EA JOURNAL VOL 23 NO 2 ENGLISH AUSTRALIA

ENGLISH

EA JOURNAL VOL 23 NO 2

AUSTRALIA E A J O U R N A L

A TESOL Publication of English Australia Pty Ltd

Volume 23 Number 2

2007

ISSN 1449-4496

English Australia, acting for and on behalf of ELICOS Association Limited (ABN 86 003 959 037)

Contents

EA Journal Vol 23 No 2

EDITORIAL 1

ARTICLES

Stephen H Moore Linguistics, applied linguistics and research: the axis of evil for language teachers? 3 Peter Mackey The future Englishes of the world: one lingua franca or many? 12 Andy Kirkpatrick Teaching English Across Cultures. What do English language teachers need to know to know how to teach English 20 Guangwei Hu & Bo Chen A Protocol-Based Study of University-Level Chinese EFL Learners’ Writing Strategies 37

BOOKSHELF 59 Focus on Vocabulary Paul Nation and Peter Yonqi Gu 60 Conversation: From Description to Pedagogy Diana Slade and Scott Thornbury 63 Cambridge Grammar of English: a comprehensive guide to spoken and written English grammar and usage Ronald Carter and Michael McCarthy 66 Creating Chants and Songs Carolyn Graham 69 Ship or Sheep? An Intermediate pronunciation course (3rd edition) Anne Baker 72 Academic Culture: A Student’s Guide to Studying at University Jean Brick 75 Insights from the Common European Framework Keith Morrow (Editor) 77

PUBLICATIONS RECEIVED FOR REVIEW 80

FROM THE EDITOR 84

ENGLISH AUSTRALIA Publications 86 Guidelines for Contributors 87 ENGLISH AUSTRALIA Member Colleges 89 EA Journal advertising 92

IV E A J O U R N A L

Editor Germana Eckert Language Teacher Education, University of New South Wales Institute of Languages

Bookshelf Editor Pauline Baylis School of Humanities and Languages, University of Western Sydney

Editorial Advisory Committee Anne Burns Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University Jill Burton School of Education, University of South Australia Anne Campbell Division of Communication and Education, University of Canberra Jonathan Crichton Research Centre for Languages and Cultural Education, University of South Australia Jeremy Jones School of Languages and International Studies, University of Canberra David Li Department of English and Communication, City University of Hong Kong Clare McDowell University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate, Sydney David Prescott Department of English Language and Applied Linguistics, University of Brunei Darussalam Rusdi Thaib Faculty of Languages and Arts, Padang State University, Indonesia Ruth Wajnryb Writer, teacher trainer and independent consultant in TESOL

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 V VI EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 Editorial

Dear Readers Welcome to this, the current volume of the EA Journal. This volume has seen quite a few changes to the EAJ team. Pauline Baylis has taken on the role of Bookshelf Editor, replacing David Larbalestier. We thank David for his contribution to the Journal in his time as Bookshelf Editor, and give a big, warm welcome to Pauline. In addition, since the last EAJ volume Kath Brandon has joined EA as Project Officer. In this role, Kath supports the work the EAJ team does in creating the journal. In the short time since she has started Kath has already made a huge impact and been of great help and support to the team, so thank you to Kath for all the work so far. We look forward to continuing to work with Kath and Pauline in their new roles. I have also made a workplace change and have become much more involved with the training of new teachers and the ongoing professional development of existing ELT teachers, both in Australia and overseas. This move has caused me to reflect on the ever-changing face of our TESOL industry. We have grown from a small ‘cottage industry’, as it was once regarded, to a major economic player: international students learning English here in 2006 made an overall contribution of more than $1.2 billion to the Australian economy according to the 2006 EA Report, commissioned to study enrolment statistics in the ELICOS1 sector. Total ELICOS enrolments for 2006 were almost 122,000, an increase of 21% on 2005 numbers. The industry is indeed growing, and fast. Of course, such growth affects us in a number of ways, and one which I am encountering more and more frequently is the notion of TESOL as a career path. Teaching English was something many of us ‘fell into’ as a stopgap between ‘real’ jobs, but which turned into a profession where daily we are enhancing, if not changing, people’s lives, helping them realise their goals of study, employment or travel, among a whole range of things. I have heard teachers joke that no-one wakes up one day and decides “I think I’ll be an ESL teacher!” Think about it. How did you get into the industry? That trend of ‘being here by accident’ is definitely changing in an increasingly professionalised industry. In my work I speak to a growing number of teacher trainee

1English Language Intensive Courses to Overseas Students

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 1 applicants who tell me they have always wanted to be teachers of English as another language and who intend to stay in the profession. The move along any career path must include professional development, however it is often left up to the teachers themselves to be motivated to explore and learn about new areas of and approaches to language teaching and learning. Our profession lends itself to research into delivery to an ever changing student profile with ever changing needs and goals. The possibilities and opportunities for ESL teachers are thus endless. This is exactly what the writers of the articles in this volume and the reviewers of our new books have taken on. And I hope that their research and their work can motivate you and assist you to explore your own areas of teaching. Where can you go now from where you are? What will you read here in these pages which can help you to reflect on your current teaching practices? The natural progression from these questions is, of course, conducting your own research and having your own article published in the Journal. May you be inspired by your readings on the following pages.

Germana Eckert

2 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 Linguistics, applied linguistics and research: the axis of evil for language teachers?

S TEPHEN H M OORE

Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University, Sydney

This paper addresses the question of whether a language teacher can be effective with little or no knowledge of linguistics, applied linguistics and related research findings. From a logical, dispassionate perspective there can be no doubt that these three domains are vital contributors to the training and development of good language teachers. But, from the perspective of many practicing teachers, these fields are treated with some suspicion and seem largely irrelevant to their daily teaching needs or even as unwelcome intrusions delivered through obligatory professional development sessions. This paper makes the case for what linguistics, applied linguistics and research have to offer language teachers and then argues for the importance of meaningful, accessible ongoing professional development that takes account of developments in linguistics, applied linguistics and research as a key component in professionalising teachers, and indeed, the language teaching profession itself.

Introduction The professionalism of teachers rests on their training and continuing professional development. Language teachers stand to gain enormously through their engagement with the disciplines of linguistics and applied linguistics and the research that emanates from these domains. The nurturing that such an engagement provides not only sustains the teacher, but also ultimately feeds through to students in the form of better teaching in a more stimulating environment. The boundary between (pure) linguistics and applied linguistics is hazy at best and a contentious issue for some linguists (for example, see Davies 1999). For the purposes of this paper, however, it is still a useful distinction to make. Likewise, the notion of research as being somehow separable from these disciplines is artificial but useful in the context of the argument that this paper is making. Indeed, that researchers themselves are sometimes viewed by language teachers as being parasites rather than, say, prophets, needs to be categorically addressed. Figure 1 conceptualises this trichotomy by placing research in an articulating role between linguistics and applied linguistics, suggesting that any given language research lies somewhere on the continuum between the two.

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 3 Many of the ideas presented in this paper are not new but their importance does need to be revisited from time to time to remind ourselves of the importance of situating language teacher education in its proper academic home.

Research

Applied Linguistics Linguistics

Figure 1 Research as articulating linguistics and applied linguistics What linguistics has to offer language teachers Sampson (1980) dismisses outright the usefulness of linguistics to the English language teaching profession. He argues, in effect, that there is a complete disconnect between the discipline and the ELT profession. While there may be some evidence to support this claim (though Sampson offers none), there is also a compelling argument that linguistics does have something important to offer language teachers. Linguistics as a discipline provides knowledge about language and languages. Indeed, what we know about language is based entirely on what we know about individual languages. For example, the field of phonetics draws on the phonologies of all known human languages. Morphology, lexicogrammar, syntax, and semantics are all systems of meaning-making realised through other systems of sound (phonology), symbol (script) and gesture (signing). Knowledge of these systems leads to a better understanding of how languages work, and this surely cannot be irrelevant to people whose job is to teach languages. Ultimately, linguistics as a discipline provides us with an important sense of humanity – what it actually means to be human, as opposed to some other form of animal life – and this cannot be a bad thing for language teachers to gain an appreciation of.

4 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 Exemplification 1: Pre-service language teaching trainees, especially native-English speakers, often fear most the prospect of having to teach English grammar. This is an understandable reaction in that it recognises the central importance of grammar in language learning and, at least in the case of English, its inherent complexity. The study of linguistics does offer an approach to understanding grammar that is remarkably useful to language teachers: Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), commonly referred to as ‘functional grammar’ (see Halliday 1985/1994; and Halliday and Matthiessen 2004). Coffin (2001, p. 94) notes that ‘[r]ather than just focusing on how a specific language such as English works, SFL is a theory of how language works generally.’ The systemic functional approach sees language as a meaning-making resource rather than a set of rules to be learned. In other words, it is primarily concerned with the communication of meaning rather than the correct use of grammatical rules. The genius of SFL is the recognition that all texts are simultaneously encoded for ideational content, interpersonal relations, and textual realisation, through Halliday’s concept of metafunction. The usefulness of this theory, as opposed to other theories of grammar (e.g., descriptive or prescriptive) is in its explanatory power. Focusing on the clause rather than the sentence as the more natural unit of meaning-making, each clause can be unpacked for its ideational, interpersonal and textual meanings. As clauses accumulate in any stretch of discourse, so patterns start to emerge in terms of lexicogrammatical realisations of the three metafunctions. These patterns themselves can be traced to the contexts of use (i.e., situation and culture, in Halliday’s theory), and hence to real-life domains of language usage. Admittedly, SFL demands a significant reorientation to the view of grammar that most language teachers were exposed to in their own language learning experiences. It is not an easy theory to learn well, but the rewards are significant for anyone who perseveres with the task. There are now many good language teacher-oriented texts available to guide the uninitiated (see, for example, Butt et al. 2000; Eggins 2004; Thompson 2004). The point to be emphasised here is that the theory exists (within the realm of linguistics) and language teachers have access to it. What applied linguistics has to offer language teachers Although it is tempting to continue with the SFL example just cited and show more explicitly how SFL can be used by language teachers in an applied context, it is perhaps wiser to orientate this section by taking stock of the territory encompassed in the field of ‘applied linguistics’ as opposed to that of ‘linguistics’ proper, and offer a wider range of exemplification than through just one theoretical model. Figure 2 shows how the discipline of linguistics can be seen to articulate with the field of education through the domain of applied linguistics.

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 5 Applied Linguistics Education Linguistics

Figure 2 Applied linguistics as articulating linguistics and education Rather than dealing with systems of meaning-making as found in linguistics, in applied linguistics we are really dealing more with the complexities of discourse (i.e., multiple systems in operation together), and the skills and knowledge associated with different learning/teaching and assessment methodologies. Typical sub-disciplines within applied linguistics are therefore pragmatics, discourse analysis and intercultural communication; language acquisition, cognition and teaching methods; and language testing and assessment. Understanding knowledge and good practice in these areas is thus somewhat closer to the obvious needs of language teachers than may be the case for ‘pure’ linguistics. While some academics might argue that linguistics has nothing to offer language teachers, it is much harder to make that claim for applied linguistics. Ultimately, what applied linguistics has to offer language teachers is a practical set of skills that untrained teachers simply do not have. To the extent that teachers adopt these skills, they are then armed with a professional tool kit that can serve them well in their classroom experiences. Exemplification 2: Rather than choose an obvious example of how teaching or assessment skills can benefit a language teacher, let us consider the slightly more challenging example of the benefits of understanding pragmatics. A typical problem for language learners arises when they start using their L2 in encounters with native speakers and suffer instances of ‘intercultural miscommunication’ through some sort of ‘pragmatic failure’ (Thomas, 1983). Although these instances may seem isolated cases when they occur, they systematically build up to reveal patterns that can be explained, to a great extent, through theories such as those of politeness and face threatening acts (FTA) (see Scollon and Scollon, 1983; Brown and Levinson, 1987).

6 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 Politeness theories postulate that native speakers of a language follow strategies linked to two notions of politeness: positive (in which speakers attempt to align themselves with their interlocutor through expressions of solidarity, closeness, intimacy and rapport) and negative (in which speakers attempt to align themselves with their interlocutor through allowing them independence, choices and freedom). Speakers deal with FTAs through using complex systems which are culturally specific and which are subsumed in the notion of ‘politeness’. Thus, for example, Japanese speakers of English may appear to native English speakers to overuse negative politeness strategies by not being explicit enough in their agreement or disagreement to a given proposition. Language teachers who understand the pragmatic notion of politeness and FTAs and who work with groups of learners sharing a common first language can use a contrastive approach to guide their students through this maze of seemingly strange conceptions and manifestations of politeness. And they can do this thanks to the considerable body of research in this area undertaken by applied linguists. What research has to offer language teachers Having presented the case for language teachers to take notice of linguistics and applied linguistics in a broad sense, let us now consider why these teachers should also pay attention to the more specific issue of research within these domains. We saw in Figure 1 how research can be perceived as the articulating join(t) between the domains of linguistics and applied linguistics. Another way of describing the relationship among these three is by analogy (even if it is a well-worn one): If a foundational academic discipline (e.g., linguistics) can be thought of as the trunk of a tree, and its various well-travelled pathways of enquiry (e.g., applied linguistics) as the tree’s branches, then research would be at the furthest extremities among the blossoms and leaves. Some research withers with the blossoms and leaves, and some provides modest incremental growth to the branches, but some occasionally results in strong new branches emerging and providing opportunities for further branches in a new direction. This analogy shows the essence of the ‘organic’ relationship between academic disciplines and research: the former is built upon the latter. If a tree stops producing new blossoms and leaves, it will die and simply be a relic of the past. Likewise for research and the discipline of linguistics and its sub-disciplines of applied linguistics. So, what then does research actually have to offer language teachers? Research provides theories and evidence for theories that help systematise and often improve teaching practice. For example, SFL allows teachers to focus on what matters most in communication (i.e., meaning making) rather than on simple adherence to rules of grammar. Research also provides knowledge about interdisciplinary

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 7 connections (e.g., between education in general and language education in particular). Although we tend to think instinctively of English language teaching research, there is a significant and growing body of research into the teaching and learning of other languages and this can feed back into knowledge and practice in English teaching. Research can also provide us with knowledge about the classroom practice of individual teachers (e.g., through an ‘action research’ model), and therefore need not be confined to only that which adheres to an ‘experimental’ paradigm. Ultimately, the fact that there is more research in linguistics, applied linguistics and language in education than ever before – witness the increasing number of academic journals publishing this research – means that these fields are indeed healthy and constantly pushing boundaries of knowledge further and further. These publications provide a window through which language teachers can glimpse the ‘cutting edge’ of research in their field and beyond. Exemplification 3: Language teachers often feel that language research is too remote, too complicated and of little practical benefit to their actual classroom needs. There may be some justification for this attitude but it seems to overlook the paradigm of qualitative research which is often more appropriate to social science endeavour, and which is generally more easily understood by language teachers. In particular, over the past decade there has been a tremendous growth in action research, where the focus is most often on the language classroom of an individual teacher. Wallace (1998) and Burns (1999) both provide detailed accounts of how the action research paradigm allows teachers to explore context-specific problems in their own classrooms. As it is oriented to practical intervention to improve the experience of all participants (i.e., usually teachers and students in a given classroom setting), it is an approach to research that is readily accessible to language teachers. Moreover, action research projects often seem to have the unintended side-effect of energizing jaded teachers who, as a result, gain a new lease on their professional life. Thus, what action research offers teachers is a readily understood model for investigating their everyday work environments, plus a renewable source of energy to sustain their investigations. A role for professional development Many teachers take comfort in the knowledge that some students, at least, will learn no matter how poorly they are taught. In a similar vein, many English language programs seem to take comfort in the knowledge that some teachers, at least, will show initiative in staying engaged with the disciplines of linguistics and applied linguistics and, hopefully, in a way that will rub off on their teaching colleagues. This

