful learners elsewhere (cf., e.g., the analytic vs.holistic approaches to vocabulary learning in Parry, 1997). Nevertheless,Chi Wei and Chen Hua also used some strategies of which, thoughendorsed and encouraged by traditional Chinese practice, Westernteachers may express disapproval.

This tension might be explained in the context of often-misunder-stood Chinese conceptions of learning (Biggs, 1996). First, Chi Wei andChen Hua seemed to know instinctively that vocabulary can be learnedboth intentionally and incidentally. They might also have known thattheir learning context did not provide them with much input. Therefore,they consciously chose to emphasize highly intensive intentional learning.

Second, although the way in which Chi Wei and Chen Hua tried tomemorise word lists would seem on the surface to be unsanctioned byWestern teachers and scholars, close observation of this strategy and itsuse in combination with other strategies demonstrates a potentialbenefit. Repetition and memorisation that are usually associated withrote learning are part and parcel of meaningful learning in China(Marton et al., 1996). Sayings like “Meaning reveals itself after a hundredtimes of reading” demonstrate the integration of repetition and meaningin the Chinese learning culture. Another saying, “Master 300 Tangpoems, and you become a poet yourself,” might be thought of as a folktheory of implicit learning.

Third, Chi Wei’s strategic behaviours indicate an independent natureoriented toward self-cultivation and self-realisation. On the other hand,Chen Hua’s love affair with English did not prevent her from adoptingexamination-oriented strategies, and she was well aware of the impor-tance of English to her life. If love of English led to success for ChenHua, living with English without intense love for it certainly worked forChi Wei. These Chinese learners were pragmatic learners; the dichotomyof intrinsic versus extrinsic perhaps does not apply to them the way itapplies to their Western counterparts.

Fourth, both learners demonstrated effort, perseverance, and the joyof learning. As non-English majors, Chi Wei and Chen Hua spent muchmore time and effort on English than on all their other academicsubjects combined, and both enjoyed the whole process. This stance is

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

consistent with a well-known quotation from Confucius’ Analects: “Is itnot enjoyable to learn with a constant perseverance and application?” Inthe Chinese culture, effort and perseverance are not just glorified meansto sagehood; they are an integral and enjoyable part of the learningprocess. Chi Wei’s and Chen Hua’s success in the face of a difficultlearning situation and a severe lack of input and output opportunitiesunderscores the value placed on the virtues of effort, perseverance, andwillpower in the Chinese EFL context.

Finally, the ends of dichotomies, such as intentional and incidentallearning, reliance on memorisation and meaning, intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation, and perseverance and enjoyment, are often seen as good orbad if not mutually exclusive (Biggs, 1996). However, the two successfulChinese learners in this study seemed to have no problem integratingthe ends. This ability to integrate seemingly opposing viewpoints mightexplain the paradox of why some Chinese learners achieve success evenwhile practising the supposedly bad strategies of rote learning. TheConfucian philosophy of the mean, which is characterized by balancesbetween opposing ends, might be the learning mechanism at work(Biggs, 1996).

Most of Chi Wei’s and Chen Hua’s behaviours (e.g., perseverance) canbe found among successful learners elsewhere. However, the consistent,distinctive combinations of these behaviours and the cultural concep-tions of learning behind them may be a sign of their “Chineseness” or“Asianness.” As I have suggested, these behavioural patterns may be dueto a combination of Chinese conceptions of learning, traditional school-ing and literacy practice in China, the prevailing methods for teachingand learning English in China, the demands of the English learning task,and individual learning style.

CONCLUSION

Two successful EFL learners from the same Chinese learning contextapproached the same vocabulary-learning task in different ways. At thesame time, they demonstrated some patterns of strategy use that weredifferent from those reported in other learning contexts. As Schmeck(1988) put it,

If we keep a situation constant and look across people, we see situationalinfluences; and if we keep the person constant and look across situations, wesee the influence of personal style. However, the two are normally operatingsimultaneously in a sort of “chemical reaction” that, in the end, may beunanalysable. (p. 10)


Schmeck’s notion of the “chemical reaction” highlights the learning artof successful learners such as Chi Wei and Chen Hua and expresses thedifficulties of studying strategies. While researchers have a hard timedistinguishing between different types of strategies, such as metacognitiveand cognitive, these expert learners wield their own configuration ofstrategy combinations with ease (A. D. Cohen, personal communication,September 10, 2001). And they even use the same strategies, forinstance, guessing through context, differently. Furthermore, what makesvocabulary learning an art for these two students is not the strategyrepertoires they used or how often they used them but the flexible andskilful analysis, choice, deployment, execution, and orchestration of allstrategies at their disposal in accordance with their own preferred style oflearning.

The two learners reported in this study represent only a smallproportion of successful Chinese EFL students. Many Chinese learnersuse rote strategies as their major way of learning vocabulary. Although itmight be presumptuous to derive pedagogical implications from a studyof two learners, teachers can certainly encourage their students, Chineseor not, to follow Chi Wei’s and Chen Hua’s examples. A first step towardhelping rote learners, for example, might be to show them how Chi Weiand Chen Hua used a wide range of strategies, including list learning, inthe art of vocabulary learning and how they grew as people as theyacquired a foreign language.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Robert Keith Johnson, Andrew Cohen, Sandra McKay, and the anonymousreviewers for comments on the article; Kate Parry, Bernard Spolsky, and Cindy Gerstlfor comments on the article and for encouragement; and the two participants in thisstudy, who provided me with insightful data.

THE AUTHOR

Peter Yongqi Gu is assistant professor at the English Language and LiteratureAcademic Group of National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological Univer-sity. His research interests include vocabulary acquisition, learning strategies, lan-guage planning, and computer-assisted language learning.

REFERENCES

Ahmed, M. O. (1989). Vocabulary learning strategies. In P. Meara (Ed.), Beyond words(pp. 3–14). London: British Association for Applied Linguistics/Centre forInformation on Language Teaching & Research.

Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369–406.

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1984). Study abroad: A manual for Asian students. KualaLumpur, Malaysia: Longman.

Biggs, J. (1996). Western misconceptions of the Confucian-heritage learning culture.In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological andcontextual influences (pp. 45–67). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong, Compara-tive Education Research Centre/Australian Council for Educational Research.

Bradley, D., & Bradley, M. (1984). Problems of Asian students in Australia: Language,culture and education. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.

Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning,remembering, and understanding. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of childpsychology: Vol 3. Cognitive development (pp. 77–166). New York: Wiley.

Brown, C., & Payne, M. E. (1994, March). Five essential steps or processes in vocabularylearning. Paper presented at the 28th Annual TESOL Convention, Baltimore, MD.

Coady, J., & Huckin, T. (Eds.). (1997). Second language vocabulary acquisition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London:Longman.

Crow, J. T. (1986). Receptive vocabulary acquisition for reading comprehension. TheModern Language Journal, 70, 242–250.

Ellis, N. (1994). Vocabulary acquisition: The implicit ins and outs of explicitcognitive mediation. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages(pp. 211–282). London: Academic Press.

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev.ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area ofcognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.

Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and languagelearning outcomes. Language Learning, 46, 643–679.

Huckin, T., & Coady, J. (1999). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a secondlanguage: A review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 181–193.

Huckin, T., Haynes, M., & Coady, J. (Eds.). (1993). Second language reading andvocabulary learning. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Kojic-Sabo, I., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Students’ approaches to vocabularylearning and their relationship to success. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 176–192.

Kolers, P. A. (1979). A pattern analyzing basis of recognition. In L. S. Cermak &F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 363–384). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? InP. J. L. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 126–132). London: Macmillan.

Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G., & Tse, L. K. (1996). Memorizing and understanding: Thekeys to the paradox? In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner:Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 69–83). Hong Kong: Universityof Hong Kong, Comparative Education Research Centre/Australian Council forEducational Research.

McCarthy, M. J. (1984). A new look at vocabulary in EFL. Applied Linguistics, 5, 12–22.McNeill, A. (1990). Vocabulary learning and teaching: Evidence from lexical errors

in the spontaneous speech of ESL learners. Institute of Language in EducationJournal, 7, 141–153.

Meara, P. (1980). Vocabulary acquisition: A neglected aspect of language learning.Language Teaching and Linguistics Abstracts, 13, 221–246.


Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Neves, D. M., & Anderson, J. R. (1981). Knowledge compilation: Mechanisms for theautomatization of cognitive skills. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and theiracquisition (pp. 57–84). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

A new English-Chinese dictionary (Enlarged, updated ed.). (1985). Shanghai, China:Shanghai Yiwen Press.

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second languageacquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., & Russo, R. P.(1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a secondlanguage. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 557–584.

Oxford, R. L. (1996). What have we learned about language learning strategiesaround the world? In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around theworld: Crosscultural perspectives (pp. 247–249). Honolulu: University of HawaiiPress.

Parry, K. (1991). Building a vocabulary through academic reading. TESOL Quarterly,25, 629–653.

Parry, K. (1993). Too many words: Learning the vocabulary of an academic subject.In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabularylearning (pp. 109–129). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Parry, K. (1997). Vocabulary and comprehension: Two portraits. In J. Coady &T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp.55–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Politzer, R. L., & McGroarty, M. (1985). An exploratory study of learning behavioursand their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence.TESOL Quarterly, 19, 103–123.

Richards, J. C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 77–89.Samuelowicz, K. (1987). Learning problems of overseas students: Two sides of a

story. Higher Education Research & Development, 6, 121–134.Sanaoui, R. (1995). Adult learners’ approaches to learning vocabulary in second

languages. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 15–28.Schmeck, R. R. (1988). An introduction to strategies and styles of learning. In R. R.

Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 3–19). New York: PlenumPress.

Walter, C. (1982). Authentic reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Watkins, D. A., & Biggs, J. B. (Eds.). (1996). The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological

and contextual influences. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong, ComparativeEducation Research Centre/Australian Council for Educational Research.

Wenden, A. L. (1987). How to be a successful language learner: Insights andprescriptions from L2 learners. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategiesin language learning (pp. 103–117). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. S. (Eds.). (1999). Incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition:Theory, current research, and instructional implications [Special issue]. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 21(2).

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

APPENDIX A

Reading Text in SegmentsA City Is Dying

1. Stinking buses, their passengers pale and tired, jam the crowded streets.

2. Drivers shout at one another and honk their horns.

3. Smog smarts the eyes and chokes the senses.

4. The scene is Athens at rush hour.

5. The city of Plato and Pericles is in a sorry state of affairs, built without a plan, lacking evenadequate sewerage facilities, hemmed in by mountains and the sea, its 135 square milescrammed with 3.7 million people.

6. Even Athens’ ruins are in ruin: sulfur dioxide eats away at the marble of the Parthenonand other treasures on the Acropolis:

7. As Greek Premier Constantine Karamanlis has said,

8. ‘The only solution for Athens would be to demolish half of it and start all over again.’

9. So great has been the population flow toward the city that entire hinterland villages standvacant or nearly so.

10. About 120,000 people from outlying provinces move to Athens every year,

11. with the result that 40% of Greece’s citizenry are now packed into the capital.

12. The migrants come for the few available jobs, which are usually no better than the onesthey fled.

13. At the current rate of migration, Athens by the year 2000 will have a population of 6.5million, more than half the nation.

14. Aside from overcrowding and poor public transport, the biggest problems confrontingAthenians are noise and pollution.

15. A government study concluded that Athens was the noisiest city in the world.

16. Smog is almost at killing levels:

17. 180–300 mg of sulfur dioxide per cubic meter of air, or up to four times the level that theWorld Health Organization considers safe.

18. Nearly half the pollution comes from cars.

19. Despite high prices for vehicles and fuel ($2.95 per gallon), nearly 100,000 automobilesare sold in Greece each year;

20. 3,000 driver’s licenses are issued in Athens monthly.

21. After decades of neglect, Athens is at last getting some attention.

22. In March a committee of representatives from all major public service ministries met todiscuss a plan to unclog the city, make it livable and clean up its environment.

23. A save-Athens ministry, which will soon begin functioning, will propose heavy taxes todiscourage in-migration,

24. a minimum of $5 billion in public spending for Athens alone, and other projects for thecountryside to encourage residents to stay put.

25. A master plan that will move many government offices to the city’s fringes is already in theworks.

26. Meanwhile, more Greeks keep moving into Athens.

27. With few parks and precious few oxygen-producing plants, the city and its citizens areliterally suffocating. (Walter, 1982, pp. 28–31)


APPENDIX B

General Interview Questions

I. Metacognitive Aspects of Vocabulary Learning

A. Metacognitive Knowledge and Beliefs

About self in vocabulary learning

1. Overall, how do you see yourself as a language learner?

2. Do you see yourself as good at learning vocabulary? In what way are you good at it (e.g.,having a good memory, found successful strategies, or others)?

3. People have different styles of vocabulary learning. Some must see a word before it isremembered; others might prefer to hear the word. What is your personal style?

About English vocabulary

4. Do you think English vocabulary is rule governed? Can you elaborate on this?

5. What does it mean to you when you say you have learned a word?

About vocabulary learning

6. How important is vocabulary learning in learning a foreign language? From whatexperiences have you generalized the above-mentioned ideas?

7. Are English words hard/easy to learn? Why do you think so?

8. Do you think there are gimmicks that can make vocabulary learning fast and easy? Why doyou think so?

About vocabulary strategies

9. What do you think are the vocabulary-learning strategies that work best for you? And whatare those that don’t work for you?

B. Metacognitive Regulation

Planning

10. Do you plan your vocabulary learning? How?

11. Do you deliberately try new strategies to learn vocabulary? How often do you do that?

Monitoring

12. How do you keep track of your progress in vocabulary learning?

Evaluation

13. How do you know that a particular word or expression is worth remembering?

14. When someone tells you about a “good” strategy to learn vocabulary, what do you do whenyou see that it doesn’t work for you? (Do you simply abandon it, try it again and see if itworks, blame yourself for not practicing it enough instead of questioning its usefulness, tryto find better strategies, or fall back on your known strategies?)

II. Cognitive Aspects of Vocabulary Learning15. Can you think of as many strategies as possible that you yourself use to learn English

vocabulary?

16. What do you do when you come across new words while listening?

17. What do you do when you come across new words while reading?

18. When you don’t know an English word when speaking, what do you do?

19. When you don’t know an English word when writing, what do you do?

20. How do you enlarge your stock of passive vocabulary?

104 TESOL QUARTERLY

21. Do you deliberately try to change your passive vocabulary (comprehension only) intoactive vocabulary? How do you do it?

III. Affective Aspects of Vocabulary LearningAffective responses

22. Some say vocabulary learning is tiring, boring, and even overwhelming. How do youcomment on this?

Affective strategies

23. How do you cope with these problems?


Dueling Philosophies:Inclusion or Separation for Florida’sEnglish Language Learners?ELIZABETH PLATTFlorida State UniversityTallahassee, Florida, United States

CANDACE HARPERUniversity of FloridaGainesville, Florida, United States

MARIA BEATRIZ MENDOZAFlorida State UniversityTallahassee, Florida, United States

Educational policies in Florida affect one of the United States’ largestand most diverse student populations. A major consequence of thecomprehensive restructuring of education for English language learn-ers since 1990 has been a rapid move toward inclusion (mainstreaming)for these learners. The current study provides an overview of thehistorical background and philosophical bases of inclusion versusseparation and presents recent developments affecting L2 educationpolicy and practice in Florida. Data from interviews with 29 district-levelESL administrators address their rationales for the models imple-mented in their districts and their beliefs about the effectiveness ofeach model. Administrators expressed both positive and negativesentiments regarding inclusion and separation. The article notes paral-lel trends toward inclusion and standardization in national and interna-tional contexts. Findings document how issues of equity for Englishlanguage learners have been forced into the background and why thespecialized nature of the ESL/EFL teaching profession is in jeopardy.

As the population of English language learners entering U.S. publicschools grows (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acqui-

sition and Language Instruction Educational Programs [NCELA], 2002),issues related to the effective instruction of these students will becomeincreasingly prominent. An informal survey of professional education

106 TESOL QUARTERLY

journals published in 2001–20021 revealed 27 articles featuring Englishlanguage learners. Likewise, at conferences of professional teacherassociations in 2001–2002,2 sessions relating to the instruction of Englishlanguage learners appeared in the program regularly. In Florida thenumber and growth rate of these students are among the highest in thenation (Florida Department of Education [DOE], 2001c; NCELA, 2002),and as a consequence issues concerning English language learners havebeen prominent on the state educational agenda for more than adecade. In this setting a trend has emerged toward the inclusion of K–12language minority students in mainstream settings as early and as fully aspossible (Harper & Platt, 1998; Platt & Harper, 1997). In other stateschanges in policy governing the instructional services available toEnglish language learners (e.g., Proposition 227 in California andProposition 203 in Arizona) and testimony at a recent TESOL conven-tion by educators from around the United States (Platt & Harper, 2002)indicate that the move toward an inclusion instructional model is notlimited to Florida.

TESOL professionals, who may conceptualize ESL in terms of pullout,or separation, programs, need to examine the trend toward inclusionwithin the context of developments in both language teaching andgeneral education, including alignment of language and content areacurriculum standards (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2000; EducationalTesting Service, 2002; TESOL, 2000); emphasis on all students meetingnational standards (Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994); andaccountability as measured by standardized test performance for evaluat-ing students, teachers, and schools (Title I of the No Child Left BehindAct of 2001). As inclusion becomes more common, responsibility forstudents with special needs is distributed among a larger group ofeducators, and the consequences for both students and teachers areconsiderable. One way of beginning to understand the issues is throughthe eyes of those directly involved in oversight of general educationprograms (Harper & Platt, 1999; Platt, Mendoza, & Harper, 2000).

This study reports results of research investigating the opinions ofFlorida ESL administrators 10 years after the signing of a ConsentDecree that effectively widened the responsibility for these learners to allK–12 school personnel. Based on analysis of interview data, we report (a)the rationales administrators provided for the instructional programs forEnglish language learners implemented in their districts and (b) admin-istrators’ beliefs about effectiveness of inclusion and separation pro-

1 Educational Researcher, Harvard Education Review, Journal of Teacher Education, Phi DeltaKappan, and Teaching and Teacher Education.

2 The American Educational Research Association, the International Reading Association,and the National Council for Teachers of English.

DUELING PHILOSOPHIES 107

grams for these learners. We then discuss the larger equity implicationsof these findings as they relate to students and teachers, both in theUnited States and internationally.

INCLUSION VERSUS SEPARATION

The Florida story achieves importance against the historical back-ground of inclusion and separation in a larger context. Full inclusion isthe practice of serving students with special needs entirely within themainstream classroom (Turnbull, Turnbull, Shank, & Leal, 1995). Thetwo most common instructional models entailing separation of Englishlanguage learners are ESL and bilingual programs.

Inclusion

A number of social forces have combined to create a favorable climatefor inclusion over the past quarter century: a redefinition and expansionof the term special needs student, a rise in dropout rates, and a greaternumber of minority students, including immigrants and refugees(Kochhar, West, & Taymans, 2000). The Civil Rights movement andadvocacy for groups and individuals are associated with this view, andthose promoting inclusion allude to the individual liberties that stemfrom the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. With the shift ofemphasis in the 1960s from the study of human psychology in terms ofillness and neurosis toward one of maximizing mental health and nativepotential, normalization was seen as the desired state. Normalizationentailed integrating people with disabilities or other special needs intocommunity norms as much as possible (Wolfensberger, 1972) and led tothe passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act in 1997 (Kochharet al., 2000).

The publication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excel-lence in Education, 1983) challenged the educational establishment topromote both equity and excellence (see Taylor & Piche, 1991, forfurther discussion). However, desegregating schools and funding pro-grams for linguistic, cultural, and economic minorities have failed toaffect the existing balance of privilege and power (Tate, Ladson-Billings,& Grant, 1993). In fact, Cohen and Lazerson (1977) claimed more than20 years ago that the schools were infused not with aspirations to achieveequity but with corporate values tied to the goals of the economic order.Although the discourse of schooling always includes a nod to diversityand equity, ongoing trends in accountability and standardization of

108 TESOL QUARTERLY

curriculum and assessment illustrate a link with the organizational stylesand ideology of advanced capitalism (Carlson, 1988). Despite its roots ina liberal philosophy, inclusion has become part of a conservativephilosophy regarding equity (Donahue, 1995; Tollefson, 1995). Olsen(1997) criticizes the recent emphasis on school reform and charges that,in spite of the inclusive rhetoric of serving all students, an ideology ofindividualism and meritocracy prevails; English language learners areexcluded from full participation and success in school, and the currentpower structure remains intact.

The people whose color-blindness and refusal to examine issues of differentneeds, and their emphasis on serving “all” children as the “same,” havemanaged to claim the moral high ground. Their position is based on alanguage and framework that uses the paradigms and words of civil rights toargue for a status quo that actually prevents full inclusion and access. . . . Inthe popular school reform discourse, specific educational approaches thathave been about equity are thus stood on their heads, taken out of theireducational and political contexts, and discredited . . . . The “old paradigm,”which consists of much of the educational pedagogy and set of policiesflowing from civil rights concerns, is now associated with such negativereferences as “segregation,” “divisiveness,” or “special treatment.” (pp. 246–247)

Conservative influences have affected instructional programming forEnglish language learners in the United States and in the internationalarena. In California and Arizona, bilingual programs have been replacedin most districts by structured English immersion (California DOE, 2001;Crawford, 2000/2001). Many states have adopted grade-level curriculumstandards and assessment programs that do not take English languagelearners’ needs and abilities into account. In England and Sweden aswell as in the United States, some programs have overlooked the needsof immigrant students (Boyd & Arvidsson, 1998; Leung & Franson,2001), and in Australia adult ESL programs have been subsumed undera general literacy umbrella (Lo Bianco, 1998; Moore, 2001). Theincreased emphasis on standardization in education begun early in thepast decade has also affected educational programming. In Florida,despite efforts to improve education for these learners in the early 1990s,a movement to streamline all educational programs has coincided withbudget cuts and a rapidly growing linguistic minority population, requir-ing administrators to spread existing resources as widely as possible, inmany cases eliminating separate support programs for these students.


Separation

Separation occurs when instructional goals or students’ needs differfrom those of mainstream students such that they require specializedcurricula or teaching approaches. Despite concerns that separation ofstudents is inherently discriminatory, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR,1991) specifies rather that discrimination results when a district fails toprovide needed services to English language learners. Thus, separationof students for specialized instruction is warranted in order to achieveeducational goals, provided that services in the separate environmentfacilitate equal access to the curriculum in a timely and effective manner.

Bilingual Education

Bilingual education has existed in the United States since the 1800s,with greater or lesser standing depending on the historical context. Afterthe unanimous Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, SupremeCourt decision in 1954, a national social conscience emerged thatproduced the Bilingual Education Act of 1968, its various amendments,and the 1974 Lau v. Nichols Supreme Court decision (Faltis & Hudelson,1998). Supporters of bilingual education argue that competence in bothlanguages facilitates the learning of academic content and literacy andpromotes positive cognitive effects, including an analytic orientation tolanguage, higher verbal and nonverbal intelligence, and divergentthinking (Bialystok, 1991; Cummins, 1981; Cummins & Swain, 1986;Lambert & Tucker, 1972). Baca (1998) has promoted bilingual educa-tion on the basis of equal educational opportunity and the potential forpositive interethnic relations, and Thomas and Collier’s (1995, 2002)large-scale research indicates that students in bilingual education pro-grams with long-term support in the home language reach academicparity with native-English-speaking peers faster than students in othertypes of instructional programs.

In spite of such evidence, support for bilingual education has failed togain significant momentum, and reauthorizations of Title VII of theBilingual Education Act narrowed the role of home languages andcultures in favor of a greater role for English. In 1994, the ImprovingAmerica’s Schools Act and the Goals 2000: Educate America Act changedTitle VII programming by giving greater control and flexibility to thestates. Goals 2000 also sought to ensure equal educational opportunitiesthrough systemic reform and the setting of standards. Recent federalinitiatives of Title I and Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001)have set the stage for further changes regarding the types of instructional

110 TESOL QUARTERLY

programs offered and the assessments required of English languagelearners, and will limit bilingual education and other specialized, oftenseparate language support programs for these students.

ESL

Like bilingual models, ESL programs separate English languagelearners from the mainstream for specialized language and contentinstruction. ESL gained a professional identity in the United States in the1930s (Crawford, 1991). Early ESL instruction was influenced by abehaviorist/structuralist approach to language teaching and was gearedtoward cultural assimilation and oral language proficiency. As late as1976, the mission statement of TESOL still focused exclusively on thespoken language, with little attention to literacy or academic compe-tence. The effectiveness of typical ESL programs of the 1970s and 1980swas called into question. Cummins (1989) labeled such programssubtractive, supportive of neither academic achievement nor retention ofthe home language or culture. Further, Krashen (1984) argued for ESLprograms that provide a range of support (including home languagesupport) and that gradually move English language learners into themainstream. In recent years literacy and academic language proficiencyhave joined oral communication skills as important learning goals in ESL(TESOL, 1997, 1999), and content-based ESL and sheltered contentinstruction (Short, 1998), the cognitive academic language learningapproach (CALLA; Chamot & O’Malley, 1994), vocational ESL (Frieden-berg & Bradley, 1984), and adjunct academic programs (Kasper, 2000)have flourished.