8 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 scenario suggests that the majority of language teachers need help and guidance in their professional development through properly established programs of ongoing staff development. Following from the arguments made in this paper, it is sensible that such professional development should focus primarily on issues in applied linguistics, but with the occasional nod to linguistics (to remind participants of the bigger picture of language as communication) and to research (to remind participants that everything is not exactly the same as it was when they first completed their teacher training course). Bartels (2005) draws attention to the critical yet largely unexplored link between knowledge about language (KAL) on the one hand, and using KAL in the language classroom on the other. Among the characteristics of appropriate activities for applied linguistics classes noted by Bartels (2005, p. 417-418) are the following:

• The activities should work on solving the kind of problems of procedure and understanding that language teachers regularly face in their practice; • The activities should focus on procedures used in language teaching (or which could be used) in a cognitively efficient way (e.g., through developing schemata); • The activities should help teachers develop schemata of language learners and language teaching; • Applied linguistics activities should complement each other and help teachers form a coherent network of knowledge about their practice. Such activities are also highly desirable for the ongoing professional development of language teachers. However, they need to be systematically incorporated into a coherent framework, rather than dipped into on a random basis. Professional development needs to be regularised but, above all, relevant to the real needs of classroom teachers. Feedback from participants attending professional development sessions is a vital channel to monitor whether or not the aims and objectives of a professional development program are achieved. The ultimate goal of professional development is to ensure that the highest standards of teaching are practiced in a given institution, and this becomes increasingly achievable if mental barriers and baggage towards notions of linguistics, applied linguistics and research are put in a proper perspective. Summary and conclusion The subtitle of this paper refers to an imaginary ‘axis of evil’ – the gut reaction that many language teachers seem to have at the mention of the terms ‘linguistics’, ‘applied linguistics’ and ‘research’. While this reaction is understandable, it is manifestly not

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 9 rational. This paper has striven to clarify and exemplify the key roles that linguistics, applied linguistics and research all have in professionalising language teachers. Pre- service and in-service professional development programs must address this issue by making it their business to report on new and recent developments in these fields and to make linkages between KAL and practical classroom activities. Likewise, professional certificates, diplomas and degrees must all make it their business to incorporate up-to-date materials in their syllabuses and to engender a positive sense of the importance of (and, indeed, excitement in) new developments in the fields of linguistics and applied linguistics. The ‘axis of evil’ might then be transformed into an ‘axis of enlightenment’.

References

Bartels, N. (2005). Applied Linguistics and Language Teacher Education. New York: Springer. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., and Yallop, C. (2000). Using functional grammar: an explorer’s guide (2nd ed.). Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University. Coffin, C. (2001). Theoretical approaches to written language—a TESOL perspective. In A. Burns & C. Coffin (Eds.), Analysing English in a global context. London Routledge. Davies, A. (1999). An introduction to applied linguistics: from practice to theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). London: Frances Pinter. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985/1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Sampson, G. (1980). Schools of Linguistics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Scollon, R. and Scollon, W. (1983). Face in interethnic communication. In J. C. Richards and R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication. London: Longman.

10 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 Thomas, J. (1983). ‘Cross-cultural pragmatic failure’ in Applied Linguistics 4 (2): 91-112. Thompson, G. (2004). Introducing functional grammar (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wallace, M. (1998). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dr Stephen Moore is a lecturer in applied linguistics in the Department of Linguistics at Macquarie University, Sydney. He teaches and researches in a broad range of areas including discourse analysis, pragmatics, TESOL, EFL in Asian contexts and language assessment.

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 11 The future Englishes of the world: one lingua franca or many?

P ETER M ACKEY

Planet English

What seem to be the possible or likely futures for Englishes in the world? An English speaking world? A world in which most people speak a first language, and English as a second language? A world of increasingly divergent forms of English? A world of competing major languages and diminishing minor languages? A world of increasing diversity?

In order to consider these questions it is important to define exactly what we mean by terms such as world Englishes, an English speaking world, and major or global languages, as our understanding of such terms will shape what predictions we make about their future. Prediction is of course the operative word in this equation since an educated guess is really all that is possible given the multitude of unpredictable factors that can or will impact on these issues. This paper will seek to argue that in fact with the exception of increasing diversity, which appears most unlikely, all these scenarios are likely to come to pass in some way in various parts of the world. Furthermore, I will argue that looking for global trends or patterns in these matters is not appropriate. Not only are the tools being used to attempt such predictions inadequate, but also these factors will be determined increasingly by localized or regional influences and not global ones. It is overly simplistic to group together regions such as Europe and Asia when considering the futures of Englishes and other languages since the factors impacting on their future are so different. There seems no doubt that global demographic trends clearly demonstrate the fact that native speakers of English have either already or soon will be outnumbered by those who speak English as a foreign or second language. While this will clearly impact on varieties of English around the world, the main factors that determine how the language develops in terms of its variety and influence, will be localized factors, which will mean the experience will differ greatly around the world. Looking first at a definition of some of the terms discussed above, the concept of ‘World Englishes’ is commonly understood as the different varieties or appropriations of English that have developed around the world over time. These have all been comprehensively documented in the literature, such as Singaporean English or ‘Singlish’, Malaysian English or ‘Manglish’, and so on. Such varieties are examples of how people in different parts of the world have expressed their own identity by developing their own version of predominately spoken English. However looking to

12 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 the future we may need a broader definition of world Englishes or varieties of English. As Warschauer (2000) discusses, as the commercialization of intellectual property in the EFL sector continues, native speaker countries such as England, Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand will gradually lose market share in the delivery of English language training and publishing of ELT curricula to other regions such as Asia. This will have a likely impact on ELT pedagogy and quite possibly result in what Warschauer refers to as ‘a bifurcated system’ where the development of ELT courses is separated from their delivery (Warschauer 2000, p.10). One possible consequence of this is the development of larger regional varieties of English such as an ‘Asian standard’ where ‘non-standard’ rules governing grammar and vocabulary for example are established thus extending the concept of varieties of English. The concept of an English speaking world also needs definition in order to speculate about its likely future. If we mean a world dominated purely by native speakers or those who speak English as a first language then clearly this seems most unlikely as Graddol (1997 & 2000) explains. Graddol’s demographic modelling demonstrates quite emphatically that in terms of population, the number of native English speakers has either already been usurped or soon will be usurped by those who speak English as a second language. As birth rates fall in the industrialized English speaking world and the reverse occurs in the non-industrialised, non-English speaking world, it seems that the optimistically triumphant dreams of those mainly British speculators from the colonial era of a world dominated by native English speakers by the twenty-first century have been all but dashed. So, if we define an English speaking world as one of native speakers, then clearly this seems impossible at this stage. However if we define an English speaking world as one in which the majority of its residents speak the language as their preferred second language as a lingua franca, then this would seem an entirely likely scenario. The corollary of this would then seem to be a world in which greater variations in English develop in different regions over time, although arguments will later be developed to counter this as being a foregone conclusion. The other definition to consider is what is meant by a global or major language. In order to be considered a global or major world language, it must be one which provides its speakers with a degree of power, whether this be political, commercial, social or all of these concepts. Clearly English by definition is such a language as are several other languages, carrying similar influence to a lesser extent, such as Spanish, Mandarin, French and so on. What seems likely as Graddol (1997), Crystal (1997) and others have discussed is that a greater number of languages will increase in importance as global languages along such terms, while an increasing number of ‘minor’ languages will do the reverse over time. In order to speculate about the future of world Englishes and the position of English

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 13 in the world, it is important to understand the situation as it is at present. Clearly, this is one in which English finds itself at the top of this apex of languages in terms of its worldly power, as is illustrated by facts such as those expressed by Crystal (1997) whereby at that time of publishing 85% of international organisations used English as their official language; 85% of the world’s film market was in English; some 90% of all academic texts published in certain fields such as linguistics were in English. Figures of the total number of native speakers in the world today vary but Crystal (1997) puts this figure at around 337 million rising at a much slower pace to about 433 million by 2050 and Graddol (1997) puts the current figure (which he admits is an underestimate) at about 235 million now rising gradually to about 462 million by 2050. However, commentators such as Graddol encourage those who view the possibility of a future world dominated by English first language speakers to do so with great caution. Graddol provides some interesting modelling of how the number of native English speakers will change using the ‘Engco’ module, a tool developed by his company, The English Company. While it could be argued this tool is still inadequate, it is reasonably comprehensive given the factors it takes into account beyond simple population modelling to make predictions of a future where this pattern of English domination will change quite significantly. Using Kachru’s (1986) concept of the 3 circles of English with native speakers in the middle, second language English speakers outside this and those learning the language as a foreign language on the outer, Graddol predicts that there will be an ever-increasing pressure from the outside in. That is, as the number of native speakers declines, the group of those speaking the language as a second language will continue to increase dramatically as those from the outer circle move to the second over time. This points to a world dominated by bi-lingual or multi-lingual people. As Graddol points out, there are real questions about how English will develop in the hands of people who are speaking it predominately as a second or third language rather than being on the whole dominated by mono-lingual people, as has been the case up until now. On the face of it, it would seem very likely that this will lead to greater varieties of the language developing over time as it becomes separated from the ‘umbilical cord’ of native speakers. Another way Graddol (2000) explains this is to compare two very different looking pyramids. On the one hand, we have a present one that resembles a triangle with English and French at its narrow apex, followed down the hierarchy by the other languages of the UN (Arabic, Chinese, German, Russian, Spanish) and then by around 80 national languages and then below this the other official languages within nation states and finally the base comprising all the remaining 6000 plus vernacular

14 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 languages. On the other hand is a very different looking pyramid that Graddol sees developing by the middle of this century. That is one which has a widening apex where English is joined by the big global languages of the UN and a narrowing base of local languages with the remaining national languages in the middle. Graddol also points out that this situation cannot simply be attributed to the rise of English. That is, the loss of minor or endangered languages and dialects is due to several factors including a move towards industrialization and more urbanized populations away from rural and regional areas, improved communications within countries and so on. While many prophecies about the future made by people such as Graddol are based on solid arguments, it must be said that definitive tools simply do not exist to predict the situation in 50-100 years vis a vis the position of English with any degree of certainty. Firstly, there are so many unpredictable factors at play. Secondly, it is still unclear how commercial trading habits and economic shifts will develop in regions of the world such as north and south-east Asia. Trying to look for global patterns in English is, in my view, unrealistic. It would seem more realistic to attempt to view these trends on a more regional basis. For example, Graddol 2000 sees the possibility of Europe developing as a single linguistic zone, where those who speak one of the ‘big’ languages such as English have better access to material success, as has been the case in India, for example. However, in my view it does not seem reasonable to assume the same situation will occur in north and south-east Asia and if it does it seems far from certain which language(s) would be dominant. One possible means of looking for a global trend could be, as Graddol, suggests, by examining the increasing changes in global youth culture. There is no doubt American popular youth culture has been the dominant influence over the last 30-40 years and with this has been the resulting prevalence of English as part of that culture. However, it seems that ageing populations in the west and rising populations in regions such as South America and Asia could have ramifications for the future of English: It would seem reasonable to assume that as global youth culture becomes increasingly influenced by young people from these parts of the non-English speaking world, the importance of other languages in this mix will increase. Technology is often one argument put forward to explain the growth of English throughout the world until now and into the future. Graddol (2000) points out that at the time of publishing some 90% of Internet service providers were English based. However as Graddol himself points out this trend is not likely continue along these lines. As HTML, the hyper text format in which web pages are compiled, continues to support multiple languages, Graddol (2000) suggests that the proportion of English

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 15 language based sites could fall to around 40% by the middle of this century. Indeed, according to recently published figures by Internet World Stats (Usage and Population Statistics), it is clear how much the situation may have already changed:

Top Ten Languages in the Web (Number of Users of the Internet by Language)

Users as % Top Ten Languages Internet Users, Users as % of Average of in the Internet by Language Total Users Penetration World Pop. English 293,072,401 37.3 % 4.5 % 26.7 % Chinese 97,984,112 12.5 % 1.5 % 7.2 % Japanese 64,537,437 8.2 % 1.0 % 50.4 % Spanish 53,782,589 6.8 % 0.8 % 13.9 % German 52,315,999 6.7 % 0.8 % 54.6 % French 32,840,543 4.2 % 0.5 % 8.8 % Korean 29,220,000 3.7 % 0.5 % 40.2 % Italian 28,610,000 3.6 % 0.4 % 50.9 % Portuguese 21,906,897 2.8 % 0.3 % 9.6 % Dutch 13,657,170 1.7 % 0.2 % 56.4 % Top Ten languages 687,927,149 87.6 % 10.7 % 18.0 %

Rest of the 97,782,873 12.4 % 1.5 % 3.7 % Languages World Total 785,710,022 100.0 % 12.2 % 12.2 % (*) NOTES: (1) Internet Top Ten Languages Stats were updated on May 30, 2004. (2) Average Penetration is the ratio between the sum of Internet users speaking a language and the total population estimate that speaks that referred language. (3) The most recent Internet usage information comes from data published by Nielsen//NetRatings, International Telecommunications Union, local NIC’s, local ISP’s and other reliable sources. (4) Data from this site is copyright. It may be cited, giving the due credit and establishing a link back to InternetWorldStats.com. (Source: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm) While variations exist in these kinds of statistics, an argument could be made that the continuing nature of such a trend could result in continued linguistic plurality rather than a trend in the opposite direction.

16 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 The same could be said for the impact of the global media over the next century. Graddol (1997 & 2000) argues that the trend in global satellite delivery of programs such as MTV and the Murdoch-owned sports network Star TV is for globally produced content which is then locally distributed and customized. The result, which is already apparent in many parts of the world, can be seen as at least a continuation of the status quo in terms of current linguistic diversity where local languages are supported in terms of both the programming content as well as advertising and so on. Not only does this cater for populations in a variety of non-English speaking countries but, as Graddol (2000) suggests, this will also cater for the Diaspora of people, whose first language is not English, currently living in the English speaking world. Once again such trends are evidence to suggest a sharp decrease in linguistic diversity over this century is not necessarily a certainty. One trend that does need to be emphasized is that discussed by Warschauer (2000); and that is future employment patterns. As Warschauer points out there is an increasing move towards service or knowledge based work, which places a higher emphasis on inter-personal communication, which of course relies on language. Warschauer discusses Castells (1996) concept of ‘Informationalism’ where there is a move towards increasing global networks through tourism, business, the scientific world and the media. The result of this push, Warschauer claims, is the increasing value of a lingua franca. However, this does not automatically mean this lingua franca will be English, or at least not English alone in every part of the world. In so far as English is increasingly seen as one such lingua franca encouraged by this process of informationalism, Warschauer claims this will promote the development of world Englishes. He suggest that the TEFL/TESOL industry can respond to this by adopting the concept of ‘multiliteracies’ put forward by the New London Group (996) and Cope & Kalantzis (2000), which suggests that most curricula in the field limits itself to standard forms of the language. However, it would seem that the degree to which the English language teaching profession can exert any real influence over the future of world Englishes is extremely small, given the enormity of factors at play. The arguments of Linguicism (Skutnab-Kangas, 1988) and Linguistic Imperialism (Phillipson, R. 1992) put forward in the past, which paint English as some kind of sinister force putting to the sword linguistic diversity and with it cultural identity, in my view seem simplistic and unlikely as an explanation of the future. The future that seems most probable is one in which English is likely to be spoken by an ever increasing number of people as a second language. It is likely to be used a one of a few important lingua franca in ways that do not necessarily result in the loss of cultural heritage. As Warschauer argues, this increasing number of people will view English not so much as foreign language but as a means by which they can communicate in

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 17 an additional language to speakers of other languages and in ways that express their own identities. As can be seen in the example of Singapore, the growth of English is not equated with the loss of cultural heritage. Rather, this has been accompanied by flourishing multilingualism and the development of a variety of English by the Singaporean people that reflects their own identity. Perhaps this view is best summarized by Warschauer when he claims that If the central contradiction of the 21st century is between global networks and local identities, English is a tool of both. It connects people around the world and provides a means to struggle to give meanings to those connections. If English is imposing the world on our students, we can enable them, through English, to impose their voices on the world. (Warschauer 2000, p.12) In summary, any predictions about the possible or likely futures for Englishes in the world are fraught with risk, given both the inadequacy of the tools to measure such trends, as well as the multitude of unpredictable events that could impact on the situation in different ways in different parts of the world. While increasing diversity seems least likely, there is enough evidence in the way the global media and the Internet are developing to suggest that language diversity will be supported at the local level by global networks. While the prospect of a world dominated by native English speakers seems demographically doomed, it does seem likely that as more people speak English as their second or third lingua franca, varieties in English will continue to develop around the world, with these varieties reflecting the different cultural identities of the speakers.

18 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 References

Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Malden, MA: Blackwell Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M (Eds.) (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge. Crystal, D. (1997). The Future of Englishes. English Today, 15(2), 10-20 Graddol, D. (1997). The Decline of the native speaker. English in a changing world. AILA Review 13 Graddol, D. (2000). The Future of English. London: The British Council Internet World Stats (Usage and Population Statistics). Source: http://www. internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm) Phillipson, R (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press Skutnabb-Kangas, T (1999). Linguistic Human Rights—Are you naïve, or what? TESOL Journal, 8 (3), 6-12. Warschauer, M (2000). The Changing Global Economy and the Future of English Teaching. TESOL Quarterly

Peter Mackey is the General Manager of Planet Learning Pty Ltd, a Sydney-based educational software development company that originated from UNSW. Peter Mackey has been a part of the Planet Learning team since the early stages of product development for the multimedia ELT program Planet English in 1997. Before moving to Planet Learning, Peter taught at secondary and post-secondary level on a wide range of EFL/TESOL programs to both migrants and overseas students. Peter completed his Masters of Education in Adult Education from UTS in 2006.

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 19 Teaching English Across Cultures. What do English language teachers need to know to know how to teach English

A NDY K IRKPATRICK

Hong Kong Institute of Education

This article contains four sections. The first introduces and sets the context for the article in its entirety, the second section presents the first context, the Indonesian culture-based English project, the third section presents context 2, the Hong Kong situation, and the final section is titled ‘The implications for what a language teacher needs to know’. In this article I shall consider whether it is possible to determine the skills and attributes required by English language teachers irrespective of the contexts in which they are teaching by comparing very different ELT situations in Indonesia and Hong Kong. First I shall describe how an Australian-funded and led research project into the development of culturally appropriate ELT materials for Indonesian tertiary students was modified and shaped by local Indonesian teachers and writers. The second context concerns the current ELT situation in Hong Kong and the implications of Hong Kong’s trilingual language policy on what and how English teachers should teach in Hong Kong’s government schools. A suggested list of the specific skills and knowledge an English teacher should possess concludes the article.

Introduction Many scholars have shown the importance of tailoring teacher training courses to the needs of particular contexts (Holliday 2005, Derwing & Munro 2005, Kirkpatrick 2002, 2006a). This article describes two specific contexts. The first concerns an experimental project with which I was involved in Indonesia. This came to be known as the ‘Asian culture- based’ project. I shall show how the original idea behind the project became slowly but inexorably altered by my Indonesian colleagues in order for the project to better fit the local context, as understood by them. This gave me a salutary lesson in not assuming that what I thought would be useful for the Indonesian context would necessarily be thought so by my Indonesian colleagues. This was made even more illuminating as I had taken, I thought, great pains to try and see things from their point of view. I was very conscious that I should not try and establish myself as some expert who

20 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 knew better than they did, but simply to be part of the team to help facilitate what I thought they wanted to achieve. The second context concerns the ELT situation in Hong Kong’s government schools, especially how it is shaped by the government’s language and medium of instruction policies. After describing these two specific contexts, I shall consider whether it is possible or feasible to draw up a list of skills and knowledge that English teachers need in general, or whether the contextual demands of the specific situation mean that these skills and this knowledge will depend very much on the particular teaching situation. This potential general-specific conflict has obvious implications for the design of English language teacher training courses.

Context 1 The Indonesian Culture-Based English Project Background It is probably fair to say that English teaching in Indonesia’s government schools and colleges has been characterised by failure over the past few decades. Three Indonesian scholars have portrayed it in this way. Alwasilah (2001, p. 20) lists as common problems ‘unskilled teachers, abject facilities’ and ‘unfavourable learning environments’. In a survey of developments of ELT in Indonesia, Dardjowidjojo writes: With few exceptions, generally a high school graduate is not able to communicate intelligibly in English. Those who are can be suspected of having taken private courses or come from a certain family background (2000, p.27) He goes on to list five contributing factors: • large class sizes; • teachers with low levels of English proficiency; • the low salary of government English teachers, which encourages (or even forces) many to moonlight; • the lack of adequate preparation to teach the new curriculum; • cultural barriers. Adnan agrees, saying the quality of education is generally low and puts this down to a lack of financial resources, large class sizes and small salaries (2006, p.7). At the college or university level, Indonesian college students who are not English majors are commonly required to take two or three credit hours of MKD Bahasa Inggris, an ESP-based course in college English, where students are provided with

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 21 reading materials about their field of study. The focus of instruction is on developing reading skills, translation into Indonesian, and sometimes on writing in English. As the entry level of most students is very low, this ESP-based English class is a grammar and translation class. Most ESP programs fail to develop students’ proficiency in English. It was against this background, therefore, that Daniel Wibowo, then the Rector of Christian Maranatha University in Bandung, began to consider a possible new approach. A seminar entitled ‘Specific English for Indonesians’ was duly held in Bandung in 2001. The seminar considered the following interrelated concepts: 1. English is now an Asian language; it is commonly used as a lingua franca throughout Asia by so-called non-native speakers in order to communicate with other non-native speakers. 2. When these speakers use English, they need to be able to talk about each other’s cultures in English. 3. There are many different varieties of English. Why can’t Indonesians choose a culturally appropriate local variety, Malaysian, for example, instead of a native speaker variety? 4. If the English taught in Indonesia is to be based on a local model and if the materials are to be based on local and regional cultures, does that not imply that local and regional English teachers who speak the model to be taught and have knowledge of the cultures to be taught are the most appropriate teachers? The proposals received a mixed response among the seminar participants, most of whom were practising teachers of English in local universities. Some enthusiastically supported the idea but some were more dubious. However, there was sufficient initial enthusiasm for the idea to justify a grant proposal for the development of English language materials based on ASEAN cultures. This was kindly funded by the Australia Indonesia Institute. The materials resulted in an English textbook for Indonesian university students (‘Culture Based English for College Students’ , Aziz, Sudana & Noorman 2003). Why an ASEAN culture based textbook? Despite all the research into developing varieties of English in the region, English is still presented either as a communicative tool for use with native speakers of English, or as a tool for gaining access to ‘Western’ technology and skills. This is not just true of Indonesia, but many other parts of the world too, including Hong Kong. The models that are introduced to the students have therefore been native speaker models under the assumption that these are the best and most useful models for these students to learn. In summary, the primary reason for Indonesians learning English is assumed

22 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 to have been so that they can communicate with native speakers, or can read texts written by native speakers. However, these premises are based on false assumptions. Worldwide, English is now more commonly used as a language of communication between non-native speakers of English than between native speakers of English (McArthur 1998). This is particularly the case in South East Asia. The primary role that English plays is as a lingua franca: It is the language of communication between Asians themselves. For example, English is the de facto language of ASEAN (Krasnick 1995). It is also the de facto language of business throughout Asia. When Indonesian bankers sit down to discuss business with their Philippino or Thai counterparts, they will probably use English. When Japanese, Vietnamese and Indonesians meet to discuss projects, they will probably speak in English. This has two important implications for the teaching of English in the region: the first concerns which cultures should be taught through English; and the second concerns which variety of English should be taught. Implication 1: which cultures should be taught through English? If English is used primarily for communication between so-called non native speakers of English, then the cultures and backgrounds of those people becomes more important than any culture traditionally associated with native speakers. For example, as it is most likely that Indonesians will need to use English in order to communicate with someone from the region, say a Thai or a Korean or a Vietnamese, then Indonesians will need to learn about the cultures of those people in order to be able to talk to them in a knowledgeable and courteous way. Similarly, Indonesians will warm towards a person who can discuss with them, in English, aspects of Indonesian culture. This means that the ELT curriculum in Indonesia (and other parts of Asia) needs to change. Instead of giving students information about the cultures of native speakers, the curriculum should include information about the cultures and peoples of the ASEAN and Asian region. It is also important that students be prepared to be able to use English to talk about their own cultures and issues which are important to them. Implication 2: which variety of English should be taught? If English in Indonesia and Asia is used primarily for communication between non native speakers of English, then the way those people speak English becomes more important than the way native speakers speak English. In other words, instead of using native speaker models, we need to consider the possibility of using regional varieties of English in the classrooms. After all, if the primary role of English in the ASEAN and Asian region is to be a lingua franca between peoples of the region, then the English varieties that people in the region speak represent appropriate

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 23 classroom models. Indeed, a number of Asian varieties have already achieved the status of being a standard. These include Singaporean, Malaysian, Philippino and the varieties of the Indian sub-continent. Given Indonesia’s linguistic and cultural closeness to Malaysia, it would seem sensible that the Malaysian variety become model in Indonesian classrooms. Sensible it may seem, but whenever I have raised this idea with Indonesian ELT professionals they have gently reminded me how difficult it would be to persuade Indonesians to accept a Malaysian model. One might as well try and persuade an Australian that the New Zealand variety of English should become the classroom model in Australia. Writing the Materials Professor Chaedar Alwasilah of the Indonesia University of Education (IUE) established a materials writing team, with Dr Aziz, also of IUE, as the team-leader. First, the authors were to write a set of six trial units, each of which would deal with some aspect of ASEAN culture. Each unit would be sent to me for my comments and then trialed with six classes of college students in Bandung. The units were duly sent to me and I was surprised to find that they dealt, almost exclusively, with the cultures of Indonesia rather than the cultures of ASEAN. Instead, therefore, of units on aspects of Thai or Vietnamese culture, there was, for example, a unit on the becak or pedicab drivers of Jakarta, one on Rendra, the celebrated Indonesian poet and playwright, and one on dangdut, a form of Indonesian pop music. This put me in something of a quandary. My idea of publishing an ELT text based on ASEAN cultures was being turned into a textbook about the cultures of Indonesia. I couldn’t see how such a text would motivate Indonesian students to use English. Surely they would discuss these things in Bahasa Indonesia, their own lingua franca, not in English? This was when I had to take a deep breath and remind myself that this was their book, not mine, and what they were writing was what they wanted to write. So, I contented myself with suggesting that each unit should contain a discussion question that required the students to compare the Indonesian situation with the situations in parts of ASEAN. Thus the unit on ‘Students and Brawls’ obtained the extra writing task, ‘Based on the texts, write a letter to a friend in Bangkok who asks about student brawls in Jakarta…’ I also decided to wait for the results of the evaluation of the six trial units, before reminding the team of the original idea of a broad ASEAN focus for the materials. As it turned out, the results of the trials gave me little scope to argue for more ASEAN-based materials. Figure 1 shows the results of the students’ evaluations of the materials. These were prepared and collated by Chaedar Alwasilah.

24 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 Figure 1 The students’ evaluations of the trial materials

Evaluative statements % of students who agreed with the statements Appropriate for MKDU course 83.35% Appropriate for achieving course objectives 75% Support their study 95.8% Materials are suitable 100% Need to incorporate global culture 79.2% Activities are useful 95.8% Materials Improve reading ability 91.7% Materials Improve listening & speaking 75% Materials Improve writing ability 54.2% Time allocated is sufficient 45.8% The design is not attractive 66.7%

The students’ evaluations were gratifying, with very high percentages saying that the materials supported their study and that the activities were useful. Most tellingly, from my point of view, however, was the finding that 100% found the materials suitable. I was clearly going to have to put my plans for an explicitly ASEAN-culture-based textbook on hold for the time being. This textbook, when it was published in 2003, contained 15 units, all of which deal with aspects of Indonesian cultures. The unit titles are listed below.

Unit 1 Our capital city Unit 2 Becak Unit 3 We love dangdut Unit 4 Harmonious life Unit 5 Students and Brawls Unit 6 Preserving the traditions: Textiles Unit 7 Rendra Unit 8 The world of mysticism Unit 9 Business matters Unit 10 Traditional wedding ceremony

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 25 Unit 11 Traditional arts: Wayang Unit 12 Wanted urgently: Are you the right person? Unit 13 The top five! Unit 14 Caring for fauna Unit 15 Indonesian cuisine: Ayam Taliwang

Most of the titles make explicit reference to an aspect of Indonesian life or culture and those that do not are all concerned with Indonesia. For example, unit 9, ‘Business Matters’, describes the characteristics of Indonesian business people. ‘The Top Five’(unit 13), refers to Transparency International’s list of the most corrupt countries in the world in which Indonesia was placed in the ‘top five’, coming 88th out of 91. Unit 12 ‘Wanted Urgently. Are You The Right Person?’ deals with the ‘dearth of statesmanship among the members of the Indonesian political elite’ (Aziz et al 1989). It is important to stress that, while many of these units deal with ‘standard’ cultural topics such as crafts, several also tackle tricky subjects, subjects of genuine concern to Indonesians. This might give some clue as to the popularity of the textbook. It is extremely unlikely that an international publishing house would have either considered including or have been allowed to include many of these controversial topics in an English language textbook. That the textbook was written by and for Indonesians may have given it a little more license. The textbook also gives learners the opportunity to learn about a whole host of topics of cultural significance to Indonesians and thus provides excellent materials for equipping them to be able to talk about their own culture and concerns in English to other people. Thus the textbook fulfilled the goal of preparing students to talk about their own cultures to others; the goal of informing learners about ASEAN cultures, however, was not really addressed. In the end, there were very few tasks that required the students to engage in a comparison of their own and ASEAN cultures. The emphasis on local cultures and concerns may have reflected the needs of Indonesians to talk about these, given the extraordinary social, political and cultural changes which Indonesians were experiencing at the time.