THE FLORIDA CASE

In Florida, the challenge of providing equal educational access to arapidly growing population of English language learners has led educa-tors to consider a range of approaches. The decisions made in instruc-tional programming for these students, however, occur within thebroader educational context.

The ESOL Consent Decree

Since the 1960s Florida has experienced tremendous growth in thesize and diversity of its immigrant population, placing it among the topthree states in the United States in number of students with a home


language other than English (NCELA, 2002). In the 1970s, Floridadeveloped standards for the identification and instruction of studentswhose L1 was not English, and for the certification of bilingual and ESLteachers. However, concerns for English language learners did not reacha critical mass until the mid-1980s, when families from the Caribbeanand other parts of Latin America began arriving in greater numbers andsettling in central as well as south Florida (Wilson-Patton, 2000). In thelate 1980s, leaders of several community groups representing schoolchil-dren of Hispanic and African American origin sought the assistance ofthe legal firm Multilingual Education, Training, and Advocacy (META)to bring suit against the Florida DOE for denying equal educationalopportunity to language minority students. In response, the DOEcomplied with the terms set forth by META, and the complaint and aConsent Decree were filed on the same day in 1989 (Wilson-Patton,2000). Compliance was mandated in six areas: (a) identification andassessment, (b) equal access to appropriate programs (curriculum andinstruction), (c) equal access to categorical and other programs, (d)schoolwide training of personnel, (e) program monitoring, and (f)student outcome measures. (See Florida DOE, 1990, for a more detailedaccount.)

According to the guidelines established in the Consent Decree, eachschool district was to be monitored periodically by the DOE for programcompliance and effectiveness. Over the next few years, the DOE andMETA debated various policies, clustering being one of the first. Cluster-ing refers to the grouping of English language learners for instructionwithin and across schools. Despite the OCR’s (1991) specification ofwhat does and does not constitute discrimination against these students,the Florida DOE considered clustering to be potentially discriminatory,an interpretation that ultimately resulted in the careful scrutiny of allinstructional programs involving the separation of English languagelearners from mainstream settings.

In 1995 the DOE disseminated a technical assistance paper (FloridaDOE, 1995) providing criteria for districts in the implementation ofinclusion programs. The criteria included school or district consensusabout the model’s appropriateness for delivering comprehensible in-struction, assurance of adequate instructional resources (e.g., a lowerstudent-teacher ratio and more homogeneous classrooms), and clearlyestablished implementation guidelines. This official document discour-aged the adoption of inclusion at the expense of other effectiveeducational programs and advised districts to implement inclusion onestudent at a time. Since 1995, however, the criteria for adopting inclusionhave been inconsistently applied, and some successful ESL pullout,sheltered content, and newcomer programs have been dismantled andreplaced by inclusion programs. The DOE promotes ESL as a method of

112 TESOL QUARTERLY

instruction rather than a discipline and believes the ESL curriculumshould be synonymous with the general English language arts curricu-lum, with some adjustments for levels of English language proficiency(Florida DOE, 2001b).

Recent educational policy initiatives in California and Arizona wereinitiated by political pressure from supporters of the Official EnglishMovement and other conservative groups (see Chavez, 2000). TheConsent Decree in Florida, however, emerged from grassroots efforts bythe affected population, aided by progressive lawyers and an activistcourt (Wilson-Patton, 2000). However, the intent of the Florida ConsentDecree has been reshaped over the past decade to conform to theprevalent political philosophy within the state and the nation as a whole.Although the inclusion policy directives mentioned above were issued bythe state, a more general standardization initiative has its origin in andsupport from the national level (e.g., Title I of the No Child Left BehindAct of 2001). Thus, early and full inclusion of English language learnersin regular classrooms, a decrease in specialized services and curricula,and accountability for student progress through mandated standardizedassessments are logical manifestations of this trend. As data frominterviews with Florida ESL administrators will show, however, profes-sional educators do not wholeheartedly endorse full inclusion of Englishlanguage learners in mainstream classrooms, especially those learnersmost at risk of failure.

Ongoing Research in Florida

From the perspective of research in both special education and ESL(Harper & Platt, 1998; Platt & Harper, 1997), inclusion appears to be amegatrend in education, beginning with desegregation and continuingwith the education of the mentally or physically handicapped in the leastrestrictive environment in the United States (see the Education for AllHandicapped Children Act of 1975; Turnbull, Turnbull, Shank, Smith, &Leal, 2002). We believe our research in Florida contributes to document-ing this trend, particularly as it relates to the inclusion of Englishlanguage learners in mainstream settings.

Surveys of Florida ESL Administrators

In 1999, a decade after its implementation, Florida’s ESL professionalorganization called for information on the consequences of the ConsentDecree. In response to this call, we surveyed ESL administrators in each


of Florida’s 67 county school districts.3 These administrators, a groupunderrepresented in previous research on beliefs about effective instruc-tion of English language learners, were selected for study because oftheir understanding of district-level policy and implementation. Thetwofold purpose of the survey was to identify (a) the types of instruc-tional programs in place for English language learners in the state (e.g.,pullout or self-contained ESL, bilingual education, sheltered content,and full inclusion) and (b) the major issues currently facing Floridaschool districts. Administrators in 44 districts responded to the survey.Because the size of a district’s population of English language learners4

was considered relevant to the types of program models offered, wegrouped the responding districts into five categories for analysis (seeTable 1 for the number and percentage of districts returning surveys ineach category and the number of administrators interviewed; note thatthese are not official state categories). In Category 1, which includesdistricts with the largest populations of English language learners, forexample, administrators in all 5 districts responded to the survey, and all5 were subsequently interviewed. (See Harper & Platt, 1999, for detailsand discussion of the responses to this survey.)

Districts in Categories 1 and 2 provided more program options fortheir English language learners, especially at the elementary level.Inclusion was the most widely used program model in districts at alllevels, with the exception of the equally prominent ESL pullout model in

3 This study received funding from Sunshine State TESOL (the state TESOL affiliate) andfrom a Title VII professional development grant (USDOE T195A970018).

4 The Florida DOE uses the term LY students to refer to English language learners who arebeing served in classes that have been designed or adapted for their needs.

TABLE 1

Survey Responses and Interviewees by District Category

Surveys returned

District Administratorscategory LY population n % interviewed

1 > 8,000 5 100 5

2 1,000–7,999 10 77 8

3 400–999 6 46 4

4 30–399 11 58 9

5 < 30 12 71 3

Total 44 — 29

114 TESOL QUARTERLY

the elementary grades in Category 1 and 2 districts. In the smallerCategory 3 and 4 districts, inclusion was the most common type ofprogram reported, and it was the only program reported in Category 5districts. Only three districts (all in Category 1) reported having bilin-gual programs. Administrators also reported that instructional programsand English language learners’ progress were the issues of greatestconcern in their districts.

Interviews With Florida ESL Administrators

Twenty-nine of the responding administrators agreed to either face-to-face or telephone interviews, conducted between March and June of1999. The survey results provided the basis for the interview protocol(see the Appendix). Interviews lasted 30–45 minutes each and weredocumented with detailed notes and, whenever possible, direct quota-tions. Questions were asked about the administrator’s position and rolein the district, the district’s demographics, the history of and rationalefor programs serving limited English proficient students in the districts,and the administrator’s own views about the programs and their effec-tiveness within the context of the district.

METHODOLOGY

We conducted interviews to gain a qualitative view of programrationale and effectiveness by “taking the pulse” of administrators ineach reporting district. The administrators we interviewed speak withauthority because many have extended experience in their positions andbecause they have witnessed the effects of implementation at theprogram level in their own districts (although we do not mean to say thatadministrators always base their beliefs strictly on facts or hold acomplete understanding of the implementation of the Florida ConsentDecree). Their opinions are informative to the TESOL profession eventhough they do not indicate whether separation environments aresuperior to inclusion environments for English language learners inFlorida’s schools. Although achievement test data are available at theschool and district levels through the Florida DOE (2001c), it will takeyears of consistent assessment with the same measures and long-termmaintenance of a district’s ESL program before connections can bedrawn among school site, instructional program, and student perform-ance. Moreover, numerical data alone may obscure some of the variablesrelevant to program option, teacher effect, demographic factors, andstudent performance. (An example is student mobility: Migrant chil-


dren, among the most vulnerable students in Florida, are likely to betested in a different school from the one where they received most oftheir instruction.)

Our interviews of the administrators revealed differences in theiropinions about the effectiveness of inclusion and separation, and yieldeda great deal of information about their districts’ programs, policies, andconcerns. The analysis of these data continues as further studies areconducted in Florida’s schools (on program and policy issues, see Platt &Mendoza, 2002; Platt et al., 2000). Because we have been documentingthe consequences of the Consent Decree and Florida’s move toward theinclusion model, we wished to investigate administrators’ statementsmore systematically. Our data analysis began with a search through thetranscribed interviews for factual statements and opinions pertaining tothe five major domains discussed in the interviews: demographic,administrative, instructional, curricular, and assessment issues. Fromthese data we generated a coding scheme and refined the scheme untilreaching consensus on the coding of 1 complete interview in eachpopulation category, 1 through 5. Then we coded and classified allstatements in all 29 interviews. For the purposes of this article we focusedon factors affecting optimal instructional environments for Englishlanguage learners. The emergent philosophical positions regardingprograms were represented by statements of rationale for programmodels and claims about the effectiveness of those models.

FINDINGS

The findings from the interview data are described as they address thefollowing questions about separation and inclusion programs:• What rationales do the administrators provide for the models

implemented in their districts?• How effectively do the administrators believe each model serves

students and teachers?

Rationales for Separation and Inclusion Programs

In this section we present profiles of three administrators describingrationales for their respective districts’ instructional program models.Although we do not claim that the views of these three administrators aretypical of all Florida ESL administrators, their profiles were selected fortheir clearly articulated opinions about optimum learning environmentsfor English language learners. The three administrators are highly

116 TESOL QUARTERLY

experienced and widely respected professionals in Florida. Two wereproponents of separation models (one bilingual and one ESL pullout),and the other favored the inclusion model.

Separation Through a Bilingual Model

Ardyce Billings5 was the ESL administrator in a Category 1 district. Ms.Billings, with teaching experience and a master’s degree in bilingualeducation, explained that the superintendent as well as the parents ofthe English language learners valued bilingual instruction. She men-tioned a middle school parent meeting in which the parents expressed apreference for a transitional bilingual program. “Here the parents areaware; they have been able to compare programs.” Ms. Billings reportedthat more than 100 languages were represented in this district. For thisreason, not all students could participate in a bilingual program, andESL pullout and sheltered programs were also available. She explainedthat inclusion was one program model that was not supported: “Oneelementary school tried inclusion but it didn’t work. Regular teacherswere not consistently using the strategies, so inclusion has a bad name inthis district.” She went on to say,

Parents don’t want their kids to be guinea pigs. If we are serious aboutworking with these kids, we must make instruction comprehensible input. It’shard for me to believe that comprehensible instruction can be done in anyother way than in L1.

Ms. Billings’ statements reveal her strong belief in the importance ofspecialized support in the home language for English language learners.The interview data as a whole indicated that the use of students’ homelanguages in instruction was valued in many districts, and bilingualparaprofessionals and teachers were regularly recruited. However, fullbilingual programs were implemented only in Category 1 districts. Farmore numerous were ESL pullout programs, found in most of the largerdistricts and in some of the smaller districts.

Separation Through an ESL Pullout Model

The strongest proponent of separate ESL instruction was MarilynEdwards, the administrator of long standing in a Category 2 district. Shereported that the ESL curriculum at the high school level was guided by

5 Names of administrators are pseudonyms. Interview notes are paraphrased and incorpo-rated into the discussion; statements in quotation marks are verbatim statements from theadministrators.


the state standards for the English language arts, with performanceindicators designed by district staff for ESL learners. Beginners andintermediate learners typically spent two periods each day in an ESLpullout classroom, while more advanced students spent only one period.Students were mainstreamed the rest of the day.

In providing the rationale for the ESL program, Ms. Edwards’statements expressed her belief in serving as an advocate for Englishlanguage learners. In this district, her centralized office assumed themajor responsibility and oversight on their behalf, monitoring teacherand school compliance with the Consent Decree, asserting that “we can’tviolate the law and students’ rights.” Another of her concerns was thatthe Consent Decree gave teachers with little ESL training too muchresponsibility for English language learners (through a grandfatherclause allowing teachers who can document successful instruction ofEnglish language learners to earn an endorsement with 60 hours of staffdevelopment instead of the 300 required of language arts teachers):“People can get an endorsement, but I don’t want them being ESOLteachers! People must go through a process.” This statement reflects Ms.Edwards’ strong belief in the value of the specialized profession of ESLand the importance of serving English language learners as a specialpopulation.

Inclusion

The administrator who most clearly articulated a rationale underlyingthe inclusion model was Frances Inge, the administrator for instructionfor English language learners in a Category 2 district guided by anoverarching philosophy of student learning at all levels and in allprograms. Ms. Inge argued that the school should be a nurturingcommunity of learners, providing flexibility to allow for variability inlength of time to accomplish learning tasks and to recognize students’domain-specific strengths and weaknesses. She explained that eachneighborhood school acknowledged its responsibility for English lan-guage learners in implementing the inclusion model.

Ms. Inge described certain attitudes and practices toward Englishlanguage learners emerging from this policy. For example, althoughteachers and administrators received training in awareness of theselearners’ differing needs and of ways to meet them, teachers werereluctant to treat students as different or deficient, in accord with thedistrict’s inclusion philosophy. Instead, English language learners weresupported inconspicuously in the content classroom. For example, usingan electronic device, a bilingual aide in the classroom could provide atranslation or explanation in the student’s language, and only the

118 TESOL QUARTERLY

student, outfitted with an unobtrusive earphone, could hear it. Ms. Ingecited this as an example of the ways in which English language learners’differences were rendered “invisible” in the mainstream.

Program Effectiveness for Students and Teachers

In addressing the second research question on administrators’ viewsof the effectiveness of their programs, we examined evaluative state-ments from the interviews that were in accord with any of four possibili-ties: (a) views in support of separation of English language learners fromthe general student population for some type of language supportservices (e.g., ESL or bilingual instruction), (b) views critical of separa-tion of English language learners from the general population forspecial language support, (c) views in support of full inclusion of Englishlanguage learners in mainstream programs, and (d) views critical of fullinclusion of English language learners in mainstream programs. Table 2shows the results for each administrator, giving the LY student popula-tion category and district (Column 1) and the percentages of LYstudents at elementary and secondary levels in each program type(Columns 2–7; percentages were clustered in the surveys to facilitatereporting by administrators). The xs in Columns 8–11 indicate thenumber of statements made by the administrator for that district, andthe totals at the bottom of each column are the number of administra-tors expressing this opinion followed by the total number of statementsmade. Although the administrators as a group made 86 statements onprogram effectiveness, we do not discuss all of them here. Nonetheless,each point made is represented. Not all administrators commented onthe effectiveness of their programs, some stated the same point in severaldifferent ways, and some opinions were expressed by more than oneadministrator.

Of the 29 administrators interviewed, 22 expressed at least oneopinion about program effectiveness. Of these, 14 expressed concernsabout inclusion, for a total of 34 statements. Twelve also madeproseparation statements, 21 in all. Statements favorable to inclusionwere made by 8 administrators, 2 of whom accounted for 11 of the 20statements. An additional 5 administrators made antiseparation state-ments, with 1 person making 7 of the 11 total statements. Sevenadministrators in all made statements both in favor of separation andagainst inclusion. Seven more expressed anti-inclusion sentiments butmade no statements supporting separation. Five administrators fromdistricts in Categories 1, 2, and 3, where inclusion had been adopted asthe major model, made pro-inclusion statements. Support for inclusioncame from only 3 Category 4 district administrators, with 2 also making


TABLE 2

Summary of Administrators’ Statements on Program Effectiveness

Program type (%) Administrators’ statements on

Inclusion ESLa Bilingual Separation Inclusion

Sup- Finding Sup- FindingDistrict E S E S E S porting fault porting fault Total

Category 1A 60 60 40 40 — xxx xxxxx 8B — — 61–80 100 0–20 x x 2C 81–100 0–20 0–20 61–80 — x x 2D — — 60–80 50 20–40 50 xx xx 4E — — 81–100 100 0–20 0

Category 2A 25 30 75 70 x x 2B 61–80 60–70 0–20 30–40 x 1C 41–60 — 41–60 61–80 xx 2D 100 61–80 — 21–40 x xx 3E 81–100 80 0–20 20 x xx xxx 6F 100 81–100 — — x xxx x 5G 5 81–100 95 5–10 xxx xxxx 7H — — 100 100 xxx 3

Category 3A 100 100 — — x 1B 21–40 100 61–80 — xx 2C 100 50 — 50 xx 2D 81–100 81–100 0–20 0–20 0

Category 4A 100 100 — — xxx 3B — — 100 100 xx xxx 5C — 81–100 100 0–20 xxxxxxx xxxxx 12D — 60 100 40 x x x 3E 100 100 — — 0F 41–60 41–60 21–40 21–40 — xx 2G 100 100 — — — 0H 21–40 0–20 61–80 81–100 — x xxxxxx x 8I — 100 100 — — xxx 3

Category 5A 100 61–80 — 0-20 — 0B 100 — — — 0C — 100 — — — 0

Totalb 12/21 5/11 8/20 14/34 86

Note. E = elementary, S = secondary. One administrator from each district was interviewed (total = 29).aIncludes a small number of ESL classrooms at the elementary level and sheltered content and ESLpullout classes at the secondary level. bNo. of administrators expressing view/no. of statementsexpressing view.

120 TESOL QUARTERLY

antiseparation statements. Two administrators in all made statementsboth for and against separation, a third found fault with both models,and the administrator from 1 district in Category 1 expressed both pro-inclusion and proseparation views. In the following sections we providethe full range of the administrators’ arguments for and against these twogeneral program types.

Supporting Separation

Of the 12 administrators who expressed opinions favoring separation,3 said that if bilingual programming were feasible in their districts, itwould be the best model for English language learners. Ms. Billings,from her vantage point in a district supportive to bilingual program-ming, stated that use of the students’ L1 was the only way for them to betaught comprehensibly. Yet few specific advantages of ESL were men-tioned, and none of those interviewed defended the ESL pullout modelfrom any instructional or curriculum-theoretic perspective. For the mostpart, separating students was seen to be necessary in order to providemore support. An administrator in a Category 2 district said, “Faculty feltthat some LEP students at the fourth- and fifth-grade levels needed moresupport in English language arts, so now there is a sheltered languagearts program for those LEP students.” Even Ms. Inge recognized theneed for sheltered language arts, especially for secondary students withlow levels of English proficiency and literacy in the L1 and in English.Sheltered newcomer programs were favored by 2 administrators inCategory 2 districts.

Another advantage claimed for separating English language learnerswas that the ESL classroom served as a helpful and safe haven within theschool. For example, another Category 2 administrator supported thenotion of a “comfortable classroom environment” where students can“build on what they know” and can be made to “feel good.” Finally, thosewho advocated separate, specialized classroom instruction generallyexpressed a protective attitude toward English language learners. LikeMs. Edwards, a Category 3 administrator saw an advantage for studentsbeing taught by specialist teachers, reporting that her district providedself-contained elementary classrooms for new English language learnersfor a maximum of 1 year, after which they were placed with regularelementary teachers. When asked about the possibility of her districtmoving toward inclusion, she said, “That would be a big mistake. I thinkkids . . . don’t get nearly what they get with ESL teachers.”


Finding Fault With Separation

Administrators in one Category 4 district with an inclusion programsaid that separate instruction was not effective for English languagelearners, particularly if students remained in special programs too long.One stated, “As a classroom teacher for 25 years, that’s what I saw. . . .Grouped ESOL kids’ achievement was not as high.” Another argumentagainst separate instruction was offered by an administrator who felt thatEnglish language learners did not get sufficient exposure to English,either at home or in schools where services were centralized. Shebelieved that these students “understood a lot more than they let on.” Athird administrator explained that the students should be removed fromthe “protective coddling” of ESL teachers who “did not push the kidshard enough and allowed them to stay in a nonchallenging classroom.”Parental preference that their children not be taught in separate classeswas mentioned in two cases, and concern over students’ civil rights andcharges of discrimination was expressed in another. For example, aCategory 4 district administrator stated that separate environments wereinherently unequal, insisting, “These kids deserve equal access to education.”

Supporting Inclusion

Statements in support of inclusion were made by eight administrators,four in the largest districts and four in Category 3 and 4 districts. ACategory 1 administrator supported the inclusion model for the moreproficient students, claiming that outside evaluators found the model tobe effective. One Category 2 administrator and one Category 3 adminis-trator claimed that inclusion achieved their districts’ goals of desegrega-tion and site-based management, respectively. Another administratorfrom a Category 2 district with a high percentage of English languagelearners reported a transformation in her district since it moved to aninclusion model. She explained that the mainstream teachers were now“carrying the burden” of these students. According to Ms. Inge, “Thephilosophy has created an atmosphere wherein each neighborhoodschool acknowledges its responsibility for the LEP students.” A Category3 district administrator claimed that one of the benefits of inclusion was“greater awareness by teachers of these learners and better understand-ing of how to teach them.” Two Category 4 district administrators whoemphasized the value of diversity in the classroom said that mainstreamteachers found these students to be “pleasant” and the diversity “rewarding.”

From the perspective of English language learners’ language develop-ment and academic achievement, two ESL administrators in Category 4districts mentioned interaction with native-English-speaking peers as an

122 TESOL QUARTERLY

advantage of inclusion settings. Another Category 4 administrator avowed,“Weak students did better because they had role models.” She acknowl-edged that the ESL specialist had a role, however, by stating that in smalldistricts with few English language learners, they are best served inmainstream classrooms where they can get extra help with language arts.A Category 3 administrator even highlighted the reciprocal nature of theinclusive classroom, saying that the native English speakers wanted tolearn Spanish, prompting her to submit a grant proposal for thispurpose.

Finding Fault With Inclusion

Fourteen administrators in all expressed concerns about the effective-ness of the inclusion model, their concerns relating to students, teachers,and external pressures. The overall concern relating to students wastheir apparent lack of academic success in inclusion settings. Administra-tors in two Category 4 districts were unhappy about students beingplaced at noncenter secondary schools, citing lack of student progressdue to inadequate modification of instruction and assessment. In one ofthose districts the ESL centers had recently been dismantled underpressure from the DOE. Other administrators were concerned aboutespecially fragile populations of English language learners. One adminis-trator in a Category 1 district worried about inadequate support fornewcomers or students with very limited English proficiency, who, shesaid, needed self-contained English or sheltered content classrooms. Theadministrator in a Category 2 district explained, “There are a lot ofrefugee students in the district now who have experienced posttraumaticstress disorder and who need special attention that they don’t get inregular classrooms.” She, too, expressed concern about low-English-proficiency students in the mainstream. An administrator in a ruralCategory 3 district with a large number of farm workers said that most ofher rural Mexican students had limited formal education. Such childrenhad literacy and language needs that could not adequately be met ininclusion settings.

Other concerns put forward in the interviews centered on the role ofteachers in the success of English language learners in inclusion class-rooms. One concern was the uneven commitment and inconsistentassistance provided to learners within any given school or district. Theeffectiveness of grandfathered teachers was a concern expressed by aCategory 3 administrator. An administrator in a Category 2 district withsite-based management said she thought that in some of the schools itwas “sink or swim, depending on the teacher.” She explained that not all


teachers had fully accepted responsibility for English language learnersand that teachers’ degree of use of ESL strategies in the classroom wasunknown. Another major concern was for the regular teachers’ lack oftime. As one administrator put it, “Everyone is feeling overloaded,especially the teachers.” Above all, lack of the expertise required to assistthe English language learners was a great concern. An administrator in aCategory 2 district reported that English language learners with thelowest levels of English proficiency could not function in the regularlanguage arts classroom, so they had been clustered with additionalinstructional support provided through sheltered language arts. Anotheradministrator reported that regular classroom teachers, especially at thesecondary level, did not know how to significantly modify their curriculaand struggled to help their students. The high school English teacherscomplained about the unfairness of placing English language learners inclassrooms where literature such as Julius Caesar was being taught,admitting that they had no idea about how to help these learners attainthe state standards in English.