Context 2. The Hong Kong Situation The second context to be described is the English language teaching situation in Hong Kong, particularly as it applies to government primary and secondary schools. There is not space here to summarise the complex history of English language teaching in Hong Kong. Those interested should consult a series of publications by Kingsley

26 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 Bolton and his colleagues (see Bolton 200, Bolton and Kim 2000, Bolton 2003). Here I shall focus on two crucial aspects of present Hong Kong government policy. The first concerns the issue of medium of instruction in schools. Before the hand back of Hong Kong to China, the British government moved from its laissez-faire position of allowing secondary school principals to decide which medium of instruction would be used in their schools. It now decided that only one hundred secondary schools, out of a total of some 460, would be allowed to continue to use English as a medium of instruction. The remainder would teach in Cantonese. This was met with considerable public opposition and, as a result, the government slightly increased the number of English medium secondary schools to 114. The government also recognised that this switch to Cantonese medium schools meant that students will need extra help with their English. To this end, each Cantonese medium school receives extra funding to hire a native speaker of English as an English teacher. The situation with regard to government primary schools is quite different. There, Cantonese is the medium of instruction in all subjects and English is taught as a subject. However, it should be noted that the demand for English has led many of those parents who can afford it to enrol their children into the schools run by the English Schools Foundation (ESF). This has led to many recently arrived expatriate parents becoming extremely disgruntled, as they can’t find places for their children in the ESF schools. This current demand for English shows that the people of Hong Kong have maintained their consistent mercantile and pragmatic attitude to English (Sweeting & Vickers 2005). This position is succinctly captured by Boyle, ‘Hong Kong Chinese have always wanted English’ (1997, p.176). Li (2002), in answering the question why Hong Kong parents tend to favour English medium schools, stresses that Hong Kong parents ‘are not passive victims but pragmatically-minded active agents acting in their best interests’ (2002, p.55). Their decision is a pragmatic one driven largely by an aspiration for social mobility. Li continues:

….English helps one access more information and people – through higher education, on the job, in cyber space and international encounters. In writing, English has a greater potential to help one reach out to wider audiences compared with other languages. In this light, rather than a tool of hegemony, English may be looked upon as a resource to enhance the learners’ linguistic repertoire, which in turn has good potential for enriching their quality of life through higher education and professional development (2002 p.5).

Now that Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China, the linguistic situation has become more complex as all children must now learn Putonghua, the

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 27 national language of China. This raises a potential contradiction between the plans of the Beijing and Hong Kong governments. On the one hand, it would appear that Beijing would like to see Hong Kong undergo some form of re-sinification and sees the learning of Putonghua as an essential arm of this policy. On the other hand, the Hong Kong government is desperate to retain Hong Kong’s position as, in the words of its own advertising campaign, ‘Asia’s World City’, and sees the learning of English as an essential arm of this policy. The situation is made even more complex as, of course, the Hong Kong government can’t actually say this openly. Upsetting Beijing is bad for Hong Kong. The introduction of Putonghua has led to a language policy that seeks to make its citizens trilingual in Cantonese, Putonghua and English, and biliterate in Chinese and English. This is a laudable policy, but its implementation is problematic for reasons considered below which are connected to these facts about Hong Kong’s English language learners and teachers. a) Despite an increase in diversity, the great majority of school children in HK government schools have Cantonese as their L1. b) The great majority of children in HK are institutional bilinguals, by which I mean they primarily learn their other languages (English and Putonghua) in a school setting. c) The great majority of English teachers in HK government schools are L1 speakers of Cantonese, who themselves learned English in schools. d) Thus the great majority of HK school children are L1 Cantonese speakers who develop bi-/tri-lingual skills in schools by being taught English (and Putonghua) by L1 Cantonese teachers. The key issue is that the current policy seeks to ensure that the citizens of Hong Kong become trilingual, but uses linguistic benchmarks based on a monolingual native speaker model. In other words, a plurilingual policy is using a monolingual model as a linguistic benchmark which treats any variation from the monolingual model as an error (cf. Blommaert, Crewe &Willaert 2006). This means that, in the context of Hong Kong, the variety of English that will naturally be acquired by L1 speakers of Cantonese is classified, from the outset, as deviant, simply because it differs from a native speaker monolingual model. This, in turn, means that local English language teachers, even though their English may be highly proficient, will be classified as speaking a substandard variety, as their English is measured against native speaker benchmarks. An example of this is that local English language teachers (native speakers are exempt) who wish to work in government schools have to pass the feared Language

28 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 Proficiency Assessment for Teachers (LPAT) exam. In order to achieve the top band in the pronunciation assessment, candidates must satisfy these criteria. Pronunciation, stress and intonation scale Level 5 ‘Pronunciation is completely error-free with no noticeable first language (L1) characteristics. Any mistakes that occur can be categorized as ‘slips’ rather than systematic errors. Sentence stress and intonation patterns are always appropriate and communication is never impeded in the slightest. (Government of the Hong Kong SAR 2000, p.121) This, in effect, means that anyone whose first language is Cantonese – and this would be the huge majority of local teachers – will be unable to achieve the top band in this assessment. The choice of a native speaker model also means that the model that children are required to learn in schools is a model that does not take into consideration their bilingual (or plurilingual) background. As Cook has pointed out, if the target of language learners is passing for native, ‘few are going to meet it. Both teachers and students become frustrated by setting themselves what is, in effect, an impossible target’ (2002 p.331). This insistence on a native speaker model thus creates great problems for both teachers and students alike (Kirkpatrick 2006a). What is needed is a bilingual target or model based on the English of highly proficient users who are L1 speakers of Cantonese. This would be more appropriate than a native speaker model because it would be more attainable and locally relevant. The choice of the local bilingual model could advantage and legitimise local English language teachers, as their bilingual variety of English would now become the linguistic model for their students. This would thus validate their variety of English as opposed to classifying it as deficient. A codified description of the Cantonese-English bilingual variety would also be vital because it would provide the linguistic benchmarks for English language teachers and teaching in Hong Kong’s government schools. As codification brings with it the notion of acceptance as a standard, learners could be tested and evaluated against codified norms and standards. As Bamgbose has pointed out for nativised varieties of Malaysian or Nigerian English, ‘The importance of codification is too obvious to be laboured’ (1998, p 4). However, for any project of this nature to be successful, it must have the full co- operation and support of the locals. The outsider, especially if s/he is from the inner- circle, is always open to the ‘imperialist’ charge of making decisions for and on behalf of the locals. Holliday (2005) recounts a salutary example of this when reporting a Taiwanese English teacher’s reaction to what is, in my view, Jenkins’s path-finding

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 29 work in providing criteria based on mutual intelligibility for determining content for inclusion in English language teaching curricula. In contrast, Kuo sees Jenkins (2000) as presenting yet another ‘Centre-led definition of what English should be’ (2005, p.9). She continues, ‘I prefer to speak for myself’ (2005, p.9). And, of course, she should. It would therefore also be important to survey local stakeholders, including relevant government officials, parents, teachers and students, to identify their attitudes towards a codified Cantonese-English bilingual model being used to provide linguistic benchmarks for the schools. Any proposed change needs the support of the local stakeholders. It would also be naïve to think that codification alone would be enough to bring public acceptance to the local variety (Kirkpatrick 2006a). New varieties have to go through many phases before receiving local acceptance, and, in some cases, this may take many years (Kachru 1992). However, the codification of the local bilingual speech of Hong Kong Cantonese-English bilinguals would be a vital first step in helping legitimize it as a variety of English. Similar work on the codification of systematic regional and bilingual varieties of English in other parts of the world is needed in order to ensure their incorporation into regional ELT curricula along with the cultures associated with them. Implications for what a language teacher needs to know Both the contexts that have been described above have their own unique complexities. In Indonesia, the students lack motivation to learn English and there are insufficient resources and nowhere near enough trained teachers. In Hong Kong, there is a high demand, fuelled by pragmatic concerns, to learn English, but the government’s medium of instruction policy and the benchmarks it uses to measure the students’ and teachers’ proficiency seem perversely designed to de-motivate people, despite the government’s wish for an English-speaking populace. Anyone who wanted to teach well in either of these contexts would need in-depth knowledge of them and would also need to be open to the ideas of local professionals and stakeholders. But does this mean that all ELT training courses must be tailored to specific contexts? Is it possible to identify the skills and knowledge that such courses should impart to all teachers? The question of what skills and knowledge English language teachers need to have has been debated many times. The current President of Hong Kong TESOL, Liu Jun, recently presented four major areas in which he believed all language teachers should be proficient (2006). These were: language; instruction; culture; and assessment. What matters most, however, is professionalism (1999).

30 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 In the context of Australia, Ellis (2002) has presented an extremely strong and effective case that language teachers should be multilingual and multicultural, although these skills are seldom demanded by employers. In the Canadian ESL context, Derwing and Munro argue that TESOL graduates must have: • a thorough understanding of teaching practices and philosophy typical in Canada; • a high level of English proficiency; • and speak a variety of English ‘that is intelligible to local members of the community’ (2005, p.184). This raises the distinction between the native and the non-native speaker of English. The various advantages and disadvantages of being an NS or an NNS have been debated by several scholars in recent years (see Medgyes 1994, Braine 1999, Ellis 2002, Canagarajah 2005, Llurda 2005). It is time to discard this distinction and instead to develop a list of the skills and knowledge that all language teachers should have, irrespective of whether they can be classified as native speakers or not, not least because the distinction often betrays prejudice if not racism. For example, I recently gave my second year B. Ed. language students a page from a Hong Kong newspaper that carried advertisements for a range of English language teaching positions in Hong Kong. I asked them to look through the adverts and decide which of the jobs they would like to apply for once they had become qualified English language teachers. It was not long before initial interest was replaced by emotions verging from anger to despair, as they soon realised that each advertisement insisted on the applicants being ‘native-speakers’. In other words, linguistically highly proficient 4-year trained trilinguals were unable even to apply for these jobs. This was somehow made more shocking as these were jobs within their own country. The NS-NNS distinction also overlooks the linguistic and cultural complexity of all multilingual and multicultural societies. I am sure you have all known people who find it difficult to say what their first language is. Many people may feel that they have so-called native speaker proficiency but prefer to be culturally labeled as non- native speakers. For example, a Tagalog-speaking ELT professional surveyed by Liu Jun (1999:93) reported that she felt she was an NS in terms of English competence but an NNS in term of cultural identity. We all have multiple identities. It needs to be recognized, however, that prejudice exists and, as language professionals, we must recognize this and take all possible steps to overcome it. As Derwing and Munro report (2005:187), ESL students may reject instruction from an individual whom they do not accept because of his/her ethnic background. They provide the

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 31 example of ethnically Asian teaching practice students being bullied by students of East European backgrounds. The crucial point they make however, is that this discrimination applies to native speakers and non-native speakers alike. The native speaker versus non-native speaker status ‘is irrelevant’ (2005, p.180). Not only has the difficulty in providing linguistic criteria for the NS-NNS classification now been established, there are often also racial issues associated with it that need to be exposed and excised. As Liu Jun has pointed out, we need to know who is doing the labeling between NS and NNS and why and who is defining TESOL professionals as NNS or NS and why. Inner circle membership and whiteness are often the criteria (Liu Jun1999, p.97). A final reason for discarding the NS-NNS distinction in the context of ELT professionals is that many countries and institutions employ untrained native speakers on the strength of their being native speakers alone. A Japanese ELT recruitment company provides just one example (for further examples see Kirkpatrick 2006b). This company advertises in England for native speaker teachers to work in Japanese primary and secondary schools. These people do not have to be trained, but ‘they must like children’. The importance, therefore, of insisting on qualified professionals can hardly be overstated, if for no other reason than to protect children. Discarding the native speaker – non-native speaker distinction allows the move away from what Holliday has termed ‘native-speakerism’ (cf. Holliday 2005:10), the idea that so-called native –speaker varieties are necessarily superior to new varieties of English and that they should therefore provide the linguistic norms in all contexts. In Holliday’s words: Native speakerism represents a desire to know about a foreign other in order to change and ‘improve’ it. Native speakerism is concerned by cultural correction, which is driven by a chauvinistic desire to dominate and control…….. (2005, p.157). In stead, therefore, of considering whether an English teacher is a native speaker or not, employers need to ensure that all teachers that they employ possess the necessary skills and knowledge to be language teachers. I conclude the article with a suggested list of skills or knowledge that all English language teachers should possess, regardless of their linguistic background or ethnicity or the context in which they are going to teach. All English language teachers should: • be multilingual and multicultural and ideally know the language of their students and understand the educational, social and cultural contexts in which they are working

32 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 • either be able to provide an appropriate and attainable model for their students or, if they speak another variety, understand that where a local variety of English exists, it is an appropriate and well-formed variety that is not inferior to their own • understand how different varieties of English have developed linguistically and the ways in which they differ phonologically, lexically, grammatically, rhetorically and culturally • understand how English has developed in specific contexts and how it has spread across the world • understand the role(s) of English in the community and how these interrelate with other local languages • have an understanding of the methods of teaching used in the community and be able to evaluate methods for specific contexts • be trained in the use of relevant technologies both to enhance their teaching and to encourage autonomy in their students • be able to evaluate ELT materials critically to ensure that these do not, either explicitly or implicitly, promote a particular variety of English or culture at the expense of others • be able to evaluate the specific needs of their students and teach towards those needs • be able to contribute to the extra-curricula life of the institution in which they are working • know the context and respect local knowledge. If these are the skills required of English language teachers, it follows then that the curricula of TESOL courses and the like should be designed to equip teachers with these skills. Sadly, few appear to do so. A survey of MA TESOL courses offered by institutions across the United States suggests that few courses actually do provide their students with these skills (Govardhan, Nayar and Sheorey 1999). The authors of the survey reported that US MA TESOL courses were more suited to those wishing to teach in the United States; they were therefore unable to identify any program specifically designed toward preparing ELT teachers to teach abroad. In conclusion, governments, ministries and employers need to recognize that well- trained plurilingual teachers who are culturally sensitive and sophisticated are required to teach today’s learners of English, the overwhelming majority of whom are bilingual and who are learning in culturally diverse contexts for an extraordinarily complex range of needs, stretching from local to international.