With respect to external pressure, a Category 2 administrator criti-cized DOE efforts to discontinue special programs for newcomers andstudents with almost no English. She said it was “impossible for science,math, and social studies teachers to teach non-English speakers in aregular class of 35 students.” Another administrator worried about thenumbers who were not “making it” and about the pressure on them toachieve grade level in 2 years. “What they are doing is causing our kids todrop out. It’s ridiculous!” Finally, the administrator of another Category2 district with an ESL pullout model explained that unrealistic expecta-tions had been set for both teachers and students. Although academicachievement is a general goal for all students, with the current emphasison accountability and assessment, one administrator claimed that stu-dents had not performed well on the state-mandated achievement testsbut that it was unreasonable to expect immediate results.

Summary

The three portraits gleaned from our interviews illustrate administra-tors’ rationales for their English language learner programs. Two ofthese administrators claimed significant advantages for separating En-glish language learners for specialized instruction, either in the students’L1 or in ESL support settings. The other strongly favored inclusion inthe context of her district’s promotion of individualization and flexibility.

With respect to the second question on program effectiveness, wefound a broad range of views in support of or critical of separation for

124 TESOL QUARTERLY

special instructional services and in support of or critical of inclusion.Within this range, administrators supported separation programs whenthey provided safe social and academic environments with specializedinstructional support but criticized these programs when they fell shortof expectations of rigor and speediness, and when parents objected tothe separation of their children from the mainstream. We found thatinclusion was supported for integrating English language learners withnative-English-speaking students, promoting an interest in bilingualismamong majority language students, and spreading responsibility forEnglish language learners among staff throughout the school. Inclusionwas problematic in that it left some of the most needy students behind,posed serious challenges to teachers, and exacerbated external pressuresat all levels, from the school district to the individual child in theclassroom, for high scores on the state-mandated exams.

DISCUSSION

The variety of administrators’ views regarding the instructional pro-grams available for English language learners in Florida indicates causefor concern. Nearly 20 years after the publication of A Nation at Risk(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) and 12 yearsafter the signing of the Florida Consent Decree, we find that in thepursuit of excellence, equity remains elusive. On the surface, theConsent Decree appears progressive and positive, fostering integrationof English language learners into the mainstream, developing new skillsamong teachers, and setting high expectations for language and contentlearning. However, equity requires both challenge and support forEnglish language learners. ESL and bilingual classes have traditionallyprovided support but have not always challenged students’ academicdevelopment. Inclusion can indeed be a means to provide this challenge,but for students with limited educational backgrounds, very low Englishproficiency, migrant status, or traumatic experiences, the provision ofsupport in inclusion settings has been serendipitous. According to ourdata, where resources are available and where welcoming attitudes areclearly demonstrated, administrators believe that students can fare wellin inclusion settings. However, where a district’s resources are stretched,or when administrators and teachers lack time, expertise, or the will tohelp this special group of students succeed, outcomes are likely to be lessfavorable.

According to the administrators working with the largest and mostvaried groups of English language learners, the more obvious negativeconsequences of inclusion are for vulnerable students with low levels of


English and academic skills. Many teachers, particularly at the secondarylevel, do not understand English language learners’ special languagelearning needs, or they feel inadequate to teach them well within thelimits of time and their own expertise. Thus, in our view a great concernabout inclusion is the validity of the assumption that English languagelearners will get the help they need to succeed in school. What is neededis a better understanding of the extent to which teachers who have beentrained in strategies for working with English language learners canactually provide adequate support for these students in mainstreamclassrooms.

An additional concern is that of the socializing peer group for Englishlanguage learners. The inclusion philosophy is built on the assumptionthat mainstream classes provide the best opportunities for the studentsto interact with their native-English-speaking peers. The degree to whichthey are able to take advantage of such opportunities is unclear, however,as Harklau (1999), Naranjo (2000), Olsen (1997), and Valdés (2001)have demonstrated. In addition, if an assimilationist goal is in place,language minority students may become marginalized or even invisiblein the school community. If an inclusion program attempts to concealthe so-called English language deficits of students, or if the schoolignores the linguistic and cultural diversity that English language learn-ers bring, then the goals of inclusive education are subverted.

The attitudes of school and district leaders and their knowledge aboutthe language learning process contribute to setting the proper tone for awelcoming inclusion of English language learners. One might speculatethat in the district where the ESL administrator talked about majoritylanguage children wanting to learn Spanish, teachers and administratorscelebrate diversity and openly acknowledge the value of bilingualism.The opposite is reflected in the statements of the administrators whodisparaged the ESL environment as overly protective and assumed thatuse of the home language hindered students’ progress in school. Suchstatements may reflect a devaluing of home language maintenance, orthey may reveal lack of knowledge about the importance of L1 mediationin L2 development (Anton & diCamilla, 1998; Swain & Lapkin, 2000).

Influences at the state and national level can also affect the ability ofa program to effectively serve English language learners. In Florida,ESL/bilingual language development syllabi have been replaced by theSunshine State Standards for the English language arts, and state-mandated achievement tests drive the curriculum in many schools.Students are expected to sit for these tests, often before they are ready.Several administrators across program types and distinct populationcategories expressed serious concerns about pressure from the state levelto produce good test scores within a limited time frame, with unrealistic

126 TESOL QUARTERLY

expectations being placed on teachers and students.6 Many said it wasunrealistic to expect English language learners to meet grade-levelbenchmarks, especially given the state’s failure to promote alternativeassessments of student learning. Therefore, equity entails acknowledg-ment of these students’ special curricular and instructional needs and ofthe time required to develop academic language proficiency. Indeed,Gutierrez (2001) criticizes the New Literacy movement, in which manyschools (often by mandate) identify students’ language differences andneeds and then ignore these needs through “one size fits all approachesto language and literacy learning” (p. 565).

Equity also entails funding. In Florida a large percentage of languageminority students live in poorer districts, although the legislature at-tempts to ameliorate tax base differences by providing additional fundsto those districts. Different sources provide different information aboutper-pupil spending.7 Further, as a result of “intangibles tax breaks andcorporate tax deferment” (Lake County Education Association, 2002,n.p.), Florida’s tax base has been cut by more than $2.2 billion since1998. Clearly, this loss of revenue negatively affects education. Thus, it isdifficult for these districts to provide adequate educational resources forstudents with special needs, including English language learners (forfurther evidence, see Educational Testing Service, 1991; Moss & Puma,1995; Taylor & Piche, 1991). Quality programs of all kinds have sufferedcuts at the state and federal levels, forcing local administrators toreallocate funds in ways that benefit as many students as possible, oftenreducing services for special needs students. When the support systemsnecessary for English language learners’ success in inclusion programsare removed, students may simply not be served.8

The comparative effectiveness of different programs remains to beinvestigated further, but the data provided in this study—gathered fromknowledgeable persons who are directly responsible for administeringthe programs—offer some important insights on this complex issue.

6 Under the rules of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, students with 3 ormore years of instruction in English should be tested along with native English speakers, withfewer years at the discretion of state and local policy. Although for a time the number of yearsbefore students would be tested in Florida was 2 years, recent changes in Title I of the No ChildLeft Behind Act of 2001 have mandated testing after the first year (Florida DOE, 2002).

7 According to the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (2002), the national average costper pupil by state in 2000–2001 was $8,254, and the average in Florida (ranking 33rd) was$7,473. Alternatively, the Lake County Education Association (2002), citing Education Week,reports that Florida ranks 44th, having fallen further behind the national average and spending$5,982 per pupil. Florida DOE’s Florida School Indicators Report (2001a) provides data on schoolsin each Florida districts, including cost per pupil. These data indicate differences betweenregular and at-risk students.

8 Further cuts are anticipated as the state now must lower class size as a result of a recentcitizen’s initiative (Florida Constitution, Amendment 9, 2002).


Indeed, Brisk (1998) found that many different conditions distinguishsuccessful educational programs for language minority students, andseveral studies have shown that type of instruction cannot be easilymapped according to program model (Baker, 1993; Ramírez, Yuen, &Ramey, 1991; Tikunoff, 1983). August and Pease-Alvarez (1996) identi-fied several convergent variables that promote the successful educationof language minority children, though they caution against simplesolutions. A wide range of learner and contextual characteristics must beconsidered when designing effective programs: cultural backgrounds,language socialization practices, cognitive styles, educational experience,differences in age and level of language and literacy development, andthe status of the home language and culture in relation to the targetlanguage and culture.

CONCLUSIONS

Our ongoing research in Florida on the impact of the Consent Decreeand the increasing use of the inclusion model for English languagelearners has highlighted two important concerns. One is the equityimbalance that may arise when students are not provided the supportthey need to achieve inclusive goals in the classroom. The deprivation ofspecialized ESL services to students with the greatest need for languageand literacy support runs counter to the guidelines provided by theOCR, even though full inclusion is promoted at policy levels as themeans to achieve equity. Our research illustrates that ESL administratorsin Florida possess a range of views on the optimum learning environ-ments for English language learners. Yet despite our own critical stancetoward inclusion classrooms, we do not believe that programs thatseparate students are necessarily better, particularly when they do notrapidly prepare students to “read, write, and comprehend English wellenough to participate meaningfully” (OCR, 1991, n.p.) in regularclassrooms. Unfortunately, ESL as a viable program has been criticizedfor lack of academic rigor and for its tendency to place students in adependent or marginal status too long. We agree that a comfort zone isan inadequate justification for a program and that equity cannot beachieved when students are not challenged. Rather, ESL professionalsmust advance the academic program through instruction that is wellintegrated with the content and skills of the academic disciplines,balanced with attention to the language development needs of thestudents. We do not wish to take a stand against standards. Indeed,standards can provide the stimulus for ESL, bilingual, and content areaprograms to create appropriate yet challenging learning environments.ESL Standards for Pre-K–12 Students (TESOL, 1997) provides such a

128 TESOL QUARTERLY

framework for integrating language development with content curricu-lum and assessment.

The other concern is the impact on ESL teachers and the TESOLprofession itself. Language development, the traditional focus of theESL/bilingual specialist, now seems a marginal concern in light of theemphasis on Florida’s Comprehensive Assessment Test. ESL/bilingualteachers are increasingly assigned to mainstream classrooms in Floridadistricts. Teachers in formerly self-contained ESL classrooms have be-come resource persons in support of standard curriculum teachers’objectives, with the result that they spend less time working directly withthe students. In some cases ESL teachers have taken on other duties,such as record keeping regarding compliance with the Consent Decree,staff development, tutor training, or curriculum adaptation (see Franson,1999, for an account of the difficulties associated with teacher partner-ships in United Kingdom classrooms). When ESL specialists are elimi-nated or forced to become jacks-of-all-trades in a school, however, theircurricular and methodological expertise is either lost or diluted fordistribution to the general faculty, who often lack fundamental knowl-edge of language and the L2 learning process and of how to implementthis understanding.

If the current trend toward standardization of curriculum, instruction,and assessment continues, and if specialized language support is consid-ered peripheral rather than essential to the success of English languagelearners, then radically different roles are in store for ESL and bilingualteachers. During our study of the changing nature of ESL languagepolicy and practice in Florida over the past decade, state universityteacher education programs have begun to prepare all new teachers forthe roles that ESL/bilingual specialists have traditionally performed.Whereas many celebrate this development, we fear that many teachersare not adequately prepared for and are insufficiently committed tothese important roles. We believe that the consequences to the TESOLprofession will be profound and that this trend should be acknowledgedand discussed at all levels of the profession. If, as we believe, the Floridastory is typical, then TESOL as a professional practice is clearly at acrossroads at the beginning of the 21st century. Indeed, in her discussionof the mainstreaming of English language learners in Australia, Davison(2001) describes the “tension between the philosophical base of the ESLfield which emphasizes diversity and complexity, and the demands of the‘mainstream’ educational agenda for commonality, simplicity, and ho-mogeneity” (p. 29). The TESOL profession must therefore define moreexplicitly and publicly its evolving instructional and curricular identity. Ifwe as TESOL professionals are unable to articulate and defend ourspecialized roles, we may find ourselves swept away by mainstreameducational reforms.


THE AUTHORS

Elizabeth Platt is an associate professor in multilingual/multicultural education atFlorida State University (FSU). In addition to researching the fate of Englishlanguage learners in Florida’s schools generally, she studies the discourse of teachingand learning in classrooms and investigates early L2 language learning processes,particularly from a sociocultural perspective.

Candace Harper is an assistant professor in ESL in the School of Teaching andLearning at the University of Florida. Her research interests include second languageacquisition and academic achievement among K–12 English language learners andreading processes among L2 learners of varying ages. She is currently the editor ofSunshine State TESOL Journal.

Maria Beatriz Mendoza is currently a doctoral student in multicultural/multilingualeducation at FSU. She holds a BA in TESL from Universidad Metropolitana,Venezuela, and an MA in multilingual/multicultural education from FSU. She worksas an ESL instructor at the Center for Intensive English Studies at FSU.

REFERENCES

Anton, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborativeinteraction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 314–342.

August, D., & Pease-Alvarez, L. (1996). Attributes of effective programs and classroomsserving English language learners (Office of Educational Research and ImprovementTechnical Report). Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on CulturalDiversity and Second Language Learning.

Baca, L. (1998). Bilingual special education: A judicial perspective. In L. M. Baca &H. T. Cervantes (Eds.), The bilingual special education interface (3rd ed., pp. 76–97).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Baker, C. (1993). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Philadelphia:Multilingual Matters.

Bialystok, E. (Ed.). (1991). Language processing in bilingual children. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Boyd, S., & Arvidsson, G. (1998). The acquisition of literacy by immigrant children inSweden. In A. Y. Durgunoglu & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Literacy development in amulticultural context: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 203–224). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brisk, M. E. (1998). Bilingual education: From compensatory to quality schooling. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

California Department of Education. (2001). Programs for English learners: Overview offederal and state regulations. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved October 28, 2001,from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ccpdiv/Eng_LEARN/CCR2000-EL

Carlson, D. L. (1988). Curriculum planning and the state: The dynamics of controlin education. In L. E. Beyer & M. W. Apple (Eds.), The curriculum: Problems, politics,and possibilities (pp. 98–115). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing thecognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Chavez, L. (2000, September). Memo. Sterling, VA: Center for Equal Opportunity.Retrieved November 8, 2002, from http://www.ceousa.org/html/memo2.html

Cohen, D. K., & Lazerson, M. (1977). Education and the corporate order. InJ. Karabel & A. H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and ideology in education (pp. 373–386). NewYork: Oxford University Press.

130 TESOL QUARTERLY

Crawford, J. (1991). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory and practice (2nd ed.).Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services.

Crawford, J. (2000/2001, Winter). Bilingual education: Strike two. Rethinking Schools,15(2). Retrieved July 30, 2002, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/Archives/15_02/Az152.htm

Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promotingeducational success for language minority students. In Schooling and languageminority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3–49). Sacramento: California Depart-ment of Education.

Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. Los Angeles: California Associationfor Bilingual Education.

Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education. London: Longman.Davison, C. (2001). ESL in Australian schools: From the margins to the mainstream.

In B. Mohan, C. Leung, & C. Davison (Eds.), English as a second language in themainstream: Teaching, learning and identity (pp. 11–29). New York: Longman.

Donahue, T. S. (1995). American language policy and compensatory opinion. InJ. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Power and inequality in language education (pp. 112–141). NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. J. (2000). Making content comprehensible forEnglish language learners: The SIOP model. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Pub. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773 (1975).Educational Testing Service. (1991). The state of mathematics achievement: NAEP’s 1990

assessment of the nation and the trial assessment of the states. Washington, DC: NationalCenter for Education Statistics.

Educational Testing Service. (2002). Aligning curriculum with standards: A step-by-step guide for teachers. Tampa, FL: Region XIV Comprehensive Center.

Faltis, C. J., & Hudelson, S. (1998). Bilingual education in elementary and secondary schoolcommunities: Toward understanding and caring. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &Bacon.

Florida Department of Education. (1990). Consent Decree: League of United LatinAmerican Citizens (LULAC) et al. v. State Board of Education Consent Decree, UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of Florida, August 14, 1990. RetrievedNovember 11, 2002, from http://www.firn.edu/doe/bin00011/cdpage2.htm

Florida Department of Education. (1995). Inclusion as an instructional model for LEPstudents (Technical Assistance Paper No. 019-ESOL-95). Retrieved October 28,2001 from http://www.firn.edu/doe/bin00011/tapinclu.htm

Florida Department of Education. (2001a). Florida school indicators report. Tallahassee,FL: Author. Retrieved December 16, 2002, from http://info.doe.state.fl.us/fsir2001/

Florida Department of Education, Office of Multicultural Student Language Educa-tion. (2001b). OMSLE publications. Retrieved October 28, 2001 from http://www.firn.edu/doe/bin00011/omspubpg.htm

Florida Department of Education, Office of Minority and Second Language Educa-tion. (2001c). 2000/01 annual status report on the implementation of the 1990 League ofUnited Latin American Citizens (LULAC), et al. v. State Board of Education, et al. ConsentDecree. Retrieved July 3, 2002 from http://www.firn.edu/doe/bin00011/0001esol/index.htm

Florida Department of Education, Division of Public Schools and CommunityEducation, Commissioner’s Office. (2002, January 16). Change in FCAT exemptioncriteria for LEP students [Memorandum]. Tallahassee, FL: Author.

Franson, C. (1999). Mainstreaming learners of English as an additional language:The class teacher’s perspective. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 12, 59–70.


Friedenberg, J. E., & Bradley, C. H. (1984). The vocational ESL handbook. Rowley, MA:Newbury House.

Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-227, 108 Stat. 125 (1994).Gutierrez, K. D. (2001). What’s new in the English language arts: Challenging

policies and practices, ¿y qué? Language Arts, 78, 564–569.Harklau, L. (1999). The ESL learning environment in secondary school. In C. J.

Faltis & P. Wolfe (Eds.), So much to say: Adolescents, bilingualism, and ESL in thesecondary school (pp. 42–60). New York: Teachers College Press.

Harper, C. A., & Platt, E. J. (1998). Full inclusion for secondary school ESOLstudents: Some concerns from Florida. TESOL Journal, 7(5), 30–36.

Harper, C. A., & Platt, E. J. (1999, Fall). Florida’s LEP student programs and issues:A clear picture, or chaos? Sunshine State TESOL Journal, 10–20.

Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-382, 108 Stat. 3518 (1994).Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-17, 111 Stat. 37

(1997).Kasper, L. F. (2000). Content-based college ESL instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Kochhar, C. A., West, L. L., & Taymans, J. M. (2000). Successful inclusion: Practical

strategies for a shared responsibility. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Krashen, S. D. (1984). Immersion: Why it works and what it has taught us. Language

and Society, 12, 61–64.Lake County Education Association. (2002). LCEA’s fast facts research. Retrieved

December 16, 2002, from http://www.lcea.org/LCEA’s%20Fast%20Facts%20Research.htm

Lambert, W., & Tucker, R. (1972). Bilingual education of children: The St. Lambertexperiment. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Leung, C., & Franson, C. (2001). England: ESL in the early days. In B. Mohan,C. Leung, & C. Davison (Eds.), English as a second language in the mainstream:Teaching, learning and identity (pp. 153–164). New York: Longman.

Lo Bianco, J. (1998). ESL . . . Is it migrant literacy? . . . Is it history? ACTA BackgroundPapers, 2, 15–21.

Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Education Research Office. (2002). Floridapublic schools. Retrieved December 16, 2002, from http://www.miedresearchoffice.org/floridapublicschools.htm

Moore, H. (2001). Who will guard the guardians themselves? National interest versusfactional corruption in policy making for ESL in Australia. In J. Tollefson (Ed.),Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 111–135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Moss, M., & Puma. M. (1995). Prospects: The congressionally mandated study of educationalgrowth and opportunity. Cambridge, MA: ABT Associates.

Naranjo, C. J. (2000). Making sense: ESOL students in mainstream writing workshops.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language InstructionEducational Programs. (2002). State elementary and secondary LEP enrollment growthand top languages, 1999–2000. Retrieved July 29, 2002 from http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/reports/state-data/2000/

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983, April). A nation at risk: Theimperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 125 (2002).Retrieved July 27, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/

Office for Civil Rights. (1991). Policy update on schools’ obligations toward national originminority students with limited-English proficiency (LEP students). Retrieved July 3, 2002,from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/docs/laumemos.html

132 TESOL QUARTERLY

Olsen, L. (1997). Made in America: Immigrant students in our public schools. New York:New Press.

Platt, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (1997). Problems and possibilities of full inclusion oflimited English-proficient students in mainstream Florida classrooms. SunshineState TESOL Journal, 9–19.

Platt, E. J., & Harper, C. (2002, April). Changing roles for ESL teachers, coming soon!Paper presented at the 36th Annual TESOL Convention, Salt Lake City, UT.

Platt, E. J., & Mendoza, M. B. (2002). Influences on ESOL program decision making inFlorida’s school districts. Unpublished manuscript.

Platt, E. J., Mendoza, M. B., & Harper, C. (2000, May). What philosophies guide ESOLprogramming in Florida’s districts? Workshop presented at the Sunshine StateTESOL Conference, Daytona Beach, FL.

Ramírez, J. D., Yuen, S. D., & Ramey, D. R. (1991). Final report: Longitudinal study ofstructured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual educa-tion programs for language-minority children. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International.Retrieved November 11, 2002, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/miscpubs/ramirez/longitudinal.htm

Short, D. (1998). Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students. Santa Cruz, CA:Center for Applied Linguistics/Center for Research on Education, Diversity, &Excellence.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of thefirst language. Language Teaching Research, 4, 251–274.

Tate, W. F., Ladson-Billings, G., & Grant C. A. (1993). The Brown decision revisited:Mathematizing social problems. Educational Policy, 7, 255–275.

Taylor, W., & Piche, D. M. (1991). A report on shortchanging children: The impact of fiscalinequity on the education of students at risk (Serial No. 101-U). Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

TESOL. (1997). ESL standards for pre-K–12 students. Alexandria, VA: Author.TESOL. (1999). TESOL statement on the acquisition of academic proficiency in English.

Alexandria, VA: Author.TESOL. (2000). Integrating the ESL standards into classroom practice: Grades 9–12.

Alexandria, VA: Author.Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (1995). Language minority student achievement and

program effectiveness. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Educa-tion.

Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for languageminority students’ long-term academic achievement: Final report, executive summary.Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence. Retrieved July 28,2002, from http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/llaa/1.1es.html

Tikunoff, W. J. (1983). Applying significant bilingual instructional features in the classroom.Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Tollefson, J. W. (1995). Language policy, power and inequality. In J. W. Tollefson(Ed.), Power and inequality in language education (pp. 1–8). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., Shank, M., & Leal, D. (1995). Exceptional lives: Specialeducation in today’s schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Turnbull, R., Turnbull, A., Shank, M., Smith, S., & Leal, D. (2002). Exceptional lives:Special education in today’s schools (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Valdés, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools.New York: Teachers College Press.

Wilson-Patton, M. E. (2000). A legal study of the Florida ESOL Consent Decree: Frominitiation through fifth year implementation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Florida State University, Tallahassee.


Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The principle of normalization in human services. Toronto,Ontario, Canada: National Institute of Mental Retardation.

APPENDIX

Interview ProtocolInterviewer: ____________________Interviewee: _________________________

Date: _________________________ District: ____________________________

Would you like a typed summary of this interview (yes/no)? Mailing address (if yes):

• Please explain your position in the district (your roles/responsibilities, length of time inposition, and prior background/experience related to this work).

• Please verify/clarify your district demographics [taken from returned surveys].

Total number of LEP (LY) students:

Elementary LY students:

Secondary LY students:

• Please verify the types of program models serving elementary LY students* [taken fromsurveys].

• Please verify the types of program models serving secondary LY students* [taken fromsurveys].

• Please describe any background or details on how these programs are implemented in yourdistrict.

• Please provide the rationale for these programs (explain why these programs were selected).

• Please express your opinions on the effectiveness of these programs.

• Please explain any concerns you may have regarding the following in your district.

Instructional programs for LY students:

LY student achievement/progress:

Other issues regarding LY students:

*Program Model Descriptions: Five program models serving LEP students in Florida [taken from survey]:

• ESL pullout: Elementary or secondary LEP students leave their regular classroom to go to anESL classroom for at least one class period per day.

• ESL self-contained classroom: Elementary LEP students spend most of the day in a self-contained ESOL classroom.

• Sheltered content classes: Secondary LEP students are taught academic content by subjectmatter teachers in classes designed specifically for their needs.

• Inclusion classrooms: Elementary or secondary LEP students are served in mainstreamcontent classrooms where ESL strategies are being used, where materials are adapted, and/or where an ESL teacher or paraprofessional assistance is available.

• Bilingual or home language instruction: Elementary or secondary LEP students spend atleast part of the day being taught through the home language.


THE FORUMTESOL Quarterly invites commentary on current trends or practices in the TESOLprofession. It also welcomes responses or rebuttals to any articles or remarkspublished here in The Forum or elsewhere in the Quarterly.

On Reconceptualizing Teacher Education*

ROBERT YATES and DENNIS MUCHISKYCentral Missouri State UniversityWarrensburg, Missouri, United States

There is a quiet revolution going on in TESOL teacher education. . . . It isstirring the very essence of what stands at the core of TESOL teachereducation; a core that has long been based on the subject matter of languageteaching and less on the sociocultural processes of learning to teach (Free-man & Johnson, 1998). ( Johnson, 2000, p. 1)

� This proclamation about a quiet revolution appears in the introduc-tion to a collection of articles published by TESOL entitled TeacherEducation, edited by Johnson (2000). The reference to Freeman andJohnson (1998a), which appears to be the revolution’s manifesto, comesfrom the lead article to a special-topic issue of TESOL Quarterly (Freeman& Johnson, 1998b) devoted to research and practice in English languageteacher education. A recent review of the state of language teachereducation (Crandall, 2000) has said that “no other volume in the lastdecade better portrays the major concerns in language teacher educa-tion than this special issue” (p. 46), and as such it appears to be anexcellent point of departure for examining the revolution, which callsfor a reconceptualization of the knowledge base of language teachereducation.

The position taken by Freeman and Johnson (1998a) regarding theknowledge base of teacher education merits careful consideration be-cause it suggests the critical areas of knowledge that should be included

*A version of this commentary was presented at the 35th Annual TESOL Convention, St.Louis, Missouri, in March 2001.

136 TESOL QUARTERLY

as professional knowledge in the discipline. Discussion of this positionholds the potential for constructive self-examination and has importantimplications for the field at a time when an increasing number ofteachers, teacher educators, and others concerned with English lan-guage education are looking to the field for guidance. We would like toadd to the discussion by questioning the extent to which the professionshould be reconceptualized along the lines suggested by Freeman andJohnson. We argue that the reconceptualization they suggest marginalizescritical issues, such as what it means to be able to use English, how L2sare learned, and how these issues influence what teachers do in theclassroom.

THE RECONCEPTUALIZATION:MARGINALIZING LANGUAGE

A number of participants in the quiet revolution have painted apicture of their vision of critical areas for teacher education over the past15 years. One important paper expressing these views articulated theneed for greater focus in the profession on the act of teaching, but at thesame time it deemphasized what language teachers need to know aboutlanguage and language acquisition. Freeman (1989) proposed that“language teacher education serves to link what is known in the field towhat is done in the classroom.” In labeling this link “a confluence ofthese two streams of research and practice,” he claimed that “thatconfluence will come about not through greater attention to teaching orresearch per se, but through a closer examination of how people learn toteach” (p. 30). The absence of the word language in this “confluence” isnoteworthy because it forecasts the lack of focus on language thatpermeates the quiet revolution in language teacher education.

In the 1989 article, Freeman argued that it is teacher awareness thatunifies the notions of knowledge, skills, and attitude that a teacher has.He asked three questions about awareness:

1. Are teachers aware of how they are responding to students? In otherwords, are they aware of their attitude toward them?

2. Are they aware of how a particular type of correction is working? Are theyaware of their skills in correcting?

3. Are they aware of what students already know? Are they aware of theirstudents’ prior knowledge in relation to the content of the lesson? (p. 34)

These questions are relevant to the field, but it is not clear whetherresearch has attempted to address them. Instead of focusing on indi-vidual teacher decision making, the agenda appears to have shifted toquestions intended to place individual teachers in their social setting.

THE FORUM 137

About 10 years later, Freeman and Johnson (1998a) proposed toreconceptualize the TESOL teacher education knowledge base with thefollowing three components:

(a) the nature of the teacher-learner; (b) the nature of schools and schooling;and (c) the nature of language teaching, in which we include pedagogicalthinking and activity, the subject matter and the content, and languagelearning. (p. 406)

These three interdependent components are intended to offer a con-trasting perspective to the binary distinction between subject matter andlearners on which, Freeman and Johnson claim, “most discussions oflanguage teaching and language teacher education have been based(Celce-Murcia & McIntosh, 1979; Oller & Richard-Amato, 1983; Widdow-son, 1978)” (p. 406).

Freeman (1989) asserts that language teacher education is based onthe fundamental misconception that a transmission of knowledge aboutapplied linguistics and language acquisition is sufficient for a preserviceteacher to become an effective classroom instructor. Based on thisinterpretation of language teacher education, Freeman and Johnson(1998a) make the following statement:

Drawing on work in general education, teacher educators have come torecognize that teachers are not empty vessels waiting to be filled withtheoretical and pedagogical skills. They are individuals who enter teachereducation programs with prior experiences, personal values, and beliefs thatinform their knowledge about teaching and shape what they do. (p. 401)

Richards and Lockhart’s (1994) text, designed to be used in a L2teacher education course that focuses on classroom observations andtheories of teaching, or in a practicum course, is specifically designednot to follow the flawed transmission model of language teacher educa-tion. Rather, it “aims to develop a reflective approach to teaching” (p. 1),that is, one in which teachers and student teachers collect data aboutteaching, examine their attitudes, beliefs, assumptions, and teachingpractices, and use the information obtained as a basis for criticalreflection about teaching. They note in the beginning of their text thatcritical reflection involves asking a number of questions; 23 are given. Itis noteworthy that only 3 of those questions have the word language inthem. Another text by Gebhard and Oprandy (1999), designed forsimilar classes, is even less directed to language teacher education. Forexample, in the last chapter, entitled “How Yoga Was Taught: ConnectingMy Student and Teacher Selves” (Gebhard, 1999), one author shareswith the reader his experiences in finding a yoga teacher whose feedbackhe found effective.

138 TESOL QUARTERLY

REEXAMINING THE RECONCEPTUALIZATION

Analogies about feedback in yoga class and questions about teacherawareness or the nature of schools and schooling no doubt havesomething to offer in TESOL teacher education. The idea ofreconceptualizing TESOL in a manner that marginalizes language andsecond language acquisition (SLA), however, seems worthy of carefulconsideration by faculty like us who are involved in TESOL teachereducation. In reading the work associated with the call for thereconceptualization, we notice that some of the claims about currentpractices in teacher education are not consistent with our experience.

We do not see evidence supporting the idea that language teachereducation is solely concerned with the transmission of knowledge or thatlanguage teacher educators assume that students in MA TESOL pro-grams enter such programs as “empty vessels.” We would attributeapproaches we see toward teacher education in TESOL to the fact thatteacher educators in our profession have experiences as languagelearners and language teachers and are therefore aware of how incom-plete course work alone is for helping a student become a competentlanguage teacher. Based on our observations of and contacts withlanguage teacher educators in MA professional programs in NorthAmerica, regardless of where those programs are located in the univer-sity, we have noted that many of our colleagues have actually hadclassroom experiences in a variety of contexts, both ESL and EFL, priorto and since having become teacher educators. In our own MA program,all the faculty have lived outside the United States for at least 2 years,everyone speaks or has studied at least one language, everyone hastaught both ESL/EFL at a variety of settings and levels, and everyoneregularly teaches our university’s ESL support courses. Based on thismultifaceted experience, we believe that an understanding of howlanguage is organized and how languages are learned is fundamental tobecoming a competent language teacher.

The advocacy of reflective teaching called for by the quiet revolutionseems valuable in this setting, where teacher educators regularly draw ontheir own experiences as they work with future teachers. However, acritical limitation in the perspective on reflective language teaching isrevealed by what questions are not asked. For example, Richards andLockhart (1994) discuss reflective teaching in chapter 3, entitled “Focuson the Learner.” The introduction to this chapter observes, “Learners,too, bring to learning their own beliefs, goals, attitudes, decisions whichin turn influence how they approach learning” (p. 52). This entirechapter ignores something else that learners bring with to learning: adevelopmental grammar referred to as an interlanguage. Because thisdevelopmental grammar affects how input becomes intake, it has conse-

THE FORUM 139

quences for the kinds of language that learners both comprehend andproduce. From this perspective, for example, errors (or, more accurately,nontargetlike structures) are not all the same. A reflective languageteacher should also ask questions such as what it means to know alanguage, how teachers should treat learners’ nontargetlike forms, howteachers can assess learners’ knowledge, whether learning a L2 is similarto or different from learning an L1, and whether language learning issimilar to or different from learning other subjects, such as mathematics,social studies, and chemistry.

Encouraging language teachers to reflect on so many factors otherthan language makes the call for the reconceptualization of languageteacher education incomplete at best and perhaps even misguided. Oneof the most distinguished teacher educators in the profession, MarianneCelce-Murcia, expressed the issue as follows in an interview in which shewas reflecting on the profession and her career:

You’ve got to know your subject matter. How can you teach the Englishlanguage if you don’t know English as declarative knowledge? There is muchmore to teaching than that, of course. . . . But I really think they are going tohave a difficult time . . . if they don’t have an understanding of their subjectmatter. (Yoo, 2001, p. 193)

Because the profession is concerned with English language learning, itseems that reflection that marginalizes language and how it is learnedthreatens to undermine the focus on declarative knowledge of Englishthat Celce-Murcia regards as fundamental. We share her opinion aboutthe centrality of language in language teaching and feel that this ideashould not be controversial. Perhaps somewhat less clear-cut is theconnection between SLA research and language teaching.

SLA AND LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

The uneasiness felt by many language teacher educators about therelevance of research in SLA is evident in Freeman’s (1989) importantpaper:

Although applied linguistics, research in second language acquisition, andmethodology all contribute to the knowledge on which language teaching isbased, they are not, and must not be confused with, language teaching itself.They are, in fact, ancillary to it, and thus they should not be the primarysubject matter of language teacher education. (p. 29)

More than 10 years later Freeman and Johnson (1998a) expressed thesame concern about the connection between SLA research and languageteaching: “Because the research knowledge per se does not articulate

140 TESOL QUARTERLY

easily and cogently into classroom practice, much current knowledge inSLA may be of limited use and applicability to practicing teachers” (p.411). Freeman and Johnson offered a further analysis of the problemwith trying to connect SLA research with teacher education, includingthe following three points:1. “SLA is itself a constructed view of language learning, by which we

mean that it is subject to its own epistemological claims, counter-claims, and methodological arguments”; that because of its roots inL1 acquisition studies, it has not until recently “examined languagelearning from the standpoint of socially negotiated, constructivistprocesses that may be at play”; and that “language teachers havelargely been bystanders to both these definitional debates and to theSLA research community” (p. 411).

2. This knowledge base is wrong because “much current knowledge inSLA may be of limited use and applicability to practicing teachers”(p. 411).

3. What is important is that “teachers must understand their ownbeliefs and knowledge about learning and teaching” (p. 412).

In other words, they argued that because research in SLA has differentbases and goals from language teaching, the proper domain of interestin language teaching should be teachers’ knowledge and beliefs aboutlearning and teaching.

SLA research is a legitimate field of inquiry about the human mindthat does not require any pedagogical application, but it does not followthat SLA research is irrelevant to language teaching. As language teachereducators, we do not expect SLA researchers to be under the obligationto us to “articulate” how to apply their findings to language teachingpedagogy. This is our job. We would argue that it is the responsibility ofall L2 teacher educators to articulate where and how SLA research isrelevant rather than dismiss it as irrelevant. In this regard, Grabe, Stoller,and Tardy’s (2000) paper is an example of teacher educators explainingthe value of core disciplinary knowledge to prospective teachers. More-over, many researchers in SLA have summarized research findings in amanner that makes pedagogical links visible, and many are conductingresearch in classroom settings, where it would be difficult to fail to seeimplications.

Pedagogical Implications of SLA Findings

Recent summaries about findings from SLA research (Lightbown,2000; Long, 1990) have clear pedagogical relevance. Lightbown reexam-ines a list of 10 statements about SLA research she initially proposed 15years earlier (Lightbown, 1985), for example,

THE FORUM 141

There are predictable sequences in L2 acquisition such that certain structureshave to be acquired before others can be integrated.

Isolated explicit error correction is usually ineffective in changing languagebehaviour.

The learner’s task is enormous because language is enormously complex.(Lightbown, 2000, p. 432)

In the anniversary paper, she maintains the same position that she tookin the first paper: SLA research should not be the “major source ofguidance for the ‘how’ or the ‘what’ of second language teaching,” but itcan help set “realistic expectations for what language teachers andlearners [can] accomplish in the second/foreign language classroom”(p. 431). She notes that over the 15-year period the biggest change inSLA research “is the sheer volume of SLA research that has focused onpedagogical questions” (p. 452).

An earlier paper concerned with theory-research connections, “TheLeast a Second Language Acquisition Theory Needs to Explain” (Long,1990), summarizes research findings with relevance for language teach-ing. Long presents eight accepted findings about SLA that are veryspecific to the domain of L2 learning and would never be considered ina general teaching practices course. Six of them have clear pedagogicalimplications:1. There are systematic differences in the problems learners of differ-

ent L1 backgrounds have in learning a particular L2.2. Age influences both the rate of acquisition and ultimate attainment

in an L2.3. Affective factors are subordinate to linguistic and cognitive factors in

development of an L2.4. Some aspects of learning an L2 require attention to language form.5. It is impossible to learn some L2 items from positive evidence alone.6. Much of interlanguage development is often U-shaped, which means

a theory assuming that change in a learner’s interlanguage is “basedon the learner’s perceptions of the frequencies of forms in the inputis incomplete” (p. 660).

The pedagogical implications from the fourth statement in particularare evident. Doughty and Williams (1998), in “Pedagogical Choices inFocus on Form,” present six considerations that we believe all languageteachers must consider: the choice of whether to focus on form, reactiveversus proactive focus on form, the choice of linguistic form, explicitnessof focus on form, sequential versus integrated focus on form, and therole of focus on form in the curriculum. Following on the conclusions in

142 TESOL QUARTERLY

Long (1990), Doughty and Williams argue that research on the firstdecision demonstrates that there must be some focus on form in thelanguage classroom. We would argue that these decisions concerning thetreatment of learners’ language in the classroom address the criticaldomain for language teacher educators more directly than the moregeneral ones suggested by proponents of the quiet revolution. Forexample, Freeman and Richards (1993) advise,

A good teacher is seen as one who analyzes a classroom situation, realizes thata range of options is available based on the particular circumstances, andthen selects the alternative which is most effective in that instance. (p. 206)

As language teacher educators, we believe that the question of the“range of options” available to the teacher should include decisionsspecific to L2 teaching such as those considered by Doughty andWilliams.

Situatedness and SLA

Among the criticisms of SLA research in the quiet revolution is thatthe distance between the objects of investigation and real classrooms istoo great to make meaningful links between the two. For example,Johnson (1996) points out that “teacher educators must begin torecognize the situated and interpretative nature of teaching” (p. 767).This means less reliance “on the transmission of knowledge model ofteaching teachers (i.e., readings, lectures, exams, term papers) and moreon problem- or case-based method (Richert, 1987; Shulman, 1992)” (p.767). We would point out in response to this valid concern the numerousclassroom-based studies of SLA that might come into play in developingsuch teaching units.

Harklau’s (1994) and Platt and Troudi’s (1997) studies are examplesof classroom-based research situated in specific contexts and provideexactly the kind of domain-specific description of classroom practicesthat we believe preservice language teachers need to consider. Harklauexamined the learning environment presented to five ESL students asthey moved between ESL and mainstream instruction. She noted thatalthough the mainstream classroom provided a great deal of input in theform of teacher-led discussions, “mainstream high school classroomteachers seldom adjusted input in order to make it comprehensible to L2learners” (p. 249). In the ESL classrooms, however, there were “qualita-tively superior input and richer, more frequent opportunities for interac-tion and spoken language output” (p. 252). In addition, the ESL classesprovided students with “explicit feedback which drew students’ attentionto language form in a way that has been found beneficial to learners” (p.260). Harklau notes,

THE FORUM 143

Mainstream teachers often seemed to be at a loss in dealing with theparticular sorts of grammatical errors made by nonnative language writers,such as verb tense and preposition errors. They lacked the linguistic back-ground necessary to explain to students why their language was wrong. (p.260)

In other words, the ESL teachers had domain-specific knowledge thatmade their instruction more effective.

Platt and Troudi (1997), in “Mary and Her Teachers: A Grebo-Speaking Child’s Place in the Mainstream Classroom,” examined theyear a nonnative speaker spent in a third-grade classroom in Florida. Thestatements and classroom actions of the teacher in this study reflectedthe view that “language learning followed from acculturation. Mary wasassumed to be able to pick up the language through socialization withthe children and develop an understanding of American classroomculture in the process” (p. 33). The student succeeded in fitting into theculture of her third-grade classroom; however, Mary, who came to theclass with very little English proficiency and no literacy or math skills, wasin most academic situations “precluded from genuine participation,because the assistance she received . . . did not always facilitate concep-tual learning” (p. 38).

The organization and focus of classroom instruction was a directresult of the teacher’s belief that “instruction should challenge learnersto think critically with an orientation toward solving real-life problems,even in primary grades” (Platt & Troudi, 1997, p. 36). As a result of herfrustrations in the academic setting, Mary developed a set of copingbehaviors that included imitation and memorization. As a consequence,“Mary had not yet learned to read and write independently and couldnot control the academic discourse of mathematics that her classmateswere beginning to use” (p. 44). The conclusions that Platt and Troudireach are as relevant to the issue of what kind of professional knowledgeESL teachers need as it is as an example of a study that speaks to teachereducation:

Teachers having linguistic minority students in their mainstream classroomsneed a wide range of pedagogical tools, the most important of which is theability to listen to students in order to determine their current levels ofproficiency and content knowledge. (p. 45)

and

With respect to the developing linguistic system, metacognitive awarenessshould be developed along with the language itself. Attention is required atall levels of language—phonological through discoursal and pragmatic. (p.45)

144 TESOL QUARTERLY

We would add that the ability of the teacher to provide attention to alllevels of language rests on knowledge based in linguistics and SLA.Harklau (1994) and Platt and Troudi (1997) show that successful ESLinstruction requires a different environment than that provided fornative speakers and that creating this environment requires a set ofteaching skills that are founded on the knowledge base we are arguingfor.

No doubt other TESOL teacher educators have additional researchstudies that raise their students’ awareness and understanding of theSLA-related issues situated in their classrooms. In our own SLA classes,we have found that a number of longitudinal studies of particular L2learners (Ioup, Boustagui, El Tigi, & Moselle, 1994; Perdue & Klein,1992; Platt & Troudi, 1997; Schmidt, 1983; Schumann, 1978) areaccessible to our preservice teachers and provide a basis for domain-specific discussion about the teaching problems such learners present inthe classroom.

Finally, as with many trends in our field, discussion of the quietrevolution seems to be occurring in North America, where nativespeakers of English may be less aware of the linguistic issues involved inlanguage teaching. It is difficult to see the relevance of this reconceptual-ization to EFL settings. For example, Delasalle’s (2001) book, a peda-gogical guide for EFL teachers in France, does not marginalize knowl-edge about linguistics or language acquisition.

CONCLUSION

We have argued that the goal of the quiet revolution to displacelanguage as central to language teaching is worthy of serious discussion.This discussion about what should constitute the core of teachereducation in TESOL is particularly timely because of the increasingnumbers of nonnative speakers of English coming into classrooms in theUnited States, where mainstream classroom teachers have no specificpreparation in TESOL and where school administrators have turned toESL teachers for advice. With so many nonnative-speaking students inclassrooms, it is vital to consider what advice our profession has to offer.There are important questions about what language teachers do in theclassroom that are unique to L2 teaching and that only research on SLAhas addressed. We are concerned with the direction the quiet revolutionis taking. Ignoring the core subject areas of language and SLA researchwill, we believe, cause preservice teachers to be less prepared to teachESL/EFL and will cause the field to lose any coherence as a separatediscipline.

There is evidence for our concern. Hones (2000) identifies theunique features of his language teacher education program as a “focus

THE FORUM 145

on the critical roles of L2 teachers as cultural storytellers, culturalhealers, and cultural workers” (p. 12). This focus on the central role ofculture places mastery of English language skills for academic success ina secondary position to acculturation.

We have argued that language teacher educators must provide teacherlearners with a basis for reflection about language teaching that isgrounded in what is known about how languages are organized, howlanguages are learned, and what options are available for languageteaching influenced by the settings in which that teaching takes place.Based on our experience in teaching ESL and in TESOL teachereducation, the relative place for language teacher knowledge aboutlanguage and how languages are learned is at the core of whatever thelanguage teacher does and wherever the language teacher is situated.The call for reconceptualization privileges knowing how to teach overknowing the disciplinary knowledge. We recognize that knowledge of thecore does not guarantee that one will become a good teacher; however,we agree with Celce-Murcia (Yoo, 2001, p. 193) when she says, “It’s thesame idea in other fields: How can you teach math if you don’t knowmath yourself?”

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the TESOL Quarterly reviewers and editor for their very helpful comments.

THE AUTHORS

Robert Yates teaches in the MA TESL program at Central Missouri State University.He is interested in the relationship of second language acquisition and theory toteaching an L2, the knowledge language teachers need to have about the nature oflanguage, and developmental writing.

Dennis Muchisky teaches in the MA TESL program at Central Missouri StateUniversity. He has taught in and directed ESL programs in New Mexico andNebraska and has published in the area of immigrant writing development inintensive language programs

REFERENCES

Celce-Murcia, D., & McIntosh, L. (Eds.). (1979). Teaching English as a second or foreignlanguage. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Crandall, J. (2000). Language teacher education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,20, 34–55.

Delasalle, D. (2001). Le future professeur d’anglais [The future teacher of English].Paris: Belin.

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. InC. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second languageacquisition (pp. 197–261). New York: Cambridge University Press.

146 TESOL QUARTERLY

Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher training, development, and decision making. TESOLQuarterly, 23, 27–47.

Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998a). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base oflanguage teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397–417.

Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998b). Research and practice in English languageteacher education [Special-topic issue]. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3).

Freeman, D., & Richards, J. C. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and the education ofsecond language teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 193–216.

Gebhard, J. G. (1999). How yoga was taught: Connecting my student and teacherselves. In J. G. Gebhard & R. Oprandy (Eds.), Language teaching awareness: A guideto exploring beliefs and practices (pp. 211–220). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Gebhard, J. G., & Oprandy, R. (1999). Language teaching awareness: A guide to exploringbeliefs and practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Grabe, W., Stoller, F. L., & Tardy, C. M. (2000). Disciplinary knowledge as afoundation for teacher education. In J. K. Hall & W. Eggington (Eds.), Thesociopolitics of English language teaching (pp. 178–194). Tonawanda, NY: Multilin-gual Matters.

Harklau, L. (1994). ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning environ-ments. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 241–272.

Hones, D. F. (2000). Building bridges among university, school, and community. InK. E. Johnson (Ed.), Teacher education (pp. 11–27). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Ioup, G., Boustagui, E., El Tigi, M., & Moselle, M. (1994). Reexamining the criticalperiod hypothesis: A case study of successful adult SLA in a naturalistic environ-ment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 73–98.

Johnson, K. E. (1996). The role of theory in L2 teacher education. TESOL Quarterly,30, 765–770.

Johnson, K. E. (2000). Innovations in TESOL teacher education: A quiet revolution.In K. E. Johnson (Ed.), Teacher education (pp. 1–7). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Lightbown, P. M. (1985). Great expectations: Second language research andclassroom teaching. Applied Linguistics, 6, 263–73.

Lightbown, P. M. (2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching.Applied Linguistics, 21, 431–462.

Long, M. (1990). The least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain.TESOL Quarterly, 24, 649–666.

Oller, J. W., & Richard-Amato, P. A. (Eds.). (1983). Methods that work. Rowley: MA:Newbury House.

Perdue, C., & Klein, W. (1992). Why does the production of some learners notgrammaticalize? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 259–272.

Platt, E. J., & Troudi, S. (1997). Mary and her teachers: A Grebo-speaking child’splace in the mainstream classroom. Modern Language Journal, 81, 28–49.

Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Richert, A. (1987). Writing cases: A vehicle for inquiry into teaching process. In J. H.Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp. 155–174). New York:Teachers College Press.

Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicativecompetence: A case study of an adult. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.),Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 137–174). Rowley, MA: NewburyHouse.

Schumann, J. (1978). Second language acquisition: The pidginization hypothesis. InE. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 256–271).Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

THE FORUM 147

Shulman, J. H. (1992). Case methods in teacher education. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Yoo, I. (2001). Bridging the gap between research and pedagogy: An interview withMarianne Celce-Murcia. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 12, 187–199.

Comments on Douglas Biber, Susan Conrad,Randi Reppen, Pat Byrd, and Marie Helt’s“Speaking and Writing in the University:A Multidimensional Comparison”

A Reader Reacts . . .

MOHSEN GHADESSYZhongshan UniversityCanton, China

� In “Speaking and Writing in the University: A MultidimensionalComparison” (Vol. 36, No. 1, Spring 2002), Biber, Conrad, Reppen,Byrd, and Helt present a multidimensional (MD) analysis of a number of“academic registers that U.S. university students must listen to or read”(p. 19). The purpose of this critique is to show that there is a majordeficiency in the theory of register analysis initially put forth by Biber(1988) in his multidimensional multifeature (MDMF) approach and thatfor the past decade or so the framework has been applied to manymaterials without a solution for this deficiency being found.