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 33 References

Adnan, Zi (2006). Rhetorical Patterns in Indonesian Academic Writing in the Humanities. PhD Dissertation, Curtin University, Perth, Australia. Alwasilah, Chaedar (2001). ‘The emerging Indonesian English (Indoenglish): A pedagogical exploration’. In Wibowo, D (ed.): 18-22. Aziz, Aminudin, Sudana, Dadang & Noorman, Safrina (2003). Culture-Based English for College Students. Jakarata: Grasindo Bamgbose, Ayo (1998). ‘Torn between the norms and innovations in World Englishes.’ World Englishes 17 (1): 1-14. Beacco, Jean-Claude and Byram, Michael (2003). Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe (Draft 1 (rev). Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Language Policy Division. Blommaert, J., Creve, L. and Willaert, E. (2006). ‘On being declared illiterate: language-ideological disqualification in Dutch classes from immigrants in Belgium.’ Language and Communication 26:34-54. Bolton, K. (2000). ‘The sociolinguistics of Hong Kong and the space for Hong Kong English.’ World Englishes 19(3): 265-286. Bolton, K. (2003). Chinese Englishes: A Sociolinguistic History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bolton, K & Lim, S. (2000). ‘Futures for Hong Kong English.’ World Englishes 19(3):429-443. Boyle, J. (1997). ‘Imperialism and the English language.’ Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 18(3): 169-181. Braine, G (ed.) (1999). Non-Native Educators in English Language Teaching. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Canagarajah, Suresh C. (2005). ‘Reconstructing local knowledge, reconfiguring language studies’, In Canagarajah (ed.), Reclaiming the Local in Language Policy and Practice (pp. 3-24) Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cook, V.J. (2002). Language teaching methodology and the L2 user perspective. In Cook (ed.), Portraits of the L2 User. (pp. 327-343). Dardjowidjojo, Soenjono, (2000). ‘English teaching in Indonesia. English Australia Journal 18(1):21-30. Derwing, Tracey M. & Munro, Murray J. (2005). ‘Pragmatic perspectives on the

34 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 preparation of teachers of English as a second language: putting the NS/NNS debate in context’ In Llurda, E. (ed.). Non-native Language teachers: Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions to the Profession. 179-191. New York: Springer. Ellis, Liz (2002). ‘Teaching from experience: a new perspective on the non-native teacher in adult ESL.’ Australian review of Applied Linguistics 25(1): 71-107. Holliday, A. (2005). The Struggle to Teach English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goethals, M. (1997). ‘NELLE: Portrait of a European network’. World Englishes 16(1): 57-63. Govardhan, A., Nayar, B.& Sheorey, R. (1999). ‘Do US MATESOL programs prepare students to teach abroad.’ TESOL Quarterly 33 (1): 114-125. Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (2000). Syllabus Specifications for the Language Proficiency Assessment for Teachers (English Language). Hong Kong: HK SAR Printing Department. Graddol, David (2006). English Next. London: The British Council. Hoffman, C. (2000). ‘The spread of English and the growth of multilingualism in Europe.’ In Cenoz and Jessner (eds.), English in Europe: the acquisition of a third language (pp. 1-21) Hoffman, C. (1996). ‘Societal and individual bilingualism with English in Europe.’ In Hartmann (ed.), English in Europe (pp. 47-60). Oxford: Intellect. Jenkins, J. (2000). The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kachru, Braj B. (1992). ‘Models for non-native Englishes.’ In Kachru, B. (ed.), The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures (pp.48-74). Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Kirkpatrick, A (forthcoming). World Englishes: Implications for Language teaching and International Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kirkpatrick, A (2006a). ‘Which model of English: native speaker, nativised or lingua franca?’ In Saraceni and Rubdy (eds.), English in the World: Global Rules, Global Roles.(pp. 71-83) London: Continuum Press. Kirkpatrick, A. (2006b). ‘No experience necessary?’ Learning English. Guardian Weekly 20/01/06:4 Kirkpatrick, A. (2002). ‘ASEAN and Asian cultures and models: implications for the ELT curriculum and for teacher selection.’ In Kirkpatrick, A (Ed.) Englishes in Asia:

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 35 Communication, Identity, Politics and Education. Melbourne: Language Australia, pp.213-224. Krasnick, H. (1995). ‘The role of linguaculture and intercultural communication in ASEAN in the year 2020: prospects and predictions’, In Tickoo (ed.), Language and Culture in Multilingual Societies (pp.81-93). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Li, David C.S. (2002). ‘Hong Kong parents’ preference for English-medium education: passive victim of imperialism or active agents of pragmatism.’ In Kirkpatrick (ed.), Englishes in Asia (pp.28-62). Liu Jun (2006). ‘TESOL and English language education in China. Global perspectives and local challenges.’ Paper given at the 7th International Symposium on Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching, Beijing and Hong Kong 7-13 August. Liu Jun (1999). ‘Nonnative English-speaking professionals in TESOL.’ TESOL Quarterly 33(1), 85-102. Llurda, Enric (ed.) (2005). Non-native Language Teachers. Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions to the Profession. New York: Springer McArthur, T (1998). The English Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Medgyes, P. (1999). ‘Language training: a neglected area in teacher education’. In Braine, G (ed.): 177-196. Medgyes, P. (1994). The Non-Native Teacher. London: Macmillan. Sweeting, A. & Vickers, E. (2005). ‘On colonising colonialism: the discourses of history of English in Hong Kong.’ World Englishes 24(2): 113-130. Wibowo, D (Ed.) (2001). Proceedings of the Seminar on Specific English for Indonesians. Bandung: Universitas Kristen Maranatha.

Andy Kirkpatrick is currently Professor and Head of the Department of English at the Institute of Education in Hong Kong. Immediately prior to that he was Professor of Language Education at Curtin, where he worked for 11 years. He has also lived and taught in Burma, China, Singapore and Taiwan. He is currently working on a description of English as a lingua franca in ASEAN. His book, ‘World Englishes: implications for English language teaching and international communication’ will be published by Cambridge University Press in 2007.

36 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 A Protocol-Based Study of University-Level Chinese EFL Learners’ Writing Strategies

G UANGWEI H U

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

B O C HEN

Chongqing Jiaotong University, P. R. China

This paper reports on a small-scale study designed to investigate the writing strategies employed by undergraduates who were studying English as a foreign language (EFL) in a Chinese university. The study aimed to address three research questions: 1) Do skilled and unskilled Chinese EFL writers differ in their use of writing strategies? 2) Do their writing strategies vary as a function of the writing tasks that they are engaged in? 3) Do task types have a similar effect on the strategic behavior of skilled Chinese EFL writers and their unskilled counterparts? Data for the study consists of think-aloud reports collected from one unskilled and two skilled EFL writers while they were performing two writing tasks. Analyses of the transcribed protocols reveal important differences in strategy use between the skilled and unskilled writers and interesting patterns of variation between the writing tasks. The findings yield several implications for writing instruction.

Introduction Since the early 1980s, it has been a widely accepted idea that second language (L2) writing teachers need to understand the processes of L2 writing and take them into account in writing instruction (Campbell, 1998; Hedgcock, 2005; Raimes, 1991; Susser, 1994). Early research into L2 composing (e.g., Arndt, 1987; Raimes, 1983, 1985, 1987; Zamel, 1982, 1983) yielded rich insights into the nature of L2 writing as a complex, non-linear, recursive process, the similarities and differences between L1 and L2 writing, and the differences between skilled and unskilled L2 writers (see Krapels, 1990; Silva, 1993, for reviews of this research). This interest in the process of L2 writing has continued to date, and notably, research on the sub-processes of L2 writing, such as formulating, reviewing, and revising, has intensified and become more sophisticated in recent years (see Silva & Brice, 2004, for a review). Despite the existence of a wealth of research on L2 writing, much exploration remains to be done. For example, although L2 writing processes and strategies have been investigated extensively in relation to some variables (e.g., L2 proficiency, motivation, attitudes, and writing goals), other variables have received relatively little research

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 37 attention. One such variable is the writing task per se. Few studies have specifically addressed how writing tasks may influence the processes and strategies adopted by L2 writers and whether writing tasks impact on the strategy use of skilled and unskilled L2 writers similarly. Inquiry into the effects of writing tasks on strategy use, however, has the potential to yield important implications for process-oriented L2 writing instruction in the classroom. A second gap in L2 writing research has to do with its predominant focus on L2 learners in Western educational settings. For example, although quite a number of investigations have involved Chinese learners of English studying in Western institutions of higher learning, few empirical studies published in English- and Chinese-medium academic journals have examined the writing processes and strategies of Chinese L2 learners in a Chinese context (Li & Li, 2003; Wang & Wang, 2004). However, research on L2 writing in different socioeducational contexts has been proposed as a primary theme on the L2 writing research agenda first by Silva (1990) and, most recently, by Hedgcock (2005) and Silva and Brice (2004). As Hedgcock points out, ‘the cultures and social contexts in which various literacies emerge inevitably influence [their] developmental processes’ (2005, p. 600). This view of literacy development underscores the need to study L2 writers in diverse sociocultural contexts to uncover the complex patterns of strategy use by L2 writers. The need to examine the writing processes and strategies of Chinese EFL learners in the social, cultural, and educational contexts of China becomes all the more acute against the backdrop of an embryonic pedagogical shift of EFL writing instruction in China (You, 2004a, 2004b) from a current-traditional approach (see Kroll, 2001; Silva, 1990) to a more process-oriented one (see Susser, 1994). Although findings from research on L2 writing processes and strategies done on non-Chinese learners and in other contexts are valuable, it cannot be assumed a priori that EFL writers in China resemble L2 learners elsewhere in strategic behavior and writing processes. In this regard, it is important to heed sound cautions about the unproductiveness of wholesale borrowing of language teaching methodology in general (Hu, 2005) and writing pedagogy in particular (Leki, 1996; Pennington, Brock, & Yue, 1996). Pedagogical borrowings need to be adapted to target learners and contexts. The success of a process-oriented L2 writing pedagogy in China is predicated in large measure on a solid understanding of the processes and strategies used by Chinese EFL writers. Given the considerations above, the study reported here focused on the writing strategies used by undergraduates studying EFL in a Chinese university, with a view to arriving at a nuanced understanding of strategy use by skilled and unskilled Chinese EFL writers. Specifically, the study aimed to address three research questions: 1) Do skilled and unskilled Chinese EFL writers differ in their use of writing strategies? 2)

38 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 Do their writing strategies vary as a function of the writing tasks that they are engaged in? 3) Do task types have a similar effect on the strategic behavior of skilled Chinese EFL writers and their unskilled counterparts? It was hoped that empirically grounded answers to these questions could lead to useful pedagogical implications for processed- oriented writing instruction in Chinese EFL classrooms and elsewhere. Previous Research on L2 Writing The process of L2 writing has been a major focus of L2 writing research since the early 1980s. Early studies of the L2 writing process were inspired by developments in L1 writing research (Cumming, 1998; Hedgcock, 2005; Silva, 1993). In her comprehensive survey of these studies, Krapels (1990) identified a number of ‘recurrent motifs’ (p. 48). These include the findings that: (1) poor performance in L2 writing results more from a lack of composing competence than from a lack of linguistic competence; (2) the composing processes of L2 writers, skilled and unskilled, are similar to those of L1 writers; (3) learners’ L1 writing strategies transfer to their L2 writing process; (4) L1 use in L2 writing has a number of facilitative functions; and (5) culture-bound topics elicit more L1 use than other tasks do. It is worth noting that some of the early studies also came up with contradictory findings. For example, Zamel’s (1983) study indicated that L2 writers, both skilled and unskilled, compose like their L1 counterparts and the composing competence rather than the L2 language proficiency differentiated skilled and unskilled L2 writers. She also found that ‘composing is a non-linear, exploratory and generative process’ (p.165), which is consistent with Flower and Hays’ (1981) claim about the L1 writing process. However, Raimes (1985, 1987) and Arndt (1987) observed some differences between L1 and L2 writing processes and among L2 writers. Raimes’ and Arndt’s findings underscore the need to examine the writing processes and strategies employed by individual L2 writers and warn against premature generalizations based on either L1 research or L2 research involving a homogenous sample of L2 writers. Into the 1990s, research on the L2 writing process became increasingly focused on the subprocesses of L2 writing, for example, reviewing and revising (e.g., Berg, 1999; Caulk, 1994; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1992). As Cumming (1998) observed, ‘studies of students’ composing processes have described with increased precision specific aspects of writing behaviors in second languages’ (p. 64). While research looking closely at specific aspects of L2 composing processes is valuable and allows us to develop an in-depth understanding of these aspects, there is a potential danger of losing sight of the big picture because of a narrow focus. Consequently, studies of specific aspects or subprocesses of L2 writing need to be complemented by investigations that take a more holistic approach. Furthermore, it should be noted that although studies of L2 writers in different social, cultural, and educational contexts have increased in recent

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 39 years, the typical setting for most studies is a Western one. Our study is an attempt to address the two issues raised above by examining the writing strategies used by Chinese EFL writers in a Chinese context to complete entire writing tasks. Of the many strands of L2 writing research, the one that is most relevant to the current study is research that has compared the writing behaviors of skilled and unskilled writers. Early work on novice and skilled L1 writers by Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) provided a theoretical basis for similar L2 studies (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996). Based on a wide range of investigations, Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) proposed a theory to capture differences between skilled writers and unskilled writers. They argued that skilled and unskilled writers take different approaches to writing. While novice or unskilled writers follow a knowledge-telling approach, skilled writers take a knowledge-transforming approach. If skilled and unskilled L2 writers take different approaches to a writing task, they can be expected to exhibit different writing behaviors. This expectation has been supported by several studies. Sasaki (2000) reported that expert writers spent longer time planning overall organization in detail. In a protocol-based analysis of the relationship between Chinese EFL writers’ strategies and their writing scores on an English proficiency test, Xiu and Xiao (2004) found that the skilled writers and unskilled writers differed in the use of two writing strategies: organizing ideas and formulating (or transcribing). The researchers interpreted their findings as consistent with Bereiter and Scardamalia’s model. Yang (2002) also observed differences between skilled and unskilled L2 writers in planning globally, generating ideas, and revising. However, not all studies found differences between skilled and unskilled L2 writers. Raimes (1985) reported that ‘no clear profile of the unskilled ESL writer emerged from this study of behaviors during composing’ (p. 249). Arndt (1987) observed that writing behaviors among members of a group varied considerably. A possible explanation for the inconsistent findings with respect to skilled and unskilled L2 writers may lie in the way L2 writers were classified as skilled or unskilled. Different criteria were used in different studies. Zamel (1983), Raimes (1987), and Cumming (1989) designated their subjects as skilled or unskilled on the basis of holistic assessment of compositions written by them on tests or in class. Sasaki (2000) used writing experience as a criterion in addition to holistic assessment of the subjects’ written products. Xiu and Xiao (2004) differentiated their subjects by their scores on a national English proficiency test. Yang’s (2002) subjects were judged to be good or poor writers on the basis of their scores on two previous writing tests and a questionnaire. The different criteria used in the studies make it difficult to decide whether the writing competencies of the skilled and unskilled L2 writers were comparable across the studies. In this regard, Raimes (1985) cautioned more than 20 years ago that

40 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 the validity of the criteria which differentiate skilled writers from unskilled writers should be a main concern in research design. Since the writing competence of the L2 writer can be influenced by many factors (Leki, 1996; Grabe, 2001), the adoption of multiple criteria should contribute to more precise assessment of an L2 learner’s writing competence in the target language. This consideration motivated us to adopt multiple criteria in classifying participants in our study. Although a large number of studies have been conducted to investigate the writing processes of skilled and unskilled L2 writers, few studies have focused on the influence of writing tasks on L2 writing strategies or the interaction between writing tasks and writing competence in relation to strategy use. Grabe (2001) pointed out that different writing tasks make different processing demands. He argued that a consideration of the nature of writing tasks can open up ways to address writing development more directly. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) provided evidence of the impact of different tasks and varying task complexity on L1 writing performance. Cumming’s (1989) study revealed that more cognitively demanding tasks such as argumentative writing assignments produced significantly different behaviors from those found in less cognitively demanding tasks such as letter writing. Wang and Wen (2002) found that more L1 was used in the narratives produced by their subjects than in their argumentative essays. In spite of these promising findings, more research is needed before a better understanding of task effects in L2 writing can be developed.