To borrow an analogy from the field of cooking, Biber’s MD approachgives some of the ingredients for a tasty dish without providing the recipefor making it. The MD framework provides the frequency of somegrammatical categories, such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, pronouns, andarticles, and the probability of their co-occurrence in several registers ofspoken and written English without telling anything about how thesewords and phrases are strung together in any register to make meaning-ful texts. Biber (1995) and Biber et al. seem to be aware of this flaw, butthey have not developed or modified the MD methodology to deal withit. In this commentary, I refer to a number of factors contributing to theflaw and suggest that the MD framework be changed before claims aremade about its “power” (p. 18) and “comprehensive” nature (pp. 13, 43)when dealing with English or with other registers.

The first factor relates to the definition of register. Finding support in

148 TESOL QUARTERLY

Ervin-Tripp (1972), Biber et al. emphasize that “linguistic features worktogether in texts as constellations of co-occurring features (rather thanas individual features) to distinguish among registers” (p. 13). And in afootnote they say, “The term register here is a cover term for any languagevariety defined in situational terms, including the speaker’s purpose incommunication, the topic, the relationship between speaker and hearer,spoken or written mode, and the production circumstances” (p. 10).However, it is mainly the first definition and not the second that informsMD methodology. For example, the methodology does not tell how thespeaker’s purpose is achieved, how the topic is developed, how turns inan interaction are taken, or how language resources above the word andphrase are used for speaking or writing.

According to Halliday (1978, p. 110), the term register was first used byReid (1956). Since then, applied linguists, especially systemic functionalgrammarians, have developed and modified the term (Halliday, 1978,1985; Hasan, 1996; Martin, 1992; Matthiessen, 1993; Thompson, 1997).As now understood within the systemic functional framework, the termhas three dimensions of variation: the field of discourse, “those meaningsthat express our experience of the world around us and inside us”; thetenor of discourse, “speech roles (mood), person, polarity (positive ornegative)”; and the mode of discourse, “theme/rheme, (method of develop-ment), cohesion (texture), information structure (given/new)” (Halliday,1985, pp. 25–26). Each dimension is realized through choices in severalsystems and subsystems belonging to three metafunctions of language—the ideational, the interpersonal, and the textual. Based on this view ofregister, a comprehensive analysis should tell more about how a text iscreated rather than focus only on the frequency of certain grammaticalcategories and their co-occurrence probabilities.

A second, related point is the question of text as product and asprocess. MD methodology, by giving frequencies and co-occurrenceprobabilities, treats texts as products. Taking a different view of text ingeneral and a text in particular raises the possibility of using othermethodological tools for analyzing registers more fully. Halliday (1982)provides such a definition: “Text is the process of meaning; and a text isthe product of that process” (p. 209). In other words, other tools areneeded to measure the meaning-making processes involved. Theseprocesses include, among others, “structure, coherence, function, devel-opment, and character” (Halliday, 1982, pp. 209–210), none of which istreated adequately in the MDMF approach.

My third point relates to the unit of analysis in Biber’s (1988) initialMDMF methodology. Almost all the units belong to grammatical catego-ries of English, such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, or prepositions, exempli-fied by single words or phrases. A few, such as word length and type/

THE FORUM 149

token ratio, are different. A comprehensive analysis of any registercannot neglect the clause/sentence, which occupies an important posi-tion in any text, and should also consider other discoursal features. WithMD methodology, thematic analysis or measurement of the informationflow in a text is not possible. Moreover, if the clause were added as a unitof analysis, it is unclear whether thematic analysis would confirm theresults established by MD methodology.

Using the clustering of text types initially established by Biber andFinegan (1986), I did a small-scale study (Ghadessy, 1999) to find theanswer to this question. I found that the grammatical and lexicosemanticfeatures of the themes of the clauses in the texts led to differentclustering. For example, based on 11 grammatical features of the themes(e.g., simple, multiple, marked, unmarked), academic prose and editori-als formed one cluster. This finding is surprising as, according to Biberand Finegan, academic prose is the best example of the genre formalexposition whereas editorials are included in the genre informal exposition.In terms of 10 lexicosemantic features of the selected themes (e.g.,animate, inanimate, time, cause), biography and romance made onecluster, a finding that is again at odds with Biber and Finegan’s results. Intheir analysis, biography is the best example of the genre informalinformational narrative while romance is included in the genre imaginativenarrative.

My last point relates to the implications of Biber et al.’s findings forteaching and learning EFL or ESL. No doubt, their study has, as they say,“powerful implications for test development” (p. 42). But these implica-tions are confined to vocabulary and grammar, as MD methodology doesnot give any of the discoursal features of the registers. Their findings also“reflect knowledge about registers” (p. 42) that can be used in preparinginstructional materials. But here, too, Biber et al.’s findings strengthenonly knowledge of vocabulary and grammar. Thus the results of MDmethodology leave language teachers and learners with much more todo on their own, that is, to find out the underlying meaning-makingprocesses in a register.

Despite the above criticisms, I believe that Biber et al.’s MD theory forregister identification is a useful tool in analyzing a register. Using acomputer and the statistical methods employed, one can readily place atext along a number of clines provided by the methodology. But that isnot enough. A comprehensive methodology should give more than a listof words and their collocation probabilities. Biber et al.’s proposedcriteria for register identification are necessary but not sufficient. If thetheory can pool additional linguistic features from the field, the tenor,and the mode of discourse, it can establish a more valid profile of eachregister.

150 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1986). An initial typology of English text types. In J. Aarts &W. Meijs (Eds.), Corpus linguistics II: New studies in the analysis and exploitation ofcomputer corpora (pp. 19–46). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Ervin-Tripp, S. (1972). On sociolinguistic rules: Alternation and co-occurrence. InJ. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 213–250). NewYork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Ghadessy, M. (1999). Textual features and contextual factors for register identifica-tion. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Text and context in functional linguistics (pp. 125–139).Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of languageand meaning. London: Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1982). How is a text like a clause? In S. Allen (Ed.), Text processing(pp. 209–247). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksel.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Register variation. In M. A. K. Halliday & R. Hasan,Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective (pp. 29–41). Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Hasan, R. (1996). Ways of saying, ways of meaning: Selected papers of Ruqaiya Hasan(C. Cloran, D. Butt, & G. Williams, Eds.). London: Cassell.

Martin, J. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Matthiessen, C. (1993). Register in the round. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Register analysis:

Theory and practice (pp. 221–292). London: Pinter.Reid, T. B. W. (1956). Linguistics, structuralism, and philology. Archivum Linguisticum,

8, 28–37.Thompson, G. (1997). Introducing functional grammar. London: Arnold.

THE FORUM 151

The Authors Respond: Strengths and Goals ofMultidimensional Analysis

DOUGLAS BIBERNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaff, Arizona, United States

SUSAN CONRADPortland State UniversityPortland, Oregon, United States

RANDI REPPENNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaff, Arizona, United States

PAT BYRDGeorgia State UniversityAtlanta, Georgia, United States

MARIE HELTCalifornia State UniversitySacramento, California, United States

� We welcome thoughtful discussion of the multidimensional (MD)research approach, including proposals to make the methodology evenmore effective than it is. However, Ghadessy’s critique of MD analysis isflawed in four major ways. First, it does not acknowledge the strengths ofMD analysis or address whether alternative approaches can retain thosestrengths; second, it does not reflect an understanding of the linguisticand statistical bases of MD analysis; third, it incorrectly assumes that MDanalysis has claimed to be an all-inclusive approach to linguistic varia-tion; and, finally, much of the critique is based on personal preferencefor linguistic analysis rather than external considerations such as the usesfor the analysis.

The main point of Ghadessy’s critique seems to be the desirability ofincluding additional linguistic characteristics—especially discourse fea-tures—in future MD analyses. We fully agree with this general goal, andwe have called for similar extensions in nearly every published MD study.For example, in the article under review, we note that “additionalfeatures—including rhetorical and lexical features—also deserve atten-tion” (p. 43). However, we do not believe that the desirability of futureextensions constitutes a “major deficiency” in MD methodology ordiminishes the important contributions of past MD research.

Although Ghadessy raises several specific criticisms in his review, hedoes not address or acknowledge the strengths of MD analysis:

152 TESOL QUARTERLY

• It takes advantage of corpus-based research methodologies to inves-tigate overall patterns of register variation and achieve more general-izable results than in other methodologies.

• It is based on the analysis of large corpora, in this case representinguniversity language use, including long texts, multiple texts fromeach register, and a large range of spoken and written universityregisters.

• The use of computer programs and interactive software tools makesit possible to analyze a wide range of linguistic features in each text;in the present case, 67 different grammatical and syntactic featuresare covered.

In contrast, most register studies undertaken with other approaches havefocused on a single register, a small number of linguistic features, and asmaller number of texts. Because of these differences, we claimed thatour study “reports results of the most comprehensive linguistic analysisof academic language to date” (p. 11). We stand by this claim, and wewould argue that the strength of alternative approaches should beevaluated by these criteria as well.

Ghadessy seems most bothered by our claim to be “comprehensive”(pp. 13, 43). He seems to assume an absolute meaning for the term,something like all-inclusive. As a result, he concludes that failure toinclude discourse features in MD analyses is a “major deficiency,” a“problem,” and a “flaw,” and that such analyses cannot claim to becomprehensive.

However, we use the term comprehensive as a gradable adjective, withthe meaning “of large scope; covering much; inclusive” (Random HouseWebster’s College Dictionary, 2nd ed., s.v. “comprehensive,” first definition).We believe that the analysis is comprehensive by that definition: Thestudy is based on analysis of a 2.7-million-word corpus, containing 423texts from 10 different spoken and written registers. Further, we analyzedthe distribution of 67 different linguistic features in each text, includinggrammatical classes (e.g., nouns, verbs, adjectives, pronouns), meaning-ful grammatical distinctions (e.g., past tense, perfect aspect, passivevoice), and syntactic/clause-level features (e.g., relative clauses, adverbialclauses, complement clause types). MD studies are some of the mostinclusive analyses of register variation yet attempted, and the omission ofdiscourse features does not diminish that accomplishment.

Several other criticisms raised by Ghadessy seem simply to reflect hispreference for a different analytical framework. Ghadessy points out thatwe do not adopt the framework of systemic functional linguistics (SFL)and do not analyze registers with respect to “field,” “tenor,” and “mode.”In addition, we analyze texts as “products” rather than focusing onmeaning-making “processes.” We agree with these statements, but we do

THE FORUM 153

not regard them as criticisms. They are simply reflections of the researchconstructs and goals of MD analysis and the ways they happen to differfrom SFL. We see SFL as a complementary theoretical framework, withdifferent analytical techniques and research goals from our own. Wewould welcome a synthesis of perspectives and methods, but we do notthink that either approach should abandon its own goals and prioritiesin that effort.

Finally, Ghadessy makes several incorrect statements that reflectmisunderstandings or misrepresentations. The first has to do with thedefinition and identification of registers. Ghadessy characterizes MDanalysis as “Biber et al.’s MD theory for register identification.” However,in the MD approach, registers are named varieties in a culture, definedin situational terms, like conversation, letters, textbooks, and lectures. Aswe explain (p. 10, Footnote 1), registers in this view are not necessarilywell defined linguistically; that is, there can be important linguisticdifferences among texts within a register. Similarly, registers are notnecessarily distinguished from one another in their linguistic character-istics. For example, university textbooks and newspaper prose arecompletely different registers, but they are similar in many of theirlinguistic characteristics. MD analysis was developed to analyze thoselinguistic characteristics, addressing the extent to which any two registersare similar or different along multiple linguistic dimensions of variation.Ghadessy is not correct in stating that these dimensions are used todefine or identify registers; rather, the dimensions are used to comparethe linguistic characteristics of predefined registers. A complementaryanalytical approach—analyzing text types—identifies text categories thatare well defined in linguistic terms (see the references cited on p. 10,Footnote 1, in our article).

Second, Ghadessy repeatedly states that MD analysis has an impover-ished linguistic basis. He states that it is based on “the frequency of somegrammatical categories, such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, pronouns, andarticles”; that it is restricted almost exclusively to “single words orphrases”; and that it consists of “a list of words and their collocationprobabilities.” On the flip side, Ghadessy suggests that MD analysiscompletely disregards clause-level features. Such descriptions are errone-ous at best. In fact, MD analysis includes as wide a range of relevantgrammatical classes and distinctions as possible within its corpus-basedapproach, including grammatical classes, analysis of grammatical/syntacticfunction, and analysis of many clause types and variants. These featuresinclude word classes like nouns, verbs, adjectives, and pronouns. Withinmost classes, MD analyses further include grammatical/syntactic distinc-tions. For example, verb phrases are analyzed for their grammaticalfunction, distinguishing past and present tense; simple, perfect, andprogressive aspect; and active and passive voice. Adjectives are subclassified

154 TESOL QUARTERLY

according to their syntactic function as attributive or predicative. Moreimportantly, in contradiction to Ghadessy’s claims, MD analysis includesmany clause-level features, both main clause features (e.g., questions,clausal coordination) and dependent clause features (e.g., adverbialclauses, relative clauses, complement clauses). Further, dependent clausesare analyzed for specific syntactic type and variants (e.g., that relativeclause with subject gap, wh- relative clause with object gap, passiveparticipial postnominal [reduced relative] clause; that complementclause controlled by verb; wh- complement clause; causative vs. conces-sive vs. conditional adverbial clauses). These features are clearly listed inTable 1 (pp. 15–16). We find it difficult to imagine how Ghadessy couldhave read our article and come away with the impression that MDanalysis consisted of “a list of words and their collocation probabilities.”

The MD analytical framework is not static, and we therefore welcomethe addition of new features. For example, we have recently developed anew MD model of register variation among university spoken and writtenregisters (see Biber, in press; Biber et al., in press). This analysis includesmany additional linguistic features, like lexical bundle features (e.g.,preposition initial lexical bundles, such as in the form of; wh-initial lexicalbundles, such as what you’re saying is; see Biber, Johansson, Leech,Conrad, & Finegan, 1999, chapter 13) and many lexicogrammaticalfeatures (e.g., mental verbs controlling that complement clauses andverbs of desire controlling to complement clauses).

Many discourse features—including characteristics of theme andtheme progression, as discussed by Ghadessy—have thus far beenprohibitively time-consuming to identify and count reliably in a largecorpus. This difficulty helps to explain why Ghadessy’s (1999) study ofthematic features is based on only 1,286 clauses representing about15,000 words.1 However, although we currently lack the analytical tools

1 Ghadessy cites his 1999 study as evidence that inclusion of thematic features will disconfirmthe results of previous MD analyses. In that study, Ghadessy claims to have used a cluster analysisfor this purpose. However, an examination of that study suggests that Ghadessy fails tounderstand the statistical basis of MD analysis.

In the MD framework, text types are identified through a multivariate statistical procedurecalled cluster analysis; this procedure groups observations that are maximally similar with respectto certain quantitative variables. In MD studies, the observations are texts, and the quantitativevariables are the dimension scores (see Biber, 1995, chapter 9).

In contrast, Ghadessy (1999) claims to have performed a cluster analysis in a study in whichthe observations were individual clauses and the variables were nominal characteristics (e.g.,whether the theme type of the clause was simple theme, multiple theme, or textual theme). Astatistical cluster analysis is not possible in this case because there are no quantitative variablesthat could be used to group the observations. Instead, Ghadessy appears to have relied on avisual inspection of a cross-tabulation table, which showed the proportional use of eachthematic clause type in each register. From a statistical point of view, the analysis carried out byGhadessy is in no way comparable to a cluster analysis, and the results are in no way comparableto those achieved through MD analysis.

THE FORUM 155

that permit generalizable, empirical corpus investigations of their distri-bution, we agree that thematic features are likely to be important registercharacteristics, and we welcome efforts to develop analytical techniques.

Until a utopian time when a single methodological approach cancover all aspects of language use, we are left with examining registervariation through a variety of approaches. It is our position that allapproaches conducted in principled ways should be welcome. We needto sit down to a banquet, if you will, rather than expecting any single dishto include all ingredients, and rather than criticizing a dish for notconforming to another chef’s priorities.

REFERENCES

Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Biber, D. (in press). Variation among university spoken and written registers: A newmulti-dimensional analysis. In C. Meyer & P. Leistyna (Eds.), Corpus analysis:Language structure and language use. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., Helt, M., Clark, V., et al. (in press).Representing language use in the university: Analysis of the TOEFL 2000 Spoken andWritten Academic Language Corpus (TOEFL Monograph). Princeton, NJ: Educa-tional Testing Service.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longmangrammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.

Ghadessy, M. (1999). Textual features and contextual factors for register identifica-tion. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Text and context in functional linguistics (pp. 125–139).Amsterdam: Benjamins.


RESEARCH ISSUESIn this issue, TESOL Quarterly presents revised guidelines for quantitative andqualitative research in TESOL. Contributors to the guidelines were Dwight Atkinson,J. D. Brown, Suresh Canagarajah, Kathryn Davis, Patricia A. Duff, Linda Harklau,Joan Jamieson, Numa Markee, and Steven Ross.

Edited by CAROL A. CHAPELLEIowa State University

PATRICIA A. DUFFUniversity of British Columbia

Some Guidelines for Conducting Quantitative andQualitative Research in TESOL

� Research practices evolve as new issues and questions emerge and asnew methods and tools are developed to address them. In view of thechanging landscape of research in the TESOL profession, TESOLQuarterly’s Editorial Advisory Board regularly reexamines the guidelinesfor research provided for contributors to keep the guidelines up-to-dateand reflective of the agreed-on conventions for undertaking and report-ing research. Since 1992 TESOL Quarterly has included guidelines forstatistical research at the back of each issue to guide the growing numberof contributors conducting such research. In 1994, the increase inqualitative studies submitted to TESOL Quarterly prompted the EditorialAdvisory Board to include a set of qualitative research guidelines forcontributors as well.

In recent years, the character of the submissions has again shifted toinclude a wider variety of methodologies. The complexity of today’sresearch seemed to call for a rethinking of the guidelines rather than thesimple addition of a methodology. Guidelines for quantitative studiesneeded to address more fully the rationale underlying the researchrather than concentrating on the procedural aspects of the analysis. Thequalitative guidelines, rather than reflecting primarily an ethnographicapproach, needed to reflect the multiple legitimate approaches toqualitative research. Both qualitative and quantitative guidelines neededto cite authoritative sources to which contributors could turn forextensive explanation and help.

The revised guidelines address these needs and outline the collective

158 TESOL QUARTERLY

professional judgment about good practice for quantitative and qualita-tive research in TESOL. The quantitative guidelines include importantconsiderations in conducting and reporting rigorous quantitative re-search, with attention to a study’s purpose, participants, measures,procedures, analysis, and interpretation. These guidelines do not at-tempt to distinguish among the many types of quantitative studies, butrather focus on common principles and good practice pertaining to avariety of such studies. Readers are referred to the many other publishedsources in the References and Further Reading section of the quantita-tive guidelines.

For qualitative research methods in TESOL, about which fewertextbooks or articles have been written, we provide guidelines for casestudy, conversation analysis, and (critical) ethnography as three exem-plars, each with its own traditions, variants and alternatives, and conven-tions. Among these three qualitative methods, overlapping principles areevident, but so are distinctions. Across all four pieces, whether quantita-tive and qualitative, an overriding theme is that researchers should beexplicit about the research contexts, populations, procedures, analyses,and basis for interpretations. This requirement tends to imply longpapers, but because of the limits on the length of submissions, writersand editors must make informed decisions about what information isessential to include and what is not.

We did not attempt to squeeze the guidelines for each researchapproach into exactly the same mold. In view of the diverse epistemolo-gies associated with the research approaches, it seems natural for eachset of guidelines to be expressed in a different way. What they share,however, is an expression of accepted practice within a particularresearch tradition from the view of researchers within that tradition. Inassembling these guidelines, we did not intend to cover every researchapproach that might be applied to a problem in TESOL. For example,contributors can find discussion of narrative research with comprehen-sive references in the Research Issues section of Vol. 36, No. 2 (Summer2002). In the future, this discussion might be formalized into guidelinesfor narrative research, as might other discussions of approaches appear-ing in Research Issues. These guidelines are the first in an expanding setof summaries to be introduced in Research Issues and in the TESOLQuarterly section of TESOL’s Web site. The guidelines, like those previ-ously published in TESOL Quarterly, will naturally evolve and grow overtime. We welcome readers’ input and suggestions about guidelines forother types of research.

RESEARCH ISSUES 159

Quantitative Research Guidelines

� Quantitative research has played an important role in TESOL for along time, but over the years the standards have shifted somewhat. Inpart because of the educational role TESOL Quarterly plays in modelingresearch in the field, it is of particular concern that published researcharticles meet current standards. To support this goal, the followingguidelines and references are provided for quantitative research paperssubmitted to TESOL Quarterly.

INTRODUCTION

Explain the point of the study. What problem is being addressed? Whyis it interesting or important from a theoretical perspective? Brieflyreview the literature, emphasizing pertinent and relevant findings,methodological issues, and gaps in understanding. Conclude the intro-duction with a statement of purpose, your research questions, and,where relevant, your hypotheses; clearly explain the rationale for eachhypothesis.

METHOD

Explain your study in enough detail that it could be replicated.

Participants

Clearly state whether there is a population that you would ideally wantto generalize to; explain the characteristics of that population. Explainyour sampling procedure. If you are using a convenience sample, be sureto say so. Arguments for representativeness can be strengthened bycomparing characteristics of the sample with that of the population on arange of variables. Describe the characteristics and the size of thesample. When appropriate, describe how participants were assigned togroups.

Measures

Summarize all instruments in terms of both descriptions and measure-ment properties (i.e., reliability and validity). Provide estimates of thereliability of the scores in your sample in addition to reliability estimatesprovided by test publishers, other researchers, or both; when you makejudgments about performance or when language samples are coded forlinguistic characteristics, include estimates of classification dependabilityor coder agreement.

160 TESOL QUARTERLY

Procedure

Describe the conditions under which you administered your instruments.

Design. Make clear what type of study you have done—was your studyevaluating a priori hypotheses, or was it exploratory in order to generatehypotheses? Was it a meta-analysis? Explain your design, and statewhether your comparisons were within subjects, between subjects, orboth. Refer to standard works such as textbooks for study designs.Describe the methods used to deal with experimenter bias if youcollected the data yourself. If you assigned participants to subgroups,explain how you did so. If you used random assignment, tell the readershow the randomization was done (e.g., coin toss, random numbers table,computerized random numbers generation). If you did not use randomassignment, explain relevant covariates and the way you measured andadjusted for them, either statistically or by design. Describe the charac-teristics and the size of the subgroups. In place of the terms experimentalgroup and control group, use treatment group and contrast group.

Variables. Define the variables in the study. Make explicit the linkbetween the theoretical constructs and the way(s) they have beenoperationalized in your study. Define the role of each variable in yourstudy (e.g., dependent, independent, moderating, control). Explain howyou measured or otherwise observed the variables.

Power and sample size. Provide information on the sample size and theprocess that led to the decision to use that size. Provide information onthe anticipated effect size as you have estimated it from previousresearch. Provide the alpha level used in the study, discussing the risk ofType I error. Provide the power of your study (calculate it using astandard reference such as Cohen, 1988, or a computer program).Discuss the risk of Type II error.

RESULTS

• Explain the data collected and their statistical treatment as well as allrelevant results in relation to your research questions. Interpretationof results is not appropriate in this section.

• Report unanticipated events that occurred during your data collec-tion. Explain how the actual analysis differs from the plannedanalysis. Explain your handling of missing data.

• Explain the techniques you used to “clean” your data set.

RESEARCH ISSUES 161

• Choose a minimally sufficient statistical procedure; provide a ratio-nale for its use and a textbook reference for it. Specify any computerprograms used.

• Describe the assumptions for each procedure and the steps you tookto ensure that they were not violated.

• When using inferential statistics, provide the descriptive statistics,confidence intervals, and sample sizes for each variable as well as thevalue of the test statistic, its direction, the degrees of freedom, andthe significance level (report the actual p value).

• Always supplement the reporting of an actual p value with a measureof effect magnitude (e.g., measures of strength of association ormeasures of effect size). Briefly contextualize the magnitude of theeffect in theoretical and practical terms. Confidence intervals for theeffect magnitudes of principal outcomes are recommended.

• If you use multiple statistical analyses (e.g., t tests, analyses ofvariance, correlations), make the required adjustments to the alphalevel (e.g., a Bonferroni correction).

• Avoid inferring causality, particularly in nonrandomized designs orwithout further experimentation.

• Use tables to provide exact values; present all values with two placesto the right of the decimal point.

• Use figures to convey global effects. Keep figures small in size;include graphic representations of confidence intervals wheneverpossible.

• Always tell the reader what to look for in tables and figures.

DISCUSSION

Interpretation

Clearly state your findings for each of your research questions andtheir associated hypotheses. State similarities and differences with effectsizes reported in the literature. Discuss whether features of the method-ology and analysis are strong enough to support strong conclusions.

Conclusions

Note the weaknesses of your study. Identify theoretical and practicalimplications of your study. Discuss limitations and suggest improvementsto your study. Provide recommendations for future research that arethoughtful and grounded both in terms of your results and in theliterature.

162 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READINGON QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

Abelson, R. (1997). On the surprising longevity of flogged horses: Why there is a casefor the significance test. Psychological Science, 8, 12–15.

American Psychological Association. (1994). Publication manual of the AmericanPsychological Association (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the AmericanPsychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Anderson, D. (2000). Problems with the hypothesis testing approach. Retrieved January 29,2003, from http://www.cnr.colostate.edu/~anderson/quotes.pdf

Bailar, J., & Mosteller, F. (1988). Guidelines for statistical reporting in articles formedical journals. Annals of Internal Medicine, 108, 266–273.

Baugh, F. (2002). Correcting effect sizes for score reliability: A reminder thatmeasurement and substantive issues are linked inextricably. Educational andPsychological Measurement, 62, 254–263.

Bird, K. (2002). Confidence intervals for effect sizes in analysis of variance.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 197–226.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003.Cook, T., Cooper, H., Cordray, D., Hartman, H., Hedges, L., Light, R., Louis, T., &

Mosteller, F. (Eds.). (1992). Meta-analysis for explanation. New York: Russell SageFoundation.

Cumming, G., & Finch, S. (2001a). ESCI: Exploratory Software for ConfidenceIntervals [Computer software]. Victoria, Australia: La Trobe University. Availablefrom http://www.psy.latrobe.edu.au/esci

Cumming, G., & Finch, S. (2001b). A primer on the understanding, use, andcalculation of confidence intervals that are based on central and noncentraldistributions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 532–574.

Fan, X., & Thompson, B. (2001). Confidence intervals about score reliabilitycoefficients, please: An EPM guidelines editorial. Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 61, 517–531.

Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2002). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.).Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for appliedlinguistics. New York: Newbury House.

Huberty, C. (1993). Historical origins of statistical testing practices: The treatment ofFisher versus Neyman-Pearson views in textbooks. Journal of Experimental Education,61, 317–333.

Huberty, C. (2002). A history of effect size indices. Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 62, 227–240.

Hunter, J. (1997). Needed: A ban on the significance test. Psychological Science, 8, 3–7.

Kirk, R. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educationaland Psychological Measurement, 56, 746–759.

Minium, E. (1978). Statistical reasoning in psychology and education. New York: Wiley.Mittag, K., & Thompson, B. (2000). A national survey of AERA members’ percep-

tions of statistical significance tests and other statistical issues. Educational Re-searcher, 29(4), 14–20.

Montgomery, D. (2000). Design and analysis of experiments (5th ed.). New York: Wiley.

RESEARCH ISSUES 163

Myers, J., & Well, A. (1995). Research design and statistical analysis. Hillside, NJ:Erlbaum.

Parkhurst, D. F. (1997). Commentaries on significance testing. Retrieved January 29,2003, from http://www.indiana.edu/~stigtsts/

Roberts, J. K., & Henson, R. (2002). Correcting for bias in estimating effect sizes.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 241–253.

Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V.Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244). New York: RussellSage Foundation.

Schmidt, F. (1996). Statistical significance testing and cumulative knowledge inpsychology: Implications for the training of researchers. Psychological Methods, 1,115–129.

Shadish, W., Robinson, L., & Lu, C. (1999). ES: A Computer Program for Effect SizeCalculation [Computer software]. St. Paul, MN: Assessment Systems.

Smithson, M. (2001). Correct confidence intervals for various regression effect sizesand parameters: The importance of noncentral distributions in computingintervals. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 605–632.

Smithson, M. (2002). Scripts and software for noncentral confidence interval and powercalculations. Retrieved January 29, 2003, from http://www.anu.edu.au/psychology/staff/mike/CIstuff/CI.html

Thompson, B. (1999). Journal editorial policies regarding statistical significancetests: Heat is to fire as p is to importance. Educational Psychology Review, 11, 157–169.

Thompson, B. (2000). Various editorial policies regarding statistical significance tests andeffect sizes. Retrieved January 29, 2003, from http://www.coe.tamu.edu/�bthompson/journals.htm

Thompson, B. (2002). What future quantitative social science research could looklike: Confidence intervals for effect sizes. Educational Researcher, 31(3), 25–32.

Thompson, B., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2000). Psychometrics is datametrics: The test isnot reliable. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 174–195.

Thompson, W. L. (2000). 326 articles/books questioning the indiscriminate use of statisticalhypothesis tests in observational studies. Retrieved January 29, 2003, from http://www.cnr.colostate.edu/~anderson/thompson1.html

Vacha-Haase, T., Nilsson, J., Reetz, D., Lance, T., & Thompson, B. (2000). Reportingpractices and APA editorial policies regarding statistical significance and effectsize. Theory and Psychology, 10, 413–425.

Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods inpsychology journals: Guidelines and explanations [Electronic version]. AmericanPsychologist, 54, 594–604. Retrieved January 29, 2002, from http://www.apa.org/journals/amp/amp548594.html

Qualitative Research Guidelines

Case Study Research

� The following guidelines are provided for submissions reporting casestudy research aimed at understanding a bounded phenomenon byexamining in depth, and in a holistic manner, one or more particular

164 TESOL QUARTERLY

instances of the phenomenon. Case study research in TESOL andsecond language acquisition (SLA) has its origins in psychology andlinguistics (e.g., Hatch, 1978), with a focus on the development of L2syntax, morphology, phonology, and so on, as analyzed by an ostensiblyobjective researcher. More recently, TESOL case studies have adoptedthe more subjective and interpretive stance typical of case studies ineducation and other fields (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996; Johnson, 1992;Stake, 1994, 1995), with less emphasis on the acquisition of discretelinguistic elements and more emphasis on such issues as learners’ andteachers’ identities, skill development and its consequences for learners,teachers’ professional development experiences, and the implementa-tion of language policies in programs and countries. Both approachesare legitimate but require sufficient detail and contextualization.

ASSUMPTIONS

1. In TESOL, a case typically refers to a person, either a learner or ateacher, or an entity, such as a school, a university, a classroom, or aprogram (see Faltis, 1997; Johnson, 1992; Nunan, 1992). In languagepolicy research, the case may be a country. Case studies may beincluded in larger quantitative or qualitative studies to provide aconcrete illustration of findings, or they may be conducted indepen-dently, either longitudinally or in a more limited temporal period.Unlike ethnographic research, case studies do not necessarily focuson cultural aspects of a group or its members. Case study researchmay feature single cases or multiple cases (e.g., often two to four).

2. Acknowledging multiple realities in qualitative case studies, as is nowcommonly done, involves discerning the various perspectives of theresearcher, the case/participant, and others, which may or may notconverge (Yin, 1994). As an interpretive, inductive form of research,case studies explore the details and meanings of experience and donot usually attempt to test a priori hypotheses. Instead, the re-searcher attempts to identify important patterns and themes in thedata. The richness of case studies is related to the amount of detailand contextualization that is possible when only one or a smallnumber of focal cases and issues are analyzed. The writer’s ability toprovide a compelling and engaging profile of the case, with suitableexamples and linkages to broader issues, is also very important.

RESEARCH ISSUES 165

METHODS

Context

Provide sufficient contextual information about the case, includingrelevant biographical and social information (depending on the focus),such as ESL learning/teaching history, L1 background, years of resi-dence in a new country, data collection site(s), or other relevantdescriptive information pertaining to the case and situation.

Sampling

Purposeful sampling is generally used in case study research; there-fore, explain sampling procedures and case selection, and the definingcharacteristics and typicality or atypicality of the case: Note whether thecase in question is a deviant or extreme case, a critical case, a conve-nience case, a politically significant case, and so on (Creswell, 1998; Miles& Huberman, 1994). Because attrition may deeply affect longitudinalcase studies based on just one or two participants, sampling carefully iscrucial. If multiple cases are used, researchers often provide a detailedaccount of each and then some form of cross-case comparison, either inprose or in a tabular summary (Creswell, 1998). Multiple cases are oftenpreferable to single cases, particularly when the cases may not berepresentative of the population from which they are drawn and when arange of behaviors/profiles, experiences, outcomes, or situations isdesirable. However, including multiple cases limits the depth with whicheach case may be analyzed and also has implications for the structureand length of the final report.

Data

Draw data either from one primary source (e.g., oral interviews,journals, or essays) or from multiple sources. As in ethnography, bring-ing together (triangulating) multiple perspectives, methods, and sourcesof information (e.g., from interviews, observations, field notes, self-reports or think-aloud protocols, tests, transcripts, and other docu-ments) adds texture, depth, and multiple insights to an analysis and canenhance the validity or credibility of the results. Observations and datacollection settings may range from natural to artificial, with relativelyunstructured to highly structured elicitation tasks and category systems,depending on the purpose of the study and the disciplinary traditionsassociated with it (Cohen & Manion, 1994). Data in SLA studies may besomewhat more restricted (either interviews, tests, writing samples,think-aloud protocols, or grammaticality judgments), and the analyticfocus may be narrower and more technical as well, such as the develop-ment of linguistic or rhetorical structures in oral or written L2 production.

166 TESOL QUARTERLY

Establishing a trusting relationship with research participants, usingmultiple elicitation tasks (data collection procedures), obtaining ad-equate relevant background information about case participants andsites, and having access to or contact with the case over a period of timeare, in general, all highly desirable.

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Analysis

Case study data analysis generally involves an iterative, spiraling, orcyclical process that proceeds from more general to more specificobservations (Creswell, 1998; Palys, 1997; Silverman, 2000). Data analysismay begin informally during interviews or observations and continueduring transcription, when recurring themes, patterns, and categoriesbecome evident. Once written records are available, analysis involves thecoding of data and the identification of salient points or structures.Having additional coders is highly desirable (but is less common inqualitative research than in quantitative research), especially in struc-tural analyses of discourse, texts, syntactic structures, or interactionpatterns involving high-inference categories leading ultimately to thequantification of types of items within categories. Data reduction mayinclude quantification or other means of data aggregation and reduc-tion, including the use of data matrices, tables, and figures (Miles &Huberman, 1994).

In multiple case studies, each case may represent a different thematicfinding, such as a different type of learner, teacher, or program (e.g.,highly successful vs. less successful, domestic vs. international), whichyou may also portray as a clustering of properties or even a metaphor;alternatively, you may analyze and discuss each of the cases in terms of asmall number of pervasive and important themes that run across them tovarying degrees.

Interpretation

Establishing the significance or importance of themes or findings iscrucial; the discussion should ideally link these themes explicitly tolarger theoretical and practical issues. However, generalization to popu-lations is not appropriate or desirable in most case studies. Be cautiousabout drawing unwarranted inferences because of the small sample size,particularly if the case is not typical of others in the same set. L2researchers frequently propose models or principles based on theirresults to be supported, tested, compared, or refuted by themselves orothers in subsequent research (e.g., Schmidt, 1983; Schmidt & Frota,1986).

RESEARCH ISSUES 167

Data may be analyzed and interpreted through a variety of ideologicallenses (e.g., positivist, poststructuralist, feminist, or critical (Duff, 2002;Merriam, 1998; Yin, 1994), although descriptive/interpretive approachesare still the most common in TESOL. Provide sufficient evidence foryour claims or interpretations to make them clear, credible, and convinc-ing to others. Consider alternate explanations, and account for resultsthat run contrary to the themes that emerge or for differences amongtriangulated sources. It may be worthwhile to consult case participantsfor their interpretation of (nontechnical) data or findings. Young L2learners or others who are not highly proficient in their L2 may not havethe maturity or the linguistic competence to convey their perspectiveseasily; in some cases, an assistant who can speak the participant’s L1 toexplain the research purposes and elicit the participant’s views in theirL1 may be helpful, depending on the focus of the study (Duff, in press).

THE CASE STUDY REPORT

Reports of case studies submitted to TESOL Quarterly should includethe following elements:

• a statement of the study’s purpose and the theoretical context

• the problem or issue being addressed

• central research questions

• a detailed description of the case(s) and explanation of decisionsrelated to sampling and selection

• context of the study and case history, where relevant

• issues of access to the site/participants and the relationship betweenyou and the research participant (case)

• the duration of the study

• evidence that you obtained informed consent, that the participants’identities and privacy are protected, and, ideally, that participantsbenefited in some way from taking part in the study

• methods of data collection and analysis, either manual or computer-based data management and analysis (see Weitzman & Miles, 1995),or other equipment and procedures used

• findings, which may take the form of major emergent themes,developmental stages, or an in-depth discussion of each case inrelation to the research questions; and illustrative quotations orexcerpts and sufficient amounts of other data to establish the validityand credibility of the analysis and interpretations

168 TESOL QUARTERLY

• a discussion of factors that might have influenced the interpretationof data in undesired, unanticipated, or conflicting ways

• a consideration of the connection between the case study and largertheoretical and practical issues in the field

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READINGON CASE STUDY RESEARCH

Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education (4th ed.). London:Routledge.

Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Duff, P. (2002). Research approaches in applied linguistics. In R. Kaplan (Ed.),Handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 13–23). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Duff, P. (in press). Case study research in applied linguistics. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Faltis, C. (1997). Case study methods in researching language and education. In

N. Hornberger & D. Corson (Eds.), Research methods in language and education (pp.145–152). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research (6th ed.). London:Longman.

Hatch, E. (Ed.). (1978). Second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Johnson, D. (1992). Approaches to research in second language learning. New York:

Longman.Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Palys, T. (1997). Research decisions: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives (2nd ed.).

Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative

competence. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and second languageacquisition (pp. 137–174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a secondlanguage: A case study of an adult learner. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp.237–322). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Stake, R. E. (1994). Identification of the case. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),

Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 236–247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Weitzman, E., & Miles, M. (1995). Computer programs for qualitative data analysis.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

RESEARCH ISSUES 169

Conversation Analysis

� The following guidelines are provided for submissions using anethnomethodological approach to conversation analysis (CA) as origi-nated by Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) and Schegloff, Jefferson,and Sacks (1977). From this perspective, the principal goal of CA is toexplicate and interpret how participants achieve everyday courses ofaction by orienting to the underlying structural organization of talk-in-interaction.

ASSUMPTIONS

CA studies submitted to TESOL Quarterly should exhibit an in-depthunderstanding of the ethnomethodological philosophical perspectivesand methodologies of CA research (see Firth, 1996; Firth & Wagner,1997; Markee, 1994, 1995, 2000; Schegloff, Koshik, Jacoby, & Olsher,2002; Seedhouse, 1997, 1999; Wagner, 1996). Utilizing these perspectivesand methods in the course of conducting CA research helps ensure thatstudies represent credible accounts of participants’ orientations to thebehaviors they display to each other and therefore to analysts. Reports ofCA studies should meet the following criteria:1. The kinds of data analyzed should include naturally occurring data

from either ordinary conversation (i.e., ordinary chatting amongfriends) or institutional talk (e.g., ESL classroom talk, oral profi-ciency interviews, writing conferences).

2. The report should focus on the usual topics of CA research (seeDrew, 1994). These topics include, but are not limited to, theorganization of sequences (i.e., courses of action), turn-taking andrepair practices, syntax-for-conversation, the structure of speechevents, and the integration of speech and gesture. Analyses shoulddemonstrate how native speakers/users of English, nonnative speak-ers/users of English, or both deploy these aspects of interactionalcompetence to communicate in or learn this language.

3. The research should aim to uncover an emic perspective. In otherwords, the study focuses on participants’ contextualized perspectivesand interpretations of behavior, events, and situations rather thanetic (outsider-imposed) categories, models, and viewpoints (van Lier,1988).

4. The primary data in the study should be the conversational andother behaviors that participants produce for each other in realtime. The notion of context is principally understood as the talk thatimmediately precedes and follows the conversational object understudy (Heritage, 1988); this is sometimes referred to as the cotext of

170 TESOL QUARTERLY

talk (Brown & Yule, 1983). Other important aspects of contextinclude the integration of embodied action and gesture with talk(Schegloff et al., 2002).

5. The conversational analysis may be supplemented by ethnographi-cally oriented notions of context that entail the use of triangulatedsecondary data (such as think-aloud protocols, interviews, or diaries;see van Lier, 1988). The study may establish theoretical links to otherperspectives on talk-in-interaction, such as Vygotskyan analyses oflearners’ zones of proximal development (Ohta, 2001).

6. Data collection strategies include the collection of videotapes, audio-tapes, or both of talk-in-interaction, which are then transcribedaccording to the conventions of CA developed by Gail Jefferson (seeAtkinson & Heritage, 1984; Boden & Zimmerman, 1991; Goodwin,1981). Videotapes are strongly preferred because of the importanceof embodied aspects of interaction.

7. In all cases, the recordings are considered to be the definitive sourceof information about the behaviors that were observed. Transcriptsare understood as a tool for analysis to be used in conjunction withrecordings.

8. External materials, such as classroom materials, interview schedulesor drafts of papers, may be introduced into the database whenrelevant and appropriate, such as when participants themselvesorient to these materials.

DATA ANALYSIS

Data analysis is guided by the ethnomethodological philosophy,methods, and goals of CA research.

1. You should provide a comprehensive treatment of the data underdiscussion by demonstrating how participants collaboratively co-construct their talk. This entails analyzing prototypical examples oftalk-in-interaction, which may consist of either single cases or collec-tions of particular types of conversational objects. Ensure that youcan warrant your claims by pointing to a convergence of differenttypes of textual evidence and, where relevant, by demonstrating thecharacteristics of a particular practice across a variety of contexts( Jacobs, 1986, 1987).

2. You may use CA findings to generate hypotheses for subsequentexperimental research. However, this is not the principal aim of CAresearch (Schegloff, 1993). If you use quantification, ensure that itonly follows careful analysis of the individual cases that are beingquantified, with categories for quantification emerging from this

RESEARCH ISSUES 171

analysis of individual cases (Stivers, 2001, in press). However, thequantification of data is rarely an important issue in CA research.

THE CA REPORT

CA reports submitted to TESOL Quarterly should include the followinginformation:1. a clear statement of the research issues2. a description of the research site, participants, procedures for

ensuring participant anonymity, and data collection strategies3. an empirically based description of a clear and salient organization

of patterns found through data analysis—including representativeexamples, not anecdotal information

4. interpretations in which you trace the underlying organization ofpatterns across all contexts in which they are embedded

5. a discussion of how the data analyzed in the study connect with andshed light on current theoretical and practical issues in the acquisi-tion and use of English as an L2

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READINGON CONVERSATION ANALYSIS

Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1984). Transcript notation. In J. M. Atkinson &J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. ix–xvi). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Boden, D., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1991). Transcription appendix. In D. Boden &D. H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure (pp. 278–282). Cambridge:Polity.

Brown, G., & Yule, G. (983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Drew, P. (1994). Conversation analysis. In R. E. Asher (Ed.), The encyclopedia oflanguage and linguistics (pp. 749–754). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On “lingua franca”English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237–259.

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) funda-mental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 285–300.

Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization. New York: Academic Press.Heritage, J. (1988). Current developments in conversation analysis. In D. Roger &

P. Bull (Eds.), Conversation (pp. 21–47). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Jacobs, S. (1986). How to make an argument from example. In D. G. Ellis & W. A.

Donohue (Eds.), Contemporary issues in language and discourse processes (pp. 149–167). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jacobs, S. (1987). Commentary on Zimmerman: Evidence and inference in conversa-tion analysis. Communication Yearbook, 11, 433–443.

Markee, N. (1994). Toward an ethnomethodological respecification of secondlanguage acquisition studies. In E. Tarone, S. Gass, & A. Cohen (Eds.), Researchmethodology in second language acquisition (pp. 89–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

172 TESOL QUARTERLY

Markee, N. (1995). Teachers’ answers to students’ questions: Problematizing theissue of making meaning. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 63–92.

Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the

organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.Schegloff, E. A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation.

Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 99–128.Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in

the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.Schegloff, E. A., Koshik, I., Jacoby, S., & Olsher, D. (2002). Conversation analysis and

applied linguistics. American Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 3–31.Seedhouse, P. (1997). The case of the missing “no”: The relationship between

pedagogy and interaction. Language Learning, 47, 547–583.Seedhouse, P. (1999). The relationship between context and the organization of

repair in the L2 classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 59–80.Stivers, T. (2001). Negotiating who presents the problem: Next speaker selection in

pediatric encounters. Journal of Communication, 51, 252–282.Stivers, T. (in press). Presenting the problem in pediatric encounters: “Symptoms

only” versus “candidate diagnosis” presentations. Health Communication, 14, 3.van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. New York: Longman.Wagner, J. (1996). Foreign language acquisition through interaction—A critical

review of research on conversational adjustments. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 215–236.

(Critical) Ethnography

� The following guidelines are provided for submissions to TESOLQuarterly adopting an ethnographic approach by developing a firsthand,contextualized, naturalistic, hypotheses-generating, emic orientation tothe study of TESOL through the study of culture. Ethnography repre-sents diverse research approaches (Atkinson, Coffey, Delamont, Lofland,& Lofland, 2001), and the form and content of ethnographic reportsthus vary considerably.

ASSUMPTIONS

Research approaches that use the qualifier critical differ from descrip-tive or interpretive approaches, which historically adopted a more de-tached, objective, value-free orientation to knowledge, although there issome convergence between critical and descriptive approaches withincontemporary ethnography. Critical approaches align themselves withthe post-Enlightenment philosophical tradition of situating research inits social context to consider how knowledge is shaped by the values ofhuman agents and communities, implicated in power differences, and

RESEARCH ISSUES 173

favorable for democratizing relationships and institutions. A criticalapproach questions the traditional separation of theory and method,interpretation and data, subjective and objective, and ethics and science,and particularly the treatment of the second term in each pair asconstituting valid research. Critical ethnography prefers to see thesebinary constructs as interconnected, making mutual contributions toknowledge.

Ethnography (and critical ethnography in particular) adopts a com-plex theoretical orientation toward culture. Culture—in collectives ofdiffering magnitude, whether educational institutions, student commu-nities, classrooms, or activity groups—is treated as heterogeneous, con-flictual, negotiated, and evolving, as distinct from unified, cohesive,fixed, and static. Also, in contrast with a relativistic view of cultures asdifferent-but-equal, critical ethnography explicitly assumes that culturesare positioned unequally in power relations. Furthermore, critical eth-nography sees descriptions of culture as shaped by the interests of theresearcher, the sponsors of the project, the audience, and the dominantcommunities. Therefore, cultural representations are acknowledged asalways being somewhat partial and partisan. Studies that claim to adoptan ethnographic approach should be informed by the theoreticalassumptions motivating this research practice.1. Because of the diversity of perspectives represented within ethnogra-

phy, be as explicit as possible about the disciplinary traditions ormodels of ethnographic scholarship that have influenced your work(e.g., cultural anthropology, sociology, sociolinguistics, linguisticanthropology, ethnography of communication, cultural studies). Awide array of approaches exist, including but not limited to herme-neutics, symbolic interactionism, critical theories, feminist theories,postmodernisms, constructivism, and critical humanism.

2. State explicitly your specific approach and its underlying assump-tions and beliefs about the nature of ethnographic knowledge. Forexample, do you believe that ethnographic findings are scientific,aimed at uncovering patterned social realities? Or do you believethat the purpose of ethnography is interpretive, aimed at developinginsights into the symbolic meanings of experiences for participants?Or do you believe that the purpose of ethnography is, more critically,the pursuit of social justice?

3. State explicitly the conventions for data collection, analysis, andreporting that are typical within your chosen school(s) of thought,and cite exemplars from previously published work.

174 TESOL QUARTERLY

DATA

1. Show evidence of residing or spending considerable lengths of timeinteracting with people in the study setting, observing and recordingtheir activities as they unfolded through means such as field notes(see, e.g., Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995), audio and video record-ings, or both. A hallmark of ethnography is extended, firsthandparticipant observation and interactions with participants in thestudy setting.

2. Record participant beliefs and attitudes through such typical meansas notes or transcribed recordings of informal conversation andinterviews, and participant journals (see Salzman, 2001).

3. Include several different sources of data. Besides participant observa-tion and interactions with participants, these sources might includelife histories (Darnell, 2001) and narrative analysis (Cortazzi, 2001),photography, audio or video recordings (Nastasi, 1999), writtendocuments (Brewer, 2000), data documenting historical trends, andquestionnaires and surveys (Salzman, 2001).

4. If called for, as they often are in critical ethnography (as well as inmany cases of descriptive/interpretive ethnography), use additionalsources of data and reflection. These include

• evidence of how the power differences between you and theinformants/subjects were negotiated. Though it is idealistic tothink that power differences can be totally eliminated, addresshow they were managed, modified, or shifted and how theyinfluenced the data gathered.