The Study Participants The presented study involved four participants (male = 3, female = 1) who were third-year English majors studying on an English for Specific Purposes program in a technological university in western China. All the participants were aged 20. As discussed in the previous section, it is of crucial importance to adopt multiple assessment criteria so as to classify L2 writers reliably in terms of writing competence. This issue was especially important to the present study, which aimed to investigate differences in writing strategy use between skilled and unskilled writers. The principal criterion that we used was potential participants’ performance in a compulsory English writing course. Their performance in this course was assessed through academic records and instructors’ evaluation of their writing ability. Their overall scores for CET-6 and TEM-4 were also used as additional criteria.1 When the study began, the four participants were attending the same 2-semester compulsory English writing course. Peng and Ren, highly praised by their instructor, were selected as skilled writers, Huang and Yang as unskilled writers.2 Peng was outstanding in English writing, compared with his peers. He wrote his own speech

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 41 script and won the second place in a local tertiary-level English speech contest in his second academic year. Peng and Ren were both awarded the highest scores among 110 students who took the writing course in the second semester. They passed CET-6 in their first year and TEM-4 in their second year. Huang and Yang, though regarded as highly motivated and hardworking students, were selected as unskilled writers because of their poor performance in the writing course. Huang was among the few who failed to obtain a pass grade in the writing course. Both Huang and Yang had failed in CET-6 and TEM-4. Writing tasks The participants were asked to perform two writing tasks using the short written prompts presented in Appendix A. They were given two hours to complete either task. The word limit for either task was 200 to 300 words, which was the required length for their writing assignments and essays on tests. The first task required the participants to write a letter to a friend, describing his or her university life. The second task asked them to compose an argument expressing their views of what makes a good student. The two writing tasks were chosen mainly for three considerations. The first consideration was that the two tasks should differ as much as possible in writing purposes and rhetorical structure. The overriding consideration, however, was the cognitive demands posed by the tasks. Based on previous research (Durst, 1987; Koda, 1993; Leki, 1996; Matsuhashi, 1981), we assumed that the description of a personal experience would be less cognitively complex and demanding than the argumentative task. We hypothesized that tasks varying in cognitive complexity as well as writing purposes and rhetorical structure would require the use of different writing strategies. The third consideration was the participants’ familiarity with the tasks. Since previous research (e.g., Manchon, Murphy, & Roca de Larios, 2005) suggested that topic familiarity could enhance participants’ involvement, we chose two education-related topics which we expected the participants to be familiar with. Data collection and coding Following earlier studies of composing processes (e.g., Arndt, 1987; Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Flower & Hays, 1981) and of language learning strategies (e.g., O’Malley & Chamot, 1990), we used the think-aloud procedure to collect data from the participants. The methodological decision was motivated by the understanding that despite its limitations, concurrent think-aloud is ‘the only way available to us to develop some understanding of learners’ mental processing’ (Chamot, 2005, p. 115). A 20-minute training session was conducted individually with each participant to familiarize him or her with the think-aloud procedure immediately before data

42 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 collection. The training consisted of three activities: 1) a brief introduction of the think-aloud procedure by the second author of this paper; 2) a demonstration of think- aloud by the same researcher while reading a short passage; and 3) the participants’ practice in vocalizing their thoughts while reading another short passage. Before the training session, a trial of the training activities was carried out with a classmate of the four participants to improve the effectiveness of the training sessions. The tasks were administered in a quiet reading room, free from any interruptions so that the participants could concentrate on the tasks. The participants were allowed to think aloud in any language they felt comfortable with because, as Cohen (1994) pointed out, language choice in think-aloud might require participants’ recoding of information, which could cause information loss or alter the original thought processes as a result of such constraints as memory capacity and poor command of the language used for reporting. In the process of data collection, when the participant paused for more than five seconds, he or she was prompted with general questions such as ‘What are you thinking about?’ and ‘What is on your mind?’ The second writing task was administered three days after the first one. All the think-aloud reports were recorded with a digital voice recorder. Unfortunately, Yang’s think-aloud data was lost because of a technical problem. Table 1 presents the time the remaining three participants took to complete the tasks. All the participants spent more time on Task 2, and Huang, the unskilled writer, spent more time than Peng and Ren, the two skilled writers. Table 1 Time (in minutes) taken by the three participants to complete the tasks.

Peng Ren Huang Task 1 (description) 22 26 31 Task 2 (argumentation) 31 27 53

The three participants’ think-aloud reports were transcribed verbatim to increase the reliability of subsequent data coding (Manchon, Murphy, & Roca de Larios, 2005). No existing coding schemes were adopted for the coding of the transcriptions since those coding schemes were developed to address different research questions and to be used with different subjects, reflecting different theoretical and methodological considerations. The coding scheme used in this study (see Appendix B) was developed iteratively on the basis of the second author’s repeated readings of all the transcriptions. Strategies emerging in the repeated readings were defined, redefined, categorized, and re-categorized (Gregg & Steinberg, 1980). The resultant coding scheme was then used by the second author and a colleague to code a complete think-aloud report independently. Discrepancies between the two coders were resolved through discussion until

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 43 complete agreement was achieved. Then all the remaining data were coded by the researcher. All together six full think-aloud reports were coded for analyses.

Results and Discussion

Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the coded think-aloud protocols revealed that the two skilled writers and the one unskilled writer differed in their pattern of strategy use and that their writing strategies varied from one writing task to the other. Differences in frequency of strategy use and types of strategy used Table 2 shows the participants’ frequency of strategy use on the two tasks. Huang, the unskilled writer, employed 13 of the 14 strategies for 59 times on Task 1 and all 14 strategies for 62 times on Task 2. Notably, he used many more strategies and deployed most of the strategies more frequently than the two skilled writers did. Peng did not use four strategies on either of the tasks: revisiting topic, rereading to edit, evaluating language, and evaluating structure. Ren did not use the strategies of rereading to organize ideas and controlling on either of the tasks. Although Huang used the strategies of revisiting topic, global planning, rereading to generate ideas or language, and controlling more frequently than Peng and Ren did, the latter two rehearsed more frequently than Huang did. Table 2 Frequency of strategies used by the participants on the two tasks

Unskilled Skilled Main Strategy Huang Peng Ren category T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 Topic- Comprehend topic 1 1 1 1 1 1 related or prompt strategies Revisiting topic 2 4 0 0 0 1 or prompt Planning Global planning 2 5 1 1 0 2 rehearsing Local planning 12 7 13 7 7 6 Rereading 4 3 11 4 7 2 Rereading to edit 2 3 0 0 2 1 Rereading to revise 3 4 1 4 6 4 Rereading to refocus 0 2 2 2 1 0 attention

44 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 Rereading to 19 15 5 12 2 4 generate ideas or language Controlling Rereading to 1 1 0 2 0 0 Evaluating organize ideas 8 5 1 1 0 0 Evaluating content 1 4 1 0 3 1 Evaluating language 3 7 0 0 6 4 Evaluating structure 1 1 0 0 1 1 Total 59 62 36 34 36 28

Although the quantitative findings revealed considerable individuality and complexity of EFL writers’ strategy use, they also idenitified some notable differences in strategy use between skilled and unskilled Chinese EFL writers. Our tentative conclusion about inter-learner differences was strengthened when we examined the quality of strategy use. Differences in quality of strategy use A close look at the think-aloud protocols turned up some salient differences in the quality of strategy use between the skilled and unskilled writers. After reading the topic, Peng and Ren made a quick decision on what they would write and how they would proceed. For example, Peng reported in English at the very beginning of the first task: I will write to, I will write a letter to one of my friends who is in Beijing. Then I will write my letter in two parts. First, I will write something about my university life, my campus life, including such as my social relationship, my relationship with my friends and classmates, also will include my study. And the second part, I will write something about the former classmates of our high school.3 He did the same on Task 2: When I first saw this topic, I think at least an excellent student is not only a pedant but also an all-round human being. So in order to write this composition very well I should divide this composition into, say, into two parts. The first is the basic knowledge; that is to say, he has to manage the basic know-how of a specific field. And the second is his interpersonal skills, such as communicating with others, to be more sociable and to be more humane to others.

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 45 Ren also made a quick decision on Task 2: The topic is similar to those tested in CET-6, which require you to have a stance. As far as this topic is concerned, I think I will agree with the second opinion. Good student should not only be excellent in academic studies. I think the society needs all-around talents. I will state my stance at the beginning. However, like Yin Ping in Raimes (1985), who spent more than 17 minutes trying to understand the prompt and revisiting the topic, Huang hesitated at the pre-writing stage for a long time on both tasks. He brainstormed laboriously, but his efforts to generate ideas and plan globally were ineffective. He revisited the prompt and planned repeatedly. On the second task, apparently faced with more difficulties, he spent almost 13 minutes - one fourth of the total writing time - reading the prompt, trying to generate ideas, and planning globally. He reported: I will give two examples to make a contrast. Let me see. Eh, if an excellent student … academic, if, it should be that studying alone… those who don’t perform well in study are not bad students. So, if he develops in other respects, but he doesn’t do well in study, it is better to combine these aspects. Then he will be well rounded. 4 After these messy attempts at the generation and organization of ideas, he then revisited the prompt, asking himself: Which one should I support? ‘Well rounded in intellectual, moral, and physical development.’ I think I should agree with the second idea. The second is certainly easier to develop than the first one. Huang also differed from Peng and Ren in the use of local planning. Peng and Ren had clear and specific ideas about what they would write next. Peng reported on Task 2: The first paragraph, I want to introduce something about people’s ideas about students… I just want to divide this paragraph into two parts. Similarly, Ren reported: I think I should write more. I should ask her for some suggestions about my further postgraduate study. Will it be abrupt and unacceptable? It seems not. I will write a paragraph about it. (Task 1) ‘Go to extreme’, I think I should exemplify how people go to extreme in the following. … ‘Last but not the least’, I think I should talk about the health problem in the following. (Task 2)

By contrast, Huang frequently asked himself on Task 1 about what to write next:

46 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 I am thinking about how to conclude the second paragraph. How to conclude it? ... Add one sentence and should I add one sentence about his attitudes towards studying? Our findings about the relative effectiveness of the three participants’ planning are consistent with Yang’s (2002) conclusion that skilled writers plan more effectively than unskilled writers. However, different from Yang’s (2002) and Sasaki’s (2000) findings that successful writers spend more time planning before writing, the unskilled writer in our study resembled Raimes’ (1985) Yin Ping and Perl’s (1979) Tony, both of whom spent much more time on pre-writing activities than the successful writers. The seemingly inconsistent findings suggest that it is not the amount of time spent planning but the quality of planning done that distinguishes skilled from unskilled L2 writers. Another difference between the skilled and unskilled writers had to do with the use of rehearsing. Peng and Ren typically articulated complete sentences before they wrote them. Peng used this strategy more efficiently and more frequently than the other two participants. He often rehearsed long complete sentences on Task 1. For example, I will be depressed or I will be very sad if I also can not get the scholarship this semester. He rehearsed an even longer sentence later on the same task: I have practiced a beautiful - I can not say beautiful, I have practiced standard English which is my favorite and which is the greatest achievement I have made in my university study. By contrast, Huang rehearsed only 4 times on the same task, articulating fragments of sentences in Chinese or just one or two English words. For example, Huang said: How to write ke wai huo dong [extra-curricular activities]? Which word? Public? Social? This finding about the varying use of rehearsing strategies supports Yang’s (2002) claim that successful writers rehearse more frequently and more effectively. Yang (2002) and Zamel (1982, cited in Krapels, 1990) found that their successful writers revised more often than their unsuccessful writers. This is not borne out in our study. The use of revising strategies by the three writers revealed a more complex picture. All three participants revised mostly lexical and grammatical elements rather than discoursal structure. Ren typically revised by reading large chunks of text carefully. She even reread the whole text in order to identify problematic elements for revision. Peng sometimes revised by adding or deleting a word to make an expression correct or more accurate. The following excerpt shows that Peng added ‘not’ to make the meaning correct:

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 47 Students in university are usually selfish to each other. Consequently one can easily, I am sorry, one can not easily find a heart-to-heart friend, a heart-to-heart friend as we did in high schools.

Huang often read a large chunk of text repeatedly in order to revise, but he was unable to come up with correct or appropriate words or grammatical structures, probably because of his lower English proficiency. The following excerpt illustrates Huang’s ineffective revision: I think this paragraph is not coherent. I will check the grammar. Should I add this? ‘Call for subscribing for students’. I think this sentence is not complete. ‘And other things. During this…during this…’ The omission is not good. ‘That activity…and …’ I will delete this. I think it is not correct. Ok, I will not add the word here, because the revision may leave the teacher a bad impression. The participants’ predominant attention to surface issues in their revision may have been a result of three factors. First, it could have arisen from a transfer of their L1 revision strategies, which might be overwhelmingly concerned with low-level issues. Second, it might have stemmed from their knowledge of the imperfect command they had of English and the high probability of surface errors. Third, it might have resulted from L2 writing instruction which had emphasized grammatical correctness and diction. The data collected for the present study do not allow us to settle on a definite explanation. Further research is needed to identify the causes of the participants’ strong tendency to address mainly surface issues in their revision. To sum up, our analyses of the think-aloud protocols have revealed that although the unskilled writer employed strategies more frequently than the two skilled writers, his strategy use was clearly ineffective for most of the time. This suggests that writing competence may be related less to the frequency of strategy use and the variety of strategies used than to the effectiveness of strategy use. This finding is consistent with Leki’s (1996) observation. Differences in strategy use between tasks The think-aloud protocols also revealed that the three participants’ strategy use varied from the letter task to the argumentative task. With regard to the total frequency of strategy use, Huang increased strategy use slightly on the argumentative task, whereas Peng and Ren reduced strategy use somewhat (see Table 2). Peng and Ren rehearsed less frequently and reread more often on the argumentative task than they did on the letter task. Their rehearsals on the argumentative task also became shorter and incomplete. For example, in contrast to the long sentences he rehearsed on the letter task, the longest sentence Peng articulated on the argumentative task was ‘A good

48 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 student is a perfect combination of knowledge and sociability.’ On the argumentative task, Ren reduced the use of evaluating, and Peng reduced the use of local planning. Huang increased the use of revisiting topic, global planning, and evaluating but did less local planning on the argumentative task (see Table 2). As far as the impact of task complexity on the writing process is concerned, the findings of this study are consonant with the claim made by some researchers (e.g., Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Grabe, 2001) that the nature of the writing task that a writer is engaged on influences his or her composing processes. When writers are faced with a cognitively demanding writing task, higher order thinking may consume most of their attentional resources, with insufficient attention left for them to address language problems (Grabe, 2001; Hatasa & Soeda, 2000). This is a plausible explanation of why the two skilled writers had to reduce rehearsing and increase rereading as well as why most of their rehearsals were fragmentary. That is, the amount of attention available to them was not enough to rehearse long and complex sentences. Task effects on composing processes were also reflected in the unskilled writer’s prolonged process of making sense of the topic and planning globally. He also seemed to worry about the ideas and language of his writing constantly, for he evaluated his writing more frequently, probably subconsciously. All the evidence suggests that task complexity influences strategy choices. Furthermore, the task switch seems to have impacted on the writing processes of the skilled and unskilled writers differently, given that it was different writing strategies that varied from task to task for the individual writers. However, although our results indicate that strategy use varied with the writing tasks engaged on, it remains unclear whether the writers used different strategies on the different tasks intentionally or unwittingly.