• your attitudes and biases toward the community and its culture.Record how the your perspectives changed during the course ofthe research and how these changes shaped the data gathered.

• the impact of your activities and behavior on the community.State whether you involved yourself in the ethical, social, orpolitical challenges faced by the community. Include in the datathe way such practical engagements may have generated deeperinsights or affected the research (and the ways you negotiatedthese tensions).

• the conflicts and inconsistencies in the statements made by theinformants (or community insiders). Rather than favoring oneset of data over the other or neatly tying all the loose strands toarrive at generalizations, wrestle with the diversity of insiderperspectives in order to represent culture with complexity.

• a broadened understanding of the context of the culture.Although context is being constantly (re)created through talk

RESEARCH ISSUES 175

even as the informants interact with the researcher, reflect in thedata the way larger forces outside the community shape culture.Study how social institutions and political agencies affect thelocal culture, and, similarly, seek historical data on the status ofthe culture before and after the research.

5. Because ethnographic analytical procedures vary by researchers’schools of thought, you may incorporate quantitative as well asqualitative procedures and instruments if appropriate (see, e.g.,Bernard, 2002).

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

1. Emphasize emic—or participant—attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, andpractices, as the objective of ethnography is to come to a deeperunderstanding of how people in particular contexts experience theirsocial and cultural worlds.

2. Practice reflexivity, a process of self-examination and self-disclosureabout aspects of your own background, identities or subjectivities,and assumptions that influence data collection and interpretation.

3. Approach data analysis and findings through an inductive andrecursive process. Expect patterns, categories, or themes to evolve asdata collection proceeds rather than imposing them a priori.

4. In the report, show evidence of triangulation, a systematic process oflooking across multiple data sources for findings and confirming ordisconfirming evidence.

5. Note that because of its firsthand, experiential nature, ethnographicknowledge is necessarily tied to particular contexts and periods oftime. However, most contemporary ethnographers view it as impor-tant to acknowledge the instability and ever-evolving nature of thecultures under study, and to explore their nestedness in and interde-pendence with broader sociocultural contexts.

6. Note that while ethnographic reports may present abstractions andgeneralizations about attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs of the culturesunder study, many ethnographers acknowledge and represent het-erogeneity and diversity within the cultures or cultural scenes understudy (see below).

7. Give evidence that you have interpreted the tensions implicit in theresearch with complexity and openness, particularly (but not exclu-sively) in critical research• between insider (emic) and outsider (etic) perspectives. Your

relative outsider status and generalized etic perspectives canoffer interpretive angles that are not available to the insiders.

176 TESOL QUARTERLY

• between macro- and microperspectives on the culture. Thoughthe strength of ethnography is its localized, detailed, groundedperspective, global forces from ideological, economic, and geo-political structures influence local culture. Sensitivity to themacrolevel shaping of the local culture will provide criticalinsights into the prospects for community empowerment.

• between the structural and the temporal. Although descriptiveethnography traditionally may have valued capturing the histori-cal present—that is, culture as a self-contained and well-con-structed static system—critical ethnography considers culture asopen to historical influences and itself shaping history, though itis relatively autonomous from other social institutions.

• between interpreting and explaining. Critical ethnography rec-ognizes that culture-as-ideology can lead to certain misinterpre-tations of social life. Similarly, a culture that is merely lived out isnot always open to critical reflection for insiders. With sufficientrespect and sensitivity to the community, you may attempt toexplain some of the questions/contradictions left open in theinformant’s interpretation of things.

• between the parts and the whole of the culture. To explain awaythe tensions in a culture is to impose a consistency and unifor-mity on the community that serves to stereotype, essentialize,and generalize its culture reductively. Thus, a critical interpreta-tion represents the culture in all its complexity, instability, anddiversity.

• between the different subject positions of the researcher. Adopta reflexive approach; interpret your own biases, backgrounds,and identities (e.g., of scholarship, ethnicity, class, gender,region) both in the field and outside; and acknowledge the waysthey shape the research and cultural representation.

8. Indicate the social implications of the cultural description. Interpre-tation in critical ethnography values not only the validity of the study(e.g., enhanced by triangulation of data or the sophistication ofmethods used), but also the social usefulness of the research and theways it addresses issues of social justice, human development, andethical integrity.

THE CRITICAL ETHNOGRAPHY REPORT

Established genres of the research article may not always be suitablefor reporting ethnographic studies that practice a critical ethnography.The dominant Introduction-Method-Results-Discussion structure is often

RESEARCH ISSUES 177

more amenable to reporting descriptive and scientific studies informedby Enlightenment values, typically presenting a detached, controlled,authorially imposed version of the findings. Other emergent genres ofresearch reporting adopt greater reflexivity (in representing the personalshaping of the findings, in light of the changing biases, subject positions,and involvement of the researcher), narratives (for a more indirect,context-bound, personal form of theorization), multivocality (for textual-izing the plural perspectives and voices—of different informants, re-searchers, participants—on the same culture), authorial collaboration (ininvolving the participants/informants in the representation of thefindings), and open-endedness (in dramatizing the tensions in interpreta-tion and data from the field, and encouraging the readers to formalternate paradigms of interpretation). Develop a mode of textualrepresentation that suits your research experience, objectives, beliefsabout the nature of ethnographic knowledge, and preferences.

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING ON ETHNOGRAPHY

Anderson, G. (1989). Critical ethnography in education: Origins, current status, andnew directions. Review of Educational Research, 59, 249–270.

Athanases, S. Z., & Heath, S. B. (1995). Ethnography in the study of the teaching andlearning of English. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 263–287.

Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (2001). Editorialintroduction. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland(Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 1–7). London: Sage.

Belsey, C. (1983). Critical practice. London: Methuen.Berkenkotter, C. (1993). A “rhetoric for naturalistic inquiry” and the question of

genre. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 293–304.Bernard, H. R. (2002). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches (3rd ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Brewer, J. D. (2000). Ethnography. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.Canagarajah, A. S. (1993). Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom: Ambigu-

ities in opposition to reproduction through ESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 601–626.Canagarajah, A. S. (1996). From critical research practice to critical research

reporting. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 320–330.Cortazzi, M. (2001). Narrative analysis in ethnography. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey,

S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 384–394). London: Sage.

Darnell, R. (2001). Invisible genealogies: A history of Americanist anthropology. Lincoln:University of Nebraska Press.

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications forapplied linguistics research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 9–35.

Marcus, G., & Fischer, M. M. J. (1986). Anthropology as cultural critique: An experimentalmoment in the human sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Nastasi, B. K. (1999). Audiovisual methods in ethnography. In J. J. Schensul, M. D.LeCompte, B. K. Nastasi, & S. P. Borgatti (Eds.), Enhanced ethnographic methods:

178 TESOL QUARTERLY

Audiovisual techniques, focused group interviews, and elicitation techniques (pp. 1–50).Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Peirce, B. N. (1995). The theory of methodology in qualitative research. TESOLQuarterly, 29, 569–576.

Pennycook, A. (1994). Critical pedagogical approaches to research. TESOL Quarterly,28, 690–693.

Salzman, P. C. (2001). Understanding culture: An introduction to anthropological theory.Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Scheurich, J. J., & Young, M. D. (1997). Coloring epistemologies: Are our researchepistemologies racially biased? Educational Researcher, 26(4), 4–17.


REVIEWSTESOL Quarterly welcomes evaluative reviews of publications relevant to TESOLprofessionals.

Edited by ROBERTA J. VANNIowa State University

The Practice of English Language Teaching (3rd ed.).Jeremy Harmer. Essex, England: Longman, 2001. Pp. xii + 370.

� Harmer’s third edition of The Practice of English Language Teaching(PELT) is a guide to the teaching of World English for the 21st century. Itpresents a comprehensive view of English language teaching theoriesand practices that is both carefully researched and imbued with uncom-mon sense. As such, it represents a refreshing alternative to ESOLmethods textbooks that limit their focus to a single privileged (andpredictable) methodological approach or a narrow set of nationallanguage concerns. At the same time, its comprehensiveness underlinesthe problem of trying to fit a bit of everything related to “the science andart of teaching English” (p. x) as an additional language between thecovers of one general methods text.

PELT runs the gamut of issues related to teaching ESOL, from thecurrent role of English in world affairs to the classroom behaviorproblems of unmotivated learners. As such, it leads something of adouble life; while it advertises itself as a teacher’s guide to be used for in-service training programs and postgraduate courses, its encyclopediccoverage results in a somewhat awkward compromise between a refer-ence work and a course textbook. Indeed, given its nine major sectionsand 24 chapters, it is difficult to imagine the traditional semester-lengthcollege course that could do justice to the entire book.

PELT is intended for an audience with some previous EFL classroomexperience or training, but even though it is most definitely not an entry-level text, it is written in a clean, easygoing style, fully accessible andrelatively free of jargon. Harmer has a light touch that dispels the notionthat professional writing must be dry and humorless (his section onbehaviorist theory is titled “Pulling Habits out of Rats”). Like the writingstyle, the layout is clean and attractive, with numerous graphs, tables, and

180 TESOL QUARTERLY

illustrations. In addition to chapter references, there are a five-page,double-column bibliography, separate subject and author indexes, andfollow-up activities for each chapter.

PELT offers a range of topics not often covered in ESOL methodstexts: handling classroom discipline problems, preparing students to beautonomous learners after the language course is over, avoiding simplis-tic praise-or-correct feedback routines, grouping students, being sensi-tive to cultural influences on students’ learning styles, and stayingcurrent professionally, to name but a few. There is even advice on whatbeverages to avoid during class breaks. In the new edition Harmer hasadded material on World English, corpus linguistics, and computertechnology for the language classroom.

The book strikes a balance between theory and practice, generally infavor of the latter. The chapter on second language acquisition theory isquite short, and the extensive technical chapters are crammed withactivities for receptive and productive skill classes. There is a specialchapter devoted to using and making classroom videos. Perhaps PELT’sgreatest strength is the knowing insight it displays into the psychologiesof learners and teachers. Harmer is particularly sensitive to the concernsof nonnative-speaking teachers of English and warns repeatedly againstbuying uncritically into culturally biased, Western notions of learningstyles and pedagogical approaches.

The book has a few obvious problems. There is no section on teachinggrammar, nor is there any discussion of prescriptivist notions of correct-ness, one of the most contentious topics in teachers’ lounges around theworld. The English linguistics chapters (general overviews of pronuncia-tion, grammar, vocabulary, pragmatics, and discourse) are thin, and onewonders if they belong in a methods book at all. (This is a problem thatBrown’s Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy,2001, avoids by eliminating such content altogether.) Two chapters,“Studying Language” and “Learner Autonomy and Teacher Develop-ment,” seem to be somewhat random collections of interesting pedagogi-cal ideas in search of a central focus. The references are generally biasedin favor of authors and publishers in the United Kingdom (e.g., there isno mention of TESOL Quarterly or TESOL Journal in the chapter devotedto professional literature), though this bias is probably no worse than theopposite one found in U.S. textbooks.

On balance, The Practice of English Language Teaching is a thoughtfuland readable alternative to many less internationally minded ESOLmethods books. If one were to have but one general guide to theteaching of EFL, one could do far worse than Harmer’s.

REVIEWS 181

REFERENCE

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language (2nded.). Essex, England: Longman.

ROBERT WEISSBERGNew Mexico State UniversityLas Cruces, New Mexico, United States

Teachers’ Narrative Inquiry as Professional Development.Karen E. Johnson and Paula R. Golombek (Eds.). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2002. Pp. xii + 212.

� Johnson and Golombek’s recent edited volume, Teachers’ NarrativeInquiry as Professional Development, is a collection of 13 highly contextualizednarratives that reveal how L2 teachers, by (re)storying their realities,dilemmas, and epiphanies, navigate their complex professional knowl-edge landscapes (Clandinin & Connelly, 1995).

The book’s introduction describes the philosophy, procedures, andpotentials of the use of teachers’ narratives as a way of knowing byteachers and as a tool for their professional development. Johnson andGolombek organize the 13 stories in the book into four parts: inquiryinto instructional practices, inquiry into language learners, inquiry intolanguage teachers, and inquiry through professional collaboration.Although each of the 13 stories successfully foregrounds one of thesefour aspects of L2 teachers’ professional development, they can also beread as nuanced, multifaceted accounts in their own right. Indeed, allthe stories are thick, varied accounts of teachers who (re)story their pastand imagine their future while living the exigencies of a present that ismediated by their ever-evolving (re)conceptualization of curriculums,students, teachers, professional knowledge, and institutional constraints—from the story of integrating a literature-based curriculum in a secondaryschool in the Canadian Northwest, to the story that gives voice to thehidden ESL community of international spouses in the United States, tothe story of a Japanese teacher of English whose desire for satisfactionhas driven his growth as a teacher, to that of an English teacher in Spainwho comes to grips with the quiet students in his class through dialogueswith colleagues outside his institution.

Reading through the book, one notices that the editors are vigilant tothe possibilities of these stories being misread as other people’s storiesthat are not necessarily relevant to the readers or as other people’s bestpractices that should be emulated. Instead, the editors want the stories to

182 TESOL QUARTERLY

be a collective set that preservice or in-service teachers as well as teachereducators and researchers can deconstruct, co-compose, and rearticulate.To achieve this aim, the editors devised initial research questions,discussion questions, and reflective activities for each of the four parts ofthe book to engage the readers not only in reading these narratives butalso in composing their own stories, for their own professional development.

Teachers’ narrative inquiry has come of age in general teachereducation research: It has gone from being dismissed as undertheorizedand anecdotal, to being recognized as a useful method for researchers toget an anthropological glimpse of classroom practices (Heath, 1983), tofinally becoming a legitimate source of teacher-generated knowledgeand a viable tool for teachers’ professional development (Clandinin &Connelly, 2000). This volume, the first in L2 teacher education researchliterature that fully employs in-service L2 teachers’ narratives as a tool ofinquiry for professional development, should not only inspire morenarrative-based inquiries by L2 teachers but also facilitate the recon-figuration of L2 teacher education research so that teachers’ storied waysof knowing and being in the classroom will play a more prominent role.

REFERENCES

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1995). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes.New York: Teachers College Press.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: experience and story inqualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities andclassrooms. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

AN CHENGThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, Pennsylvania, United States

Continuing Cooperative Development:A Discourse Framework for Individuals as Colleagues.Julian Edge. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2002.Pp. 295.

� ESOL teachers today are increasingly engaged in investigations oftheir pedagogical beliefs and methodology. This is no accident. Theconvergence of reflective teaching, action research, and the teacher-as-researcher movement has shaped what is now being called the newscholarship (Zeichner, 1999). Edge’s book is on the cutting edge of thisscholarship. Like Burns (1999), he approaches action research as a

REVIEWS 183

collaborative practice in which colleagues serve as sounding boards whohelp formulate one’s ideas. Edge calls his method of reflective practicecooperative development (CD). In CD, a teacher talks about his or herteaching with a nonjudgmental colleague who listens to and helps focusthis talk, with the aim of uncovering professional development issues forinvestigation. The ultimate goal is to empower teachers through profes-sional actions based on their own understanding of their classroomteaching situation.

The book, a complete revision of Edge’s 1992 publication, has foursections. In the first two chapters, Edge explains his approach. Hisaudience is in-service teachers who reject formulaic methods and so-called best practices while possessing a genuine interest in professionaldevelopment. Part 2 contains instructional tasks to assist colleagues inlearning this cooperative approach to self-development. Part 3 discussesa number of experiences on using CD recorded by teachers from aroundthe world. The book ends with a reference section explaining the originsof the tasks presented.

The heart of this book is the six brief chapters in Part 2 that togetherform a training manual for teachers to begin to learn to talk about theirteaching in a new way by learning the roles of speaker and understander.The speaker is the person seeking professional development, whoinitiates an exchange. The understander supports a colleague’s develop-ment, not simply by listening but by understanding. To the uninitiatedthis may sound straightforward, but the role of understander is achallenging one to master. The understander can never insert his or herown views on matters raised by the speaker but is limited to restatingideas and challenging the speaker to reconcile incoherent thoughts. Thepractice tasks train the understander in such techniques as attendingand reflecting, wherein the understander must listen attentively andreflect back what he or she thinks the speaker is saying by constantlytrying to understand (“This is what I’m hearing . . . .”). The hope is thatby hearing his or her own words restated and further attempting toclarify ideas, the speaker might gain insights into his or her practice.

To gain an appreciation for this approach, readers must work throughthe tasks in Part 2. In doing so, one encounters some of the potentialproblems in implementing CD. For example, it might be difficult to findcolleagues with whom one can be open about problems in pedagogy, andthe key understander role is difficult to master. Readers seeking toimplement CD may find the design of some of the activities artificial ortoo clinical. As a colleague and I began learning this new discourse fordevelopment, we varied from feeling self-conscious to feeling uncertainand frustrated. Yet at the conclusion of every session we agreed that, witha sincere effort, the purpose and value of each task became apparent.

The approach’s artificiality and structure have benefits. CD encourages

184 TESOL QUARTERLY

the scheduling of regular meetings to think about teaching. Thesemeetings are unlike other meetings between colleagues in that they mustbe structured in advance and are focused on individual development.For teachers interested in reflective practice, CD provides a frameworkto assist them in exploring what is happening in their classrooms in adisciplined way while colleagues supply the emotional support needed tosustain momentum once reflection has begun.

REFERENCES

Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Edge, J. (1992). Cooperative development. Harlow, England: Longman.Zeichner, K. (1999). The new scholarship in teacher education. Educational Re-

searcher, 28(9), 4–15.

TIMOTHY STEWARTMiyazaki International CollegeMiyazaki, Japan

Second Language Writers’ Text: Linguistic and Rhetorical Features.Eli Hinkel. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2002. Pp. xx + 370.

� Second Language Writers’ Text makes a strong case for changes in the wayESL writing is typically taught to students for academic purposes. Hinkelpresents detailed discussion comparing the frequency with which 68linguistic features are used by university L2 writers and native speakers(NSs) writing on the same essay prompts in first-year compositioncourses. Her analysis of this corpus of almost 1,500 essays leads her toconclude that the L2 writers are greatly limited in the range of vocabu-lary, syntactic structures, and collocations they can draw on for academicwriting, and she calls for changes in teacher preparation and instruc-tional approaches.

Her theoretical framework draws on contrastive rhetoric as sheanalyzes the students’ writing by L1 (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Viet-namese, Indonesian, and Arabic are represented) along with Bereiterand Scardamalia’s (1987) notions of knowledge telling versus knowledgetransforming to define the kind of writing that is highly valued inacademia. Hinkel characterizes the L2 writers’ essays as primarily knowl-edge telling, full of recounts of personal experience and exemplificationwithout argumentation. By presenting the differences in grammaticalchoices made by NSs and L2 writers, Hinkel highlights the linguistic basisof her claim that the L2 writers rely much more heavily on the grammar

REVIEWS 185

of everyday interaction while less academically experienced NSs areusing more highly valued features of academic registers. For example,Hinkel demonstrates that the L2 writers rely on simple conjunctions,exemplification markers, and demonstrative pronouns to establish textcohesion—devices appropriate to the personal stories they are tellingbut different from the lexical ties used more frequently by NSs as theyprovide evidence for their arguments.

Hinkel also compares students’ responses to different prompts, dem-onstrating that the type of prompt affects the texts students write. Hergeneral finding is that the prompts that led students to draw on theirown experiences resulted in essays with personal narratives or statementsof belief/opinion, options that Hinkel argues require little thought andare less valued in the academic context. On the other hand, this type ofprompt was most popular with teachers, who thought students couldrelate to these topics and produce large amounts of text. Teachers wereright about the amount of text produced; L2 writers exceeded NSs in theamount they wrote. But the students relied on conversational registers,producing essays with fewer of the linguistic features that the NSs chose.

Hinkel repeatedly highlights the disparity between what teachers andtextbooks typically recommend for L2 writers and what students actuallyneed. She suggests that a focus on process writing does students adisservice when they are in academic contexts, where their knowledgewill ultimately be assessed through products. She argues for substantialchanges in ESL grammar and writing instruction to put a greater focuson teaching language, especially those structures that are most impor-tant for academic writing.

This is a valuable book, full of detailed information about students’grammatical choices. The extensive tables provide a comparison oflinguistic features by essay prompt and L1, with lots of detail about thefrequency of occurrence of particular structures. Presentation of thelinguistic features one by one out of context does present some prob-lems; for example, nominalization seems to overlap with some other nouncategories, and seeing nominalization as a set of discrete lexical itemsrather than as a grammatical process leads Hinkel to focus on vocabularyas students’ primary need rather than highlighting the interaction oflexis and grammar for functional purposes (see, e.g., Lock, 1996). Herconclusions, however, strongly recommend substantial changes in ESLwriting and grammar pedagogy to increase focus on the textual func-tions of grammatical features.

REFERENCES

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

186 TESOL QUARTERLY

Lock, G. (1996). Functional English grammar: An introduction for second language teachers.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

MARY J. SCHLEPPEGRELLUniversity of CaliforniaDavis, California, United States

Genre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspectives.Ann M. Johns (Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2002. Pp. i + 350.

� In the preface to Genre in the Classroom, Johns laments the fact thatdespite the varied and exciting work occurring in genre studies, discus-sions of pedagogy are rather thin on the ground. This collection ofarticles addresses this lack by describing research and teaching that bringgenre theory directly into language classrooms. In doing so, it providesnot only a wealth of ideas for teachers but also a practical survey of thetheoretical camps that have developed in genre studies worldwide.

The book’s seven parts range along a continuum of viewpoints withingenre theory and practice. Sections representing major schools ofthought are each followed by a section that examines related issues andextensions of the school’s approach to genre-based pedagogy. The firsttwo parts, “The Sydney School” and “Related Approaches,” represent thelinguistic end of the continuum, with chapters describing classroomapplications of Hallidayan systemic-functional linguistics as well as theuse of text type and lexicogrammatical analysis in ESL classrooms. Part 3looks at genre from the perspective of English for specific purposes(ESP), focusing on macrolevel features of texts and including a chaptercoauthored by one of the movement’s greatest proponents, John Swales.The next section, “Bridging Text and Context,” considers genres and thecontexts that produce them, including their communicative purposes,and writers’ and readers’ socially constituted roles. Part 5, “The NewRhetoric,” represents the social constructivist end of the continuum,where genres are viewed as highly contextualized communicative eventsthat can never be adequately discussed apart from the situations in whichthey occur. This is followed, appropriately enough, by “PedagogicalQuandaries” (Part 6), which examines the practical problems thatteachers face as they attempt to apply this contextual view of genres towriting instruction, which is out of the genres’ original contexts.

One interesting feature of the book is its somewhat unorthodoxconclusion: a chapter by William Grabe, followed by responses fromscholars in each of the three schools of thought represented in the restof the book. Grabe contends that narrative and expository writing

REVIEWS 187

constitute two macro-genres that subsume most, if not all, other genres,thus constituting an important organizing principle for readers andwriters. The responses that follow, from J. R. Martin of the SydneySchool, Vijay Bhatia of ESP, and Carol Berkenkotter of the New Rhetoric,raise various objections to Grabe’s argument, suggesting that his macro-genres ignore the specificity of text, purpose, and situation that genresembody.

Anyone familiar with Johns’s previous work (e.g., Johns, 1997) knowsthat she tends toward the ESP/New Rhetoric end of the scale, and thebook reflects this standpoint, most obviously in the arrangement of thechapters, which progresses away from the Sydney School and toward theNew Rhetoric. Nevertheless, while those expecting an explicit how-tobook on using genre in the classroom may be disappointed, readers—not only ESL composition teachers but just about anyone involved inliteracy instruction—will find a book of truly international scope, with adiversity of perspectives offering plenty of food for thought.

REFERENCES

Johns, A. (1997). Text, role and context: Developing academic literacies. New York:Cambridge University Press.

PETER CLEMENTSUniversity of WashingtonSeattle, Washington, United States

Literature-Based Instruction With English Language Learners.Nancy L. Hadaway, Sylvia M. Vardell, and Terrell A. Young.Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2002. Pp. iii + 294.

� Hadaway, Vardell, and Young make a simple but compelling argumentin Literature-Based Instruction With English Language Learners: Using litera-ture is one of the best ways (if not the best way) to promote languageacquisition among English language learners in a K–12 setting. Theybase their argument on current second language acquisition (SLA)theory and their understanding of the academic language and contentneeds of English language learners. The latter part of their argument,which deals with academic language needs, is somewhat novel in thatmany ESL teachers and content teachers fail to see how languagelearning and content learning can complement each other through theuse of literature. The authors contend that too often literature isoverlooked because it is deemed too difficult. Instead, teachers rely on

188 TESOL QUARTERLY

basals and textbooks that are not only simplified but also pose aparticular problem for the English language learner because they arefrustrating and boring (p. 43). Literature, on the hand, provides the richvocabulary and syntax that English language learners need in anappealing and motivating format. The authors are careful to emphasizethat literature is not a pedagogical panacea: Classroom teachers mustwork diligently to incorporate literature into their language or contentlesson. The authors offer ample practical suggestions for doing so.