Conclusion Although our protocol-based study has revealed some interesting findings about EFL writers’ strategy use, it has a number of limitations, and further research is needed before firm generalizations can be made. The first limitation concerns the reliability of the think-aloud protocols. It was found that the unskilled writer was not good at introspecting while writing. He frequently paused and kept silent. Although his silence met with prompting questions, he paid no attention to these questions sometimes. There is good reason to believe that some of his cognitive activities were not reported. In future qualitative research using the think-aloud procedure, careful and skillful prompting should be employed to obtain rich data about psychological processes. Another limitation of the study is the small number of participants involved. It is inappropriate to generalize our findings to other Chinese EFL learners. A third

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 49 limitation is that no data were collected from the participants on L1 writing tasks. Such data could have shed light on the use of certain strategies on the L2 writing tasks. In spite of the limitations, some tentative implications can be derived from our findings for EFL writing instruction in China. One implication concerns strategy training in process-oriented L2 writing instruction. Our finding that what mattered was not the frequency but the effectiveness of strategy use suggests that L2 writing teachers in China should complement their efforts to teach new writing strategies to their students with efforts to train them to use particular strategies effectively. Another implication is that L2 writing instruction needs to take into account the potential effects of different tasks on the writing process. In particular, the relative cognitive demands of a task should be considered carefully in the design of a writing curriculum for L2 learners. For example, our findings suggest that if the main objective of a writing lesson concerns language, it would be appropriate to use less cognitively demanding tasks than more demanding ones. Conversely, if the main instructional objective is the structuring and organization of information, cognitively demanding tasks seem to be better candidates than less demanding ones. Finally, based on the finding that task features interacted with strategy use, it would make sense to suggest that L2 writing teachers should consider how to take advantage of task features in their strategy training. An example should suffice to illustrate this point. Recall that the two skilled writers used the strategy of rehearsing more often and more effectively on the less cognitively demanding task than on the more demanding one, probably because of the differential amounts of attention available for rehearsing. If L2 writing teachers decide to train their students to use the strategy, less cognitively demanding writing tasks should provide better avenues for such training than more demanding tasks, where the students are likely to grapple with higher order thinking, with little attention being available for implementing the strategy of rehearsing. To conclude, if effective process-oriented L2 writing instruction is to occur, teachers must know what writing processes and strategies their students are currently using and what instructional activities can best facilitate their acquisition of those effective processes and strategies that they need to master.

Notes

1. CET (College English Test) is a national English proficiency test that all tertiary- level students in China who do not major in the English language are required to take. The test consists of 8 bands, and CET-4 (Band 4) is the band that students must pass in order to graduate. TEM (Test for English Majors) is a national English test that all tertiary-level students in China who major in the English

50 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 language are required to take. It consists of 8 bands as well. English majors are required to take TEM-4 (Band 4) in their fourth semester. Although the participants in this study were English majors, they were encouraged to tabke CET-6 (a higher band than CET-4) because the test is more widely recognized than TEM by potential employers. 2. The participants are given pseudonyms in this paper to safeguard their anonymity. 3. For ease of reading, repetitions, hesitations, false starts, and grave grammatical mistakes are edited out in the excerpts cited as illustrations. 4. Huang thought aloud in Chinese on the two writing tasks. The cited examples were translated literally from Chinese into English by the second author.

References

Arndt, V. (1987). Six writers in search of texts: A protocol-based study of L1 and L2 writing. ELT Journal, 41, 257-267. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215-241. Campbell, C. (1998). Teaching second-language writing: Interacting with text. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 181-188. Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112-130. Cohen, A. D. (1994). Verbal reports on learning strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 678- 684. Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second-language proficiency. Language Learning, 39, 81-141. Cumming, A. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 61-78. Durst, R. K. (1987). Cognitive and linguistic demands of analytical writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 347-376. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 51 Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. London: Longman. Grabe, W. (2001). Notes toward a theory of second language writing. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp.39-57). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gregg, L. W., & Steinberg, E. R. (1980). Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hatasa, Y. A., & Soeda, E. (2000) Writing strategies revisited: A case of non-cognate L2 writers. In B. Swierzbin, et al. (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition (pp. 375-396). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Taking stock of research and pedagogy in L2 writing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 597- 613). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 255-276. Hu, G. W. (2005). Contextual influences on instructional practices: A Chinese case for an ecological approach to ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 635-660. Koda, K. (1993). Task-induced variability in FL composition: Language-specific perspectives. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 332-346. Krapels, A. R. (1990). An overview of second language writing process research. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 37-56). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kroll, B. (2001). Considerations for teaching an ESL/EFL writing course. In. M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 219-232). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Leki, I. (1996). L2 composing: Strategies and perceptions. In B. Leed (Ed.), Writing in a second language: Insights from first and second language teaching and research (pp. 27- 37). London: Longman. Li, Z. X., & Li, S. S. (2003). Thoughts on the current research on writing in China [Dui guonei xiezuo yanjiu xianzhuang de sikao]. Foreign Language World, 98 (6), 55-78. Manchon, R. M., Murphy, L., & Roca de Larios, J. (2005). Using concurrent protocols to explore L2 writing process: Methodological issues in the collection and analysis of data. In P. K. Matsuda & T. Silva (Eds.), Second language writing research: Perspectives on the process of knowledge construction (pp. 191-205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

52 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 Matsuhashi, A. (1981). Pausing and planning: The tempo of written discourse production. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 113-134. O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pennington, M. C., Brock, M. N., & Yue, F. (1996). Explaining Hong Kong students’ response to process writing: An exploration of causes and outcomes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 227-252. Perl, S. (1979). The composing processes of unskilled college writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 317-336. Raimes, A. (1983). Tradition and revolution in ESL teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 535-552. Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 229-258. Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability, and composing strategies: A study of ESL college student writers. Language Learning, 37, 439-467. Raimes, A. (1991) Out of woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of English. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 407-430. Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 259-291. Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 11-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 657-677. Silva, T., & Brice, C. (2004). Research in teaching writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 20-106. Susser, B. (1994). Process approaches in ESL/EFL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 31-47. Wang, W. Y., & Wang, L. F. (2004). L2 writing research: Past and future [Eryu xiezuo yanjiu: huigu yu zhanwang]. Foreign Language World, 101 (3), 51-58. Wang, W. Y., & Wen, Q. F. (2002). L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 225-246.

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 53 Xiu, X. D., & Xiao, D. F. (2004). A protocol-based analysis of the relationship between writing processes and TEM-8 Scores [Cong youshengsiwei kan yingyu zhuanye baji xiezuo renzhi guocheng yu chengji de guanxi]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 36 (6), 462-466. Yang, S. X. (2002). Yingyu xuexi chenggongzhe yu buchenggongzhe zai celue shiyong shang de chayi [The difference between successful writers and unsuccessful writers in strategy use]. Foreign Language World, 89 (3), 57-64. You, X. Y. (2004a). ‘The choice made from no choice’: English writing instruction in a Chinese university. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 97-110. You, X. Y. (2004b). New directions in EFL writing: A report from China. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 253-256. Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 195-209. Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.

Appendix A: Instructions for the Writing Tasks Task One Write a letter of 200-300 words to your friend, describing your life in the university. You have two hours to complete the composition. Task Two Some people think that good students are those who are excellent in their academic work. Others think that good students are those who are well rounded in intellectual, moral, and physical development. What is your opinion? Write a composition of 200-300 words in two hours.

Appendix B: The Strategy Coding Scheme

1. Topic-related strategies a) Comprehending the topic or prompt b) Revisiting the topic or prompt 2. Planning strategies a) Global planning – ideas and/or organization for the whole composition or more than one paragraph

54 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 b) Local planning – ideas and/or organization for (parts of) a paragraph or an ensuing sentence 3. Rehearsing – verbalizing words, expressions, sentences before writing them down 4. Rereading a) Rereading to monitor formal accuracy (e.g., grammatical mistakes, misspellings, misues of mechanics) b) Rereading to revise content (e.g., adding, deleting, or replacing parts of text to improve meaning) c) Rereading to refocus attention on the writing task d) Rereading to generate ideas or language e) Rereading to organize ideas 5. Controlling - managing writing process, time, length or format (e.g., deciding to start writing, redirecting one’s attention to writing, and deciding to conclude writing) 6. Evaluating a) Evaluating content b) Evaluating language c) Evaluating structure

Correspondence concerning this article may be sent to Dr Guangwei Hu English Language and Literature National Institute of Education Nanyang Technological University 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616 Tel: (65) 6790 3484 Fax: (65) 6896 9149 E-mail: [email protected]

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 55 Bo Chen received his Postgraduate Diploma in English Language Teaching and his Master of Arts in Applied Linguistics from Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He has taught various undergraduate courses – English Lexicology, History of the English Language, Academic Listening, English for Academic Writing, Academic Reading, College English – to learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) at Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing, the People’s Republic of China. His current research interests include second language writing, written discourse analysis, language learning strategies, and corpora in language teaching.

Guangwei Hu (PhD) teaches postgraduate courses on language education and research at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. His main research interests include bilingualism and bilingual education, language policy, language teacher education, language learning strategies, and second language acquisition. His recent papers have appeared in Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development; Language and Education; Language, Culture and Curriculum; Language Teaching Research; Language Policy; Studies in Second Language Acquisition; TESOL Quarterly; and Teachers College Record.

56 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 20th EA Education Conference

“Diversity: a catalyst for innovation”

13 - 15 September 2007 Sofitel Wentworth, Sydney New South Wales

Each year English Australia organises a conference for teachers of English to international students. The conference brings together ELT professionals from across Australia as well as from other countries in the region. The 2007 EA conference will be held in Sydney from 13 – 15 September. Participants have a range of registration options from full registration through to daily and student packages.

To find out more information: www.eaconference.com.au/

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 57 Finding the right resource for your ELT course is easy with Pearson Longman…

As Australia’s leading publisher of educational products, Pearson Longman brings you the most current and relevant resources for English language teaching.

Drawing on some of the world’s leading ELT authors, we offer teachers and students innovative resources that make teaching and learning easier. From the renowned Longman Dictionaries and ‘Cutting Edge’ books to multimedia courses and interactive websites, Pearson Longman gives you an outstanding selection of resources for all your English language teaching needs.

Visit us today at at www.pearsoned.com.au/elt to view our full range of ELT teaching resources. Or call the ELT Hotline on 02 9454 2350.

helping people learn

58 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 Bookshelf

Write a review

Reviewing books is a great start to a career in writing and there are many opportunities to write reviews for the EA Journal. Each of the two issues per year features up to 16 reviews of new books in the field, in several categories. Applied linguistics, teaching methodology and practice, and classroom resources are the main ones, offering scope to potential reviewers with a diverse range of interest and experience. Classroom teachers with a keen sense of what works in the classroom are in great demand as reviewers to evaluate the huge range of classroom-focused textbooks, workbooks, practice and revision texts which are published each year, and to share this knowledge across the industry via the EA Journal. A good review by an experienced colleague is an invaluable support for a busy classroom teacher looking for new, high quality resources. The just-arrivedEnglish Pronunciation in Use series is a good example of the kind of practice-oriented resources waiting to be reviewed. We are also looking for colleagues interested to review the more academically-oriented books which underpin and can challenge thinking in the profession. These usually fall into two classes: those which are reference books for the practice of language teaching and those which offer new insights into TESOL from research. If you are interested to review a resource for the next issue of EA journal please contact me, your new Bookshelf Editor on (02) 9772 6316 or by email at [email protected]. au. The deadline is August and the additional benefit is that you can add the book to your reference library for free. Pauline Baylis Bookshelf Editor

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 59 Focus on Vocabulary

P AUL N ATION AND P ETER Y ONQI G U

NCELTR Publishing, Macquarie University 2007

R EVIEWED BY V IVIENNE J ONES

Paul Nation and his colleagues at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, continue to expand their unique and successful program of research into learning and teaching vocabulary. This book is co-authored by Nation and a senior lecturer at the University, Dr Peter Gu. Their research informs us that strategies for lexical growth should be a core component of any English language teaching program as just ‘coming across’ vocabulary will not provide language learners with an adequate basic lexicon. Their findings are based on a wide range of research into vocabulary acquisition and studies of word frequency (Nation, I.S.P., 1990). Focus on Vocabulary is written for teachers of English as a second or foreign language as well as for subject teachers who may have learners with English as a second or foreign language in their classes. The focus is on helping teachers delivering courses in subjects such as science and economics enhance vocabulary learning. The book looks at the inclusion of vocabulary in the curriculum, its place in productive and receptive skills development and learner strategies for vocabulary learning. Also included are frequently asked questions (FAQs) about vocabulary learning and teaching and relevant tests of students’ knowledge of vocabulary items and their general lexical proficiency levels. The introductory chapter, ‘Vocabulary in the Curriculum’, describes four levels of vocabulary: high frequency, academic, low frequency and technical. Each of these has different characteristics and different teaching and learning approaches. High frequency vocabulary comprises approximately 2000 words in the ‘very common’ range. Nation and Gu argue that these words are crucial as the basis of language learning and therefore should be ‘deliberately taught and studied’. The Academic Word List (AWL), with which Nation and team replaced the University Word List, is vital for those students who will continue to study academic subjects through the medium of English: the authors advocate that teachers should therefore deliberately teach the AWL. Nation and Gu believe the learning of low frequency vocabulary should not be specifically taught, but learners should be given the strategies to deal with these items as they occur. Technical vocabulary (1,000-3,000 words) is best learnt concurrently with subject studies.