The 12-chapter book is organized into four sections. Section 1discusses the current situation of English language learners in K–12settings, theories of SLA, and ways literature can address these issues.Section 2 covers the connection between literature and the traditionallanguage development areas of oral skills, reading, and writing. Section3 reveals how culture can be covered in a literature-based approach.Section 4 discusses how literature can be a basis for an exploration ofacademic content.

The book’s merits include its lucid argument in favor of literature forEnglish language learners. The authors point out that fiction is not theonly type of literature for English language learners. Indeed, in today’spublishing market there are many nonfiction trade books that would bevery valid for a range of content and language learning. Other meritsinclude a sizable list of books that can be used by K–12 learners at variousproficiency levels. This sort of list is invaluable to both ESL teachers andcontent teachers. Equally valuable are the practical suggestions (sup-ported by research and theory) on how to incorporate literature into theclassroom for English language learners. Finally, the sections on poetry,folklore, and nonfiction literature explore seldom-discussed avenuesthat promise benefits for language acquisition.

One potentially negative aspect of the book is that, in their zeal topromote the use of literature, the authors may leave novice teachers withthe impression that a purely naturalistic approach to all languagelearning matters is sufficient. This is not the authors’ intent, and theycaution against it. Despite this one element, the book would be veryuseful for beginning ESL teachers in its review of SLA principles andtheir application to this approach. It would be very valuable to experi-enced ESL teachers and content teachers in its suggestions for the use ofliterature and rich list of specific books. Experienced ESL teachers whoare well versed in applied linguistics will find the first two chapters asomewhat superficial treatment of SLA theory and will want to skip them.

Today’s language learning pedagogy tends to rely too heavily on drillsand exercises and loses sight of the fact that one of the goals of languagedevelopment and literacy is not only the development of academiclanguage proficiency but also the promotion of lifelong reading andlearning. This book’s strength is that it makes teachers and pedagogues

REVIEWS 189

reevaluate some of their educational goals and the avenues for achievingthem.

DAVID JOHNSONKennesaw State UniversityKennesaw, Georgia, United States

The Power of Tests: A Critical Perspectiveon the Uses of Language Tests.Elana Shohamy. Harlow, England: Pearson Education, 2001.Pp. xi + 182.

� Shohamy has trenchantly articulated the issues that surround the usesand misuses of high-stakes tests in the current age of near-neuroticaccountability. This book documents the sociopolitical contexts and theglobal cultures of power-wielding, top-down authority—quite simply, thevoices of the oppressor and the oppressed. Shohamy is direct, clear, andcogent. Language is never limp or dehumanizing. The voices of despairare clear and authentic, as when she recounts the following experienceshared with a fellow scholar in language testing and assessment:

On a memorable night in a bar . . . in . . . the Netherlands, during aconference on language testing, my friend and colleague Tim McNamara andmyself found ourselves deeply engaged in a conversation with a drug junkie. . . [who] recalled . . . taking a standardized test in 7th grade and failing itbadly . . . . From that point on his father started rejecting him. This eventuallyled to a series of events that turned our conversation partner into an outcastin his family leading him to leave home and gradually reach the point wherehe is at now. Needless to say we felt responsible, a face-to-face encounter withone of “our own” victims. (p. 8)

Shohamy is quick to say that the point is not the truth or falsity of thisparticular, personal story or, for that matter, the truth or falsity of thetestimony by many other test takers that she felicitously recounts. Thepoint is the perception of powerlessness by test takers and the sociocul-tural consequences.

Shohamy argues that tests in and of themselves are not usually thecause of such an unpleasant state of affairs. The culprit is, rather, what isdone with tests: Sometimes they are deployed as a disciplinarian’s tool,forcing the test taker to conform; at other times they are the tool of statepolicy in schemes of accountability, compliance, and standardization,forcing teachers to teach to a test. Shohamy writes, “Tests can be used forsurveillance to quantify, classify and punish” (p. 17). This book could

190 TESOL QUARTERLY

serve as one piece in a larger narrative of how democracy sabotages itself,for it is in the countries where democracy plays itself out in anenlightened form that the worst transgressions of humanity seem to havebeen perpetrated—and against children, the last bastion of the op-pressed. If Shohamy’s narrative fails at all, it is in not stating this sadparadox.

It is no secret that public education is in the stranglehold of high-stakes, standardized testing and assessment across the curriculum. Thesituation is perhaps acutely painful in the sensitive area of language, forlanguage is a uniquely human attribute, even a gift, reflecting theversatility and creativity of the human spirit. With language diversitygrowing in North American schools, education should be broadeningthe scope of its best practices in order to generate thoughtful, critical,and creative citizens who celebrate linguistic variety and change. Muchto the contrary is the current course of events. Shohamy points a fingerat the expanded role of tests when she writes, “Turning tests into a meansfor change, into instrumental devices for promoting agendas, narrowsthe process of education . . . . making it merely instrumental and notmeaningful” (p. 110). Finally, at the outset of Shohamy’s critical andcreative piece is a simple, touching rhetorical question posed by JohnOller in a personal communication to Shohamy, dated May 26, 1998:“Isn’t it possible to have testing of the people, for the people and by thepeople?” (p. viii). Possible, yes. On the horizon? Not yet.

ARIEH SHERRISCenter for Applied LinguisticsWashington, DC, United States

Doing and Writing Qualitative Research.Adrian Holliday. London: Sage, 2002. Pp. xi + 211.

� As interest in qualitative research in applied linguistics continues togrow, Doing and Writing Qualitative Research will be welcomed by many.Holliday states that he is writing as an applied linguist concerned withlanguage as a cultural artifact and academic writing as discourse. Thisvantage point makes his book especially appealing to applied linguists.

Holliday’s objective is to show how to do and write qualitativeresearch. He compares quantitative and qualitative research, and thendivides qualitative research into two major strands: naturalistic andprogressive, situating himself firmly within the progressive. AlthoughHolliday describes the different categories of qualitative research as “afluid picture” (p. 17), the implication that several schools share ideologi-

REVIEWS 191

cal underpinnings is controversial. The ramifications of this positionbecome clear in the book’s final paragraph, where Holliday appears tosuggest that qualitative research should be critical and stand against “thedominant . . . discourses of our society” (p. 195), such as sexism andracism. Although some qualitative research may be critical in thisrespect, surely some of it is not so intended.

Holliday suggests that qualitative researchers must approach theirresearch experiences as “strangers” (p. 13) and “show the workings” (p.47) in order to reveal their own ideological positions and establishvalidity. This insistence on rigour and accountability leads to a highlynuanced description of the qualitative research process. The section onresearch questions and hypothesis building will be particularly useful tonovice researchers.

The heart of the book may well be chapter 5, “Writing About Data.”The discussion and figures of the relationships between data, themes,and arguments are alone worth the price of the book, as is the discussionof the tensions between real data and artful writing. In chapter 6 thediscussion of discourse conventions is both trenchant and cautious, andparticularly interesting to those involved in discourse analysis. Thechallenging areas of dealing with people, cultures, values, and judgments(chapters 7 and 8) are treated sensitively yet thoroughly. Much of theadvice here is particularly relevant to those engaged in research involv-ing nonnative speakers of English. Each chapter begins with an overviewof the topic, aims, and structure. Clear figures present informationvisually. Each chapter contains a summary of main points and a list ofthought-provoking questions. Though there is much to appreciate here,Holliday’s examples are the highlight of this book. For each point, hepresents and analyzes either several selections from an extended ex-ample or several different examples. Language is identified to show, forinstance, where authorial presence is established and where referencesto the literature support the author’s argument (chapter 6). Althoughthe examples range over a variety of publication types and fields, manyare from Holliday’s own work in applied linguistics.

The book concludes with an up-to-date list of references and a shortand somewhat eclectic index. Despite a few editing glitches, Doing andWriting Qualitative Research is a provocative yet valuable guide to doingand writing qualitative research.

ANNE FERYOKThe University of AucklandAuckland, New Zealand

192 TESOL QUARTERLY

Language as Cultural Practice: Mexicanos en el Norte.Sandra R. Schecter and Robert Bayley. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2002.Pp. xix + 224.

� Language as Cultural Practice is an articulate ethnographic account thatprovides insights into L1 and L2 socialization of Mexican-descent fami-lies in California and Texas. Schecter and Bayley link language mainte-nance and loss to the school, home, and community contexts whileproviding fascinating insights into the families’ language socializationpractices and dynamics of identity. The authors also call for a restructur-ing of the terms of debate, away from the ones based on the deficitmodel of bilingualism prevalent on English-only agendas. They suggestthat those terms should include a focus on the additive potential ofmultilingualism and cultural pluralism and acknowledge the positiveconsequences of minority-language maintenance as experienced byindividuals. This book will be of interest to a wide audience, includingapplied linguists, bilingual educators, policy makers, and anyone in-volved in language teaching and research.

The organization of the book makes the research context, process,and arguments comprehensible and relevant to both novices and expertsbecause of the detailed description of the research agenda, design, andrationale for locale selection. The inclusion of a description of thedistinct societal characteristics of San Francisco and San Antonio, onwhich the book focuses, and an overview of the political and sociohistoricalcontexts from the 1700s to the present, is particularly useful to thoseunfamiliar with the long Latino history in those areas. The book providesin-depth descriptions of the participants’ beliefs about the importance ofSpanish in their lives and their strategies for developing and maintainingits use. It also offers an analysis of the conflicting nature of schoolagendas, and parents’ expectations and their (in)ability to supportchildren’s literacy needs through a dominant language.

Common assumptions about facilitating factors in L1 maintenance(i.e., Latino concentration, language policy) were found not to be truefor all the participating families, demonstrating the diversity of theMexican-descent population in the United States. Although it is brieflycovered in two sentences on page 189, readers could have benefitedfrom a more detailed description of the cultural diversity of Latinogroups in general. Arguably, most of the work on Latino bilingualism hasconcentrated on Mexican Americans (i.e., Merino, 1983) and PuertoRicans (i.e., Zentella, 1997), ignoring other Latino groups whose diver-sity has sometimes been acknowledged but who still remain open forresearch. Though it would be unfair to blame this oversight on thepresent researchers, it must be identified as a limitation of the researchfield in general.

REVIEWS 193

Despite the above observation, the strengths of this book make it anessential addition to the existing research in the field. Furthermore, itprovides an excellent model for studying L1 maintenance and loss. Ihave no doubt that it will become a classic in the small but growingtradition of qualitative research in language loss and maintenance alongwith the work of Kouritzin (1999), Wong Fillmore (1991), and Zentella(1997). Detaching myself from my role of scholar, as a minority-languageparent facing some of the same issues as the participating families, I findthis book insightful, enlightening, and, most important, encouraging.

The type of work described in this book is timely given the politicalmood in the United States around issues of bilingualism and English-only movements. It focuses on some of the concerns that cause contro-versy, including whether or not bilingualism is a detriment to children’sacademic progress. The book’s scope and implications are indeed broadand far-reaching enough to appeal to a wide readership. As such, it willcertainly benefit minority-language families through its powerful poten-tial to effect policy change and thus foster the reconciliation of the goalsand roles of school and family.

REFERENCES

Kouritzin, S. (1999). Face[t]s of first language loss. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Merino, B. (1983). Language loss in bilingual Chicano children. Journal of Applied

Developmental Psychology, 4, 277–294.Wong Fillmore, L. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first.

Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 323–346.Zentella, A. C. (1997). Growing up bilingual: Puerto Rican children in New York. Malden,

MA: Blackwell.

MARTIN GUARDADOThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, British Columbia, Canada


BOOK NOTICESTESOL Quarterly prints brief book notices of 100 words or less announcing books ofinterest to readers. Book Notices are intended to inform readers about selectedbooks that publishers have sent to TESOL and are descriptive rather than evaluative.They are solicited by the Review Editor.

Portraits of the L2 User.Vivian J. Cook (Ed.). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, 2002.Pp. viii + 347.

� An array of internationally diverse and well-known scholars contributeto a volume that is both an introduction to current second languageacquisition (SLA) theory and a portrait of the L2 learner. The book,Volume 1 in the series Second Language Acquisition (edited by DavidSingleton), begins with the assumption that L2 learners are not failednative speakers but rather are fundamentally different from monolingualsand entitled to certain language rights. This perspective sets the stage fornew approaches to SLA research.

“Change My Life Forever”:Giving Voice to English Language Learners.Maureen Barbieri. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2002. Pp. x + 228.

� The author, a middle school teacher, shares experiences in helping1,400 Chinese middle school students acquire literacy in English whileemphasizing the need to value their old and new cultures and to sharetheir stories with others. The book includes case studies and classroomvignettes as well as examples of student reading lists, all intended toinspire English language teachers to enhance their own students’learning.

196 TESOL QUARTERLY

Georgetown University Round Table on Languages andLinguistics 1999: Language in Our Time.James E. Alatis and Ai-Hui Tan (Eds.). Georgetown University Press,2001. Pp. 431.

� This volume contains the published versions of more than 30 papersgiven at the 1999 Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, the themeof which was “Language in Our Time: Bilingual Education and OfficialEnglish, Ebonics and Standard English, Immigration and the UnzInitiative.”

Hong Kong English: Autonomy and Creativity.Kingsley Bolton (Ed.). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2002.Pp. viii + 324.

� Part of the Asian Englishes Today series (edited by Kingsley Bolton),which sets out to examine the spread of English in Asia from both alinguistic and a literary viewpoint, this volume challenges the dominantnotion that Hong Kong English is totally derived from and dependenton metropolitan British English. Collectively, the 15 contributors providea detailed historical context for Hong Kong English and examine itscurrent use from sociolinguistic, structural, and literary perspectives.

INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS 197

INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 37, No. 1, Spring 2003

EDITORIAL POLICYTESOL Quarterly, a professional, refereed journal, encourages submission ofpreviously unpublished articles on topics of significance to individualsconcerned with the teaching of English as a second or foreign language andof standard English as a second dialect. As a publication that represents avariety of cross-disciplinary interests, both theoretical and practical, theQuarterly invites manuscripts on a wide range of topics, especially in thefollowing areas:

1. psychology and sociology of language 3. testing and evaluationlearning and teaching; issues in research 4. professionaland research methodology preparation

2. curriculum design and development; 5. language planninginstructional methods, materials, and 6. professional standardstechniques

Because the Quarterly is committed to publishing manuscripts that contrib-ute to bridging theory and practice in our profession, it particularlywelcomes submissions drawing on relevant research (e.g., in anthropology,applied and theoretical linguistics, communication, education, Englisheducation [including reading and writing theory], psycholinguistics, psy-chology, first and second language acquisition, sociolinguistics, and sociol-ogy) and addressing implications and applications of this research to issuesin our profession. The Quarterly prefers that all submissions be written sothat their content is accessible to a broad readership, including thoseindividuals who may not have familiarity with the subject matter addressed.TESOL Quarterly is an international journal. It welcomes submissions fromEnglish language contexts around the world.

GENERAL INFORMATION FOR AUTHORSSubmission CategoriesTESOL Quarterly invites submissions in five categories:

Full-length articles. Contributors are strongly encouraged to submit manu-scripts of no more than 20–25 double-spaced pages or 8,500 words (includ-ing references, notes, and tables). Submit three copies plus three copies ofan informative abstract of not more than 200 words. If possible, indicate thenumber of words at the end of the article. To facilitate the blind reviewprocess, authors’ names should appear only on a cover sheet, not on the titlepage; do not use running heads. Submit manuscripts to the Editor of TESOLQuarterly:

198 TESOL QUARTERLY

Carol A. ChapelleDepartment of English203 Ross HallIowa State UniversityAmes, IA 50011-1201 USA

The following factors are considered when evaluating the suitability of amanuscript for publication in TESOL Quarterly :

• The manuscript appeals to the general interests of TESOL Quarterly’sreadership.

• The manuscript strengthens the relationship between theory and prac-tice: Practical articles must be anchored in theory, and theoretical articlesand reports of research must contain a discussion of implications orapplications for practice.

• The content of the manuscript is accessible to the broad readership of theQuarterly, not only to specialists in the area addressed.

• The manuscript offers a new, original insight or interpretation and notjust a restatement of others’ ideas and views.

• The manuscript makes a significant (practical, useful, plausible) contri-bution to the field.

• The manuscript is likely to arouse readers’ interest.

• The manuscript reflects sound scholarship and research design withappropriate, correctly interpreted references to other authors and works.

• The manuscript is well written and organized and conforms to thespecifications of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Associ-ation (4th ed.).

Reviews. TESOL Quarterly invites succinct, evaluative reviews of professionalbooks. Reviews should provide a descriptive and evaluative summary and abrief discussion of the significance of the work in the context of currenttheory and practice. Submissions should generally be no longer than 500words. Send one copy by e-mail to the Review Editor:

Roberta [email protected]

Review Articles. TESOL Quarterly also welcomes occasional review articles,that is, comparative discussions of several publications that fall into a topicalcategory (e.g., pronunciation, literacy training, teaching methodology).Review articles should provide a description and evaluative comparison ofthe materials and discuss the relative significance of the works in the contextof current theory and practice. Submissions should generally be no longerthan 1,500 words. Submit two copies of the review article to the ReviewEditor at the address given above.


Brief Reports and Summaries. TESOL Quarterly also invites short reports onany aspect of theory and practice in our profession. We encourage manu-scripts that either present preliminary findings or focus on some aspect of alarger study. In all cases, the discussion of issues should be supported byempirical evidence, collected through qualitative or quantitative investiga-tions. Reports or summaries should present key concepts and results in amanner that will make the research accessible to our diverse readership.Submissions to this section should be 7–10 double-spaced pages, or 3,400words (including references, notes, and tables). If possible, indicate thenumber of words at the end of the report. Longer articles do not appear in thissection and should be submitted to the Editor of TESOL Quarterly for review. Sendone copy of the manuscript each to:

Cathie Elder Paula GolombekDepartment of Applied Language 305 Sparks Building

Studies and Linguistics Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity of Auckland University Park, PA 16802 USAPrivate Bag 92019Auckland, New Zealand

The Forum. TESOL Quarterly welcomes comments and reactions fromreaders regarding specific aspects or practices of our profession. Responsesto published articles and reviews are also welcome; unfortunately, we are notable to publish responses to previous exchanges. Contributions to TheForum should generally be no longer than 7–10 double-spaced pages or3,400 words. If possible, indicate the number of words at the end of thecontribution. Submit three copies to the Editor of TESOL Quarterly at theaddress given above.

Brief discussions of qualitative and quantitative Research Issues and ofTeaching Issues are also published in The Forum. Although these contri-butions are typically solicited, readers may send topic suggestions or makeknown their availability as contributors by writing directly to the Editors ofthese subsections.

Research Issues: Teaching Issues:

Patricia A. Duff Bonny NortonDepartment of Language Department of Language

and Literacy Education and Literacy EducationUniversity of British Columbia University of British Columbia2125 Main Mall 2125 Main MallVancouver, BC V6T 1Z4 Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4Canada Canada

Special-Topic Issues. Typically, one issue per volume will be devoted to aspecial topic. Topics are approved by the Editorial Advisory Board of theQuarterly. Those wishing to suggest topics or make known their availability asguest editors should contact the Editor of TESOL Quarterly. Issues willgenerally contain both invited articles designed to survey and illuminatecentral themes as well as articles solicited through a call for papers.

200 TESOL QUARTERLY

General Submission Guidelines1. All submissions to the Quarterly should conform to the requirements of

the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (4th ed.),which can be obtained from the American Psychological Association,Book Order Department, Dept. KK, P.O. Box 92984, Washington, DC20090-2984 USA. Orders from the United Kingdom, Europe, Africa, orthe Middle East should be sent to American Psychological Association,Dept. KK, 3 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, WC2E 8LU,England. For more information, e-mail [email protected] or consult http://www.apa.org/books/ordering.html.

2. All submissions to TESOL Quarterly should be accompanied by a coverletter that includes a full mailing address and both a daytime and anevening telephone number. Where available, authors should include anelectronic mail address and fax number.

3. Authors of full-length articles, Brief Reports and Summaries, and Forumcontributions should include two copies of a very brief biographicalstatement (in sentence form, maximum 50 words), plus any specialnotations or acknowledgments that they would like to have included.Double spacing should be used throughout.

4. TESOL Quarterly provides 25 free reprints of published full-lengtharticles and 10 reprints of material published in the Reviews, BriefReports and Summaries, and The Forum sections.

5. Manuscripts submitted to TESOL Quarterly cannot be returned toauthors. Authors should be sure to keep a copy for themselves.

6. It is understood that manuscripts submitted to TESOL Quarterly have notbeen previously published and are not under consideration for publica-tion elsewhere.

7. It is the responsibility of the author(s) of a manuscript submitted toTESOL Quarterly to indicate to the Editor the existence of any workalready published (or under consideration for publication elsewhere)by the author(s) that is similar in content to that of the manuscript.

8. The Editor of TESOL Quarterly reserves the right to make editorialchanges in any manuscript accepted for publication to enhance clarityor style. The author will be consulted only if the editing has beensubstantial.

9. The views expressed by contributors to TESOL Quarterly do not necessar-ily reflect those of the Editor, the Editorial Advisory Board, or TESOL.Material published in the Quarterly should not be construed to have theendorsement of TESOL.

Informed Consent GuidelinesTESOL Quarterly expects authors to adhere to ethical and legal standards forwork with human subjects. Although we are aware that such standards varyamong institutions and countries, we require authors and contributors to


meet, as a minimum, the conditions detailed below before submitting amanuscript for review. TESOL recognizes that some institutions may requireresearch proposals to satisfy additional requirements. If you wish to discusswhether or how your study met these guidelines, you may e-mail themanaging editor of TESOL publications at [email protected] or call 703-535-7852.

As an author, you will be asked to sign a statement indicating that you havecomplied with Option A or Option B before TESOL will publish your work.

A. You have followed the human subjects review procedure established byyour institution.

B. If you are not bound by an institutional review process, or if it does notmeet the requirements outlined below, you have complied with thefollowing conditions.

Participation in the Research

1. You have informed participants in your study, sample, class, group, orprogram that you will be conducting research in which they will be theparticipants or that you would like to write about them for publication.

2. You have given each participant a clear statement of the purpose of yourresearch or the basic outline of what you would like to explore inwriting, making it clear that research and writing are dynamic activitiesthat may shift in focus as they occur.

3. You have explained the procedure you will follow in the research projector the types of information you will be collecting for your writing.

4. You have explained that participation is voluntary, that there is nopenalty for refusing to participate, and that the participants maywithdraw at any time without penalty.

5. You have explained to participants if and how their confidentiality willbe protected.

6. You have given participants sufficient contact information that they canreach you for answers to questions regarding the research.

7. You have explained to participants any foreseeable risks and discomfortsinvolved in agreeing to cooperate (e.g., seeing work with errors inprint).

8. You have explained to participants any possible direct benefits ofparticipating (e.g., receiving a copy of the article or chapter).

9. You have obtained from each participant (or from the participant’sparent or guardian) a signed consent form that sets out the terms ofyour agreement with the participants and have kept these forms on file(TESOL will not ask to see them).

Consent to Publish Student Work

10. If you will be collecting samples of student work with the intention ofpublishing them, either anonymously or with attribution, you havemade that clear to the participants in writing.

202 TESOL QUARTERLY

11. If the sample of student work (e.g., a signed drawing or signed piece ofwriting) will be published with the student’s real name visible, you haveobtained a signed consent form and will include that form when yousubmit your manuscript for review and editing (see http://www.tesol.org/pubs/author/consent.html for samples).

12. If your research or writing involves minors (persons under age 18), youhave supplied and obtained signed separate informed consent formsfrom the parent or guardian and from the minor, if he or she is oldenough to read, understand, and sign the form.

13. If you are working with participants who do not speak English well or areintellectually disabled, you have written the consent forms in a languagethat the participant or the participant’s guardian can understand.

GUIDELINES FOR QUANTITATIVE ANDQUALITATIVE RESEARCHBecause of the importance of substantive findings reported in TESOLQuarterly, in addition to the role that the Quarterly plays in modeling researchin the field, articles must meet high standards in reporting research. Tosupport this goal, the Spring 2003 issue of TESOL Quarterly (Vol. 37, No. 1)contains guidelines for reporting quantitative research and three types ofqualitative research: case studies, conversation analysis, and (critical) eth-nography. Each set of guidelines contains an explanation of the expectationsfor research articles within a particular tradition and provides references foradditional guidance. The guidelines are also published on TESOL’s Web site(http://www.tesol.org/pubs/author/serials/tqguides.html).

Cuantitative Methods Guide Pag156

Documents

Transcript of Cuantitative Methods Guide Pag156