60 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 Of particular interest, Chapter Six is devoted to ‘Learner Strategies in Vocabulary Learning’. Nation and Gu state that ‘[t]here is an important distinction between the knowledge aspect of a word, that is ’knowing’ a word, and the skill aspect of a word, that is how well learners can control the use of a word.’ (p.83). Gu (2005) describes an ‘initial handling’ stage, a ‘consolidation’ stage and an ‘activation’ stage of learning. Although of limited use overall, ‘guessing from context’ strategies, very popular with many learners and teachers, appear to be most beneficial for ESL learners of intermediate to advanced level. Huckin and Coady (1999:189-90) warn that ‘guessing from context requires a great deal of prior training in basic vocabulary, word recognition, metacognition and subject matter’ and may be beyond the reach of many of our learners. Although there is still considerable resistance by many teachers to the use of dictionaries in class, there is little recent research which has explored the relevance of dictionary use to vocabulary acquisition. There has recently been increased interest in the development of dictionary research skills for ESL students: we await the outcomes of this research with interest. Consolidation strategies can be used in order to ensure that new vocabulary is understood and retained. One such strategy, rote memorisation, is a popular activity with many of our students and is advocated by Nation and Gu. They quote Carter, who stated that ‘quantities of initial vocabulary can be learned both efficiently and quickly and by methods such as rote learning which are not always considered to be respectable.’ (1987:153). However these are lower level strategies and students also need to be able to use strategies at a higher cognitive level to be really effective vocabulary learners. These include encoding strategies such as the use of mnemonics, knowledge of word formation and development of semantic networks. These ‘deeper’ strategies form effective links between new knowledge and the learner’s existing knowledge. One of the most popular of these is the ‘keyword’ method whereby learners establish the connection by linking it with a word or phrase in their first language either aurally or visually. The structure of the book makes it a valuable resource for both pre-service and practising teachers. Chapters are intended to be read in sequence, however they can be accessed individually for reference on a particular topic. Each chapter contains pre-reading questions, reflective tasks and chapter summaries. The book is rich in practical suggestions for classroom delivery, testing and research underpinned by the sound and comprehensive theoretical background which has gained Paul Nation and his team their justifiable international reputation.

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 61 Some teachers may find it difficult to get past the idea of using rote learning as an effective means to consolidate vocabulary. Nevertheless Nation and Gu do provide information about ‘deeper’ strategies that can be added to a student’s repertoire. The text is well written and a stimulating read and the authors provide positive encouragement for teachers to explore all areas of vocabulary acquisition. Any current classroom practitioner would find the exploration of the tasks described, with their students, enjoyable and informative. The theoretical aspects of the text make ideal material for a Director of Studies or senior teacher to use for staff training or professional development.

Nation, I.S.P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston, Mass.:Heinle & Heinle Xue, G. and Nation, I.S.P. (1984) A university word list. Language Learning and Communication 3, 2: 215-229.

Vivienne Jones has had extensive experience as a teacher, trainer and ELT manager and is currently working as an independent TESOL consultant.

62 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 Conversation: From Description to Pedagogy

D IANA S LADE AND S COTT T HORNBURY

Cambridge University Press 2006

R EVIEWED BY J ENNY F ARRELL

This is a great book on casual conversation. No sooner had I started to read the Contents and Introduction than I realised I was in for a treat, not only because of the reputation of the authors, Diana Slade and Scott Thornbury, but also because of the direct and refreshing approach of the text. Right from the start, the reader cannot escape the ‘conversational net’ and sit on the fence, because s/he is implicated in what turns out to be a fascinating exploration of talking. Who doesn’t talk their way through the day? For most people, talking is fundamental to daily life. So when Slade and Thornbury state, ‘through talk we establish, maintain and modify our social identities’ (2006:1), it is difficult to disagree. Indeed, the emphasis on the social function of conversation gives this text even greater relevance today for teaching English as an international language in cultural context. The text is suitable for ELT professionals involved in academic degree programs, teacher education, curriculum development and second language instruction. While the text incorporates many tasks and lesson ideas, its main focus is to establish an innovative pedagogical framework for effectively teaching conversation. This alone justifies the extensive and comprehensive examination of the nature and function of English conversation that informs this integrated pedagogical approach. The examination of casual conversation proceeds as the title indicates from description to pedagogy. However, the discussion is contextualised in the first chapter where the characteristics of conversation are identified and explored by comparing three types of responses to the same event. Immediately the reader is presented with recognisable examples that help to concretise the discussion, which necessarily involves a detailed comparative analysis of transcripts in order to demonstrate the nature and function of conversation. Based on this initial analysis of authentic data, a definition is presented which states that: Conversation is the informed, interactive talk between two or more people, which happens in real time, is spontaneous, has a largely interpersonal function, and in which participants share symmetrical rights (p. 25). The authors distinguish casual conversation from other types of speaking, such as prepared speeches, presentations, interviews and some forms of electronic messaging, the differences of which are represented in Table 1.1 on page 26. They also indicate that

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 63 the terms ‘conversation’ and ‘casual conversation’ are used interchangeably throughout the text. Following the examination of the characteristics of conversation, an overview of the various analytical approaches is presented. Once again, the information is presented clearly including a typology of the different approaches in Figure 1.1. In this way the reader can fully understand the distinctive features of each approach, such as sociological, sociolinguistic, philosophical and linguistic. Finally, reference is made to the contribution of technology to the research of spoken English, and in particular, corpus linguistics which utilises databases of spoken language for the purpose of analysis and comparison. Indeed, much of the authentic spoken data used throughout the text comes from corpus data, such as OZTALK. The introduction provides the conceptual and theoretical framework for the description of conversation that follows in Chapters 2 to 5. The next four chapters systematically dissect conversation to see what it consists of and how it works. Beginning with the vocabulary of conversation, it is stated that according to research by McCarthy and Carter almost half of all conversation consists of fifty word types that are used repeatedly. This includes ‘function words’, such as the, with, but, are, and ‘content words’, such as ‘You know’, ‘I think’, ‘Well’ and ‘Yeah’ (47). It is a little disconcerting to discover that our daily conversations consist of so few words that are regularly recycled. The authors go on to examine other lexical features of conversation related to repetition, vagueness, fillers, discourse markers and other inserts, routines and lexical phrases, and appraisal and involvement all of which contribute to meaningful communication. The challenge then is to incorporate these lexical items into instructional materials in ways that develop communicative competence. While this indeed is a challenge the next chapter, on the grammar of conversation, serves as an even greater one because it questions two common assumptions about the grammar of spoken language. The first being, ‘spoken grammar is simply written grammar realised as speech’, and the second, ‘spoken grammar is a less complex, even degenerate, form of its written counterpart’ (p. 73). The authors argue that even though considerable advances have been made in understanding the complexity of spoken language in terms of theory and of practice, little advance has been made in translating this knowledge into useful and appropriate lesson content and method. Quoting Crystal and Davy, they make the point that course book conversations often seem quite unnatural in which ‘people . . . are not allowed to tell long and unfunny jokes, to get irritable or to lose their temper, to gossip . . .to speak with their mouths full, to talk nonsense, or swear (even mildly). . . . In a word, they are not real’ (p. 75). In response, Slade and Thornbury delve into the murky depths of real conversations and expose what Halliday refers to as the mobility and intricacy of spoken language which is in a constant state of flux.

64 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 Of particular significance is the integral role of context or co-text for conversational competence. Given my own interest in the use of space and action in communicative events, this was a welcome focus of the text. In the section on deixis (85), examples of deictic expressions are provided, such as personal pronouns, demonstratives and adverbials that are used to make reference or point to the immediate context. Given the inextricable link of speech and action in conversation, deixis operates at more than one level, such as lexical choice, grammatical function and discourse. While attention is brought to this vital aspect of conversation, further attention could be given to the central role human actions play in conversation. People use gesture, posture and a whole range of actions to communicate during casual conversation. Indeed, it is often this aspect of conversation that causes misunderstanding when space and action are not used appropriately. Prodromou provides a provocative example of this in terms of conversational pragmatics in a later chapter where he suggests that the lack of socio-cultural understanding could lead to an embarrassing application of the idiom, ‘Bottoms up!’. In terms of linguistic and para-linguistic choices, socio-cultural knowledge is clearly essential. A large part of this knowledge resides in understanding the role of action in spoken discourse. Other aspects addressed by the authors are discourse features and genres in conversation, complementing the chapters on lexis and grammar. They identify key features of conversational discourse such as cohesion, interaction, turn-taking strategies and cultural factors. Similarly, they identify two main genres, story-telling and gossiping, and examine the socio-linguistic structures, stages and functions of these genres in casual conversation. Without a doubt, these analyses of the inextricable interface between self and society through casual conversation are not only exacting but salutary. Repeatedly, the reader is reminded of the fundamental socializing purpose of talking, or as stated by the authors, ‘casual conversation aims to sustain and maintain social relationships’. This claim is reinforced in the two pivotal chapters on first and second language acquisition of conversational competence which precede the final two chapters on teaching conversation. The former two chapters encapsulate the similarities and differences between L1 and L2 acquisition, much of which is not unfamiliar, however the application of this theoretical understanding to the practice of teaching conversation in Chapters 8 and 9 is less common. While the authors acknowledge the significant contribution of many scholars to this field of enquiry since the late nineteenth century, they nevertheless claim that current pedagogy needs to reflect more closely what is now known about the nature and function of casual conversation. They do this by providing a model for teaching conversation referred to as ‘indirect teaching plus’ (p. 295), diagrammatically represented in the form of a triangle as

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 65 exposure, instruction and practice. This interactive, rather than sequential, model aims to incorporate into classroom discourse the features of casual conversation that enable second language learners to actually learn the language through the practice of conversation. As big as the challenge might be for ELT educators to appropriate ‘conversation-as-process’ in the classroom, the learning outcomes for students promise to be worth the effort. Armed with this volume of excellent research, insight and guidance, exploring the ins-and-outs of conversational competence within and without the classroom might even prove to be fun. This text is a valuable addition to the Cambridge Language Teaching Library series and definitely worth having as a teaching resource at work and at home.

Dr. Jenny Farrell teaches English as an additional language at Wollongong College Australia, University of Wollongong.

Cambridge Grammar of English: a comprehensive guide to spoken and written English grammar and usage

R ONALD C ARTER AND M ICHAEL M C C ARTHY

Cambridge University Press 2006

R EVIEWED BY L INDSAY W ALKER

Recent technological change has had an impact that has been compared to the revolution of the printing press. This impact is felt in all areas of life and learning, and the humble world of the grammarian is no exception. The development of electronic corpora has not only allowed existing linguistic assumptions to be tested but has also opened whole new possibilities. The publication of Ronald Carter and Michael McCarthy’s Cambridge Grammar of English: a comprehensive guide to spoken and written English grammar and usage (CUP 2006) is a great leap forward into this new world. In the same way the electronic Longman Corpus produced a convergence of approaches to dictionary presentation in The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary

66 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 English, The Cambridge Grammar of English draws on the Cambridge International Corpus (CIC) for written English, which includes the Cambridge and Nottingham Corpus of Discourse in English (CANCODE) for spoken English to present a remarkable treatment of English grammar that truly reflects the language. The book is divided into four parts. The first part titled ‘From word to grammar: an A-Z’ deals with individual words which can be problematic. In a more conventional grammar reference these words are also given individual treatment, but are not separated from the grammar entries. The CANCODE has been clearly influential in this section in the selection of lexical units. For example, ‘As a matter of fact’ will be found in any grammar reference, but the inclusion of ‘Oh’ as a discourse marker is a fundamental feature that only surfaces when an analysis of spoken English is undertaken. The next part contains the ‘Topic Chapters’. They include sections on subjects such as spoken language; grammar and discourse; notions and functions; and information packaging. They also cover the more ‘conventional’ areas that include nouns, verbs, sentence and clause patterns. It is in this section that the Cambridge Grammar of English shows its real focus and strength. Although the inclusion of spoken English is clear throughout the book, the Topic Chapters begin with a section on Spoken language, and these chapters look at everyday speech and social context. There are extensive and clear examples from spoken and written English throughout the Topic Chapters adding to the clarity of the explanations. The Appendices are extensive and contain chapters on subjects such as word clusters, punctuation, spelling and irregular verbs. There is also a section on differences between British and North American usage. This exposes perhaps the only weakness of the work. The CANCODE Corpus is taken from transcripts of ‘mainly British (with some Irish)’ spoken English. It seems unfortunate that the spoken texts are only taken from English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish sources. In a world that is saturated with North American media and popular culture this must be a serious issue for even an exclusively British audience. The view from Australia and New Zealand is even more distant: countries such as India and Singapore are left completely in the cold. The Glossary is a vital component of the whole work. In a field with an extensive terminology the glossary here does admirable service. It is comprehensive, with examples and is carefully cross-referenced. The Bibliography is unfortunately limited only to Carter and McCarthy’s publications on CANCODE. Experienced users of grammar reference books will be familiar with the convention of internal organisation by section numbers rather than page numbers. That being said, this reviewer still had some difficulty navigating: a more prominent display of

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 67 the section numbers may have prevented this. The decision to supply only a limited table of contents at the beginning of the book and leave the more detailed lists for the beginnings of each section is a feature that limits immediate accessibility. A full contents page not only allows users to appreciate the scope of a work, it is also an invaluable tool, along with a detailed index, in quickly and accurately locating required information. That being said, the Index is excellent: comprehensive and detailed. In addition the work is admirably cross-referenced throughout. And as the authors make clear ‘it is rarely possible to say everything that needs to be said about an item in one place in the book’. The book comes with a CD-ROM which consists of the whole of the text of the print version of the book. The functionality includes hyperlinks to all Glossary terms and cross-references, and is fully searchable. The side bar, however, only lists the main chapter headings and does not give subtitles so considerable scrolling is required to navigate within chapters. There are also audio recordings of all the example sentences and phrases from the book given in British English. For users of the CD-ROM in an institutional setting it is heartening to see the licence agreement stated clearly and succinctly. The publishers have adapted the agreement to suit the practicalities of library usage. The layout of the book reflects the modern linguistic approach to grammar, and is a welcome and accessible addition. However, a word of warning: although the answers to all one’s questions are contained in the reference, this is not the book for an inexperienced teacher requiring a ‘quick fix’. Then again, as this admirable volume makes clear in its approach, the ‘quick fix’ was always, however appealing, only a band-aid solution. These criticisms aside, we are clearly looking at a classic. Over the years we can expect this volume to go through revisions and new editions as it assists language teachers in both academic studies and classroom realities.

Lindsay Walker is a librarian with more than 20 years experience in the field of ELT.

68 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 Creating Chants and Songs

C AROLYN G RAHAM

Oxford University Press 2006

R EVIEWED BY J O S TEELE

Creating Chants and Songs is a teachers’ resource book and CD by Carolyn Graham, author of the renowned Jazz Chants books. Using chants and songs, Graham introduces activities which practise and reinforce language skills, functions and structures. The level of fluency quickly achieved by learners illustrates the benefits of chanting and, indeed, music in the classroom. Carolyn Graham is a creative, inspirational educator. A New York-based jazz singer and pianist with more than thirty years ESL teaching practice, Graham brings experience, language learning theory and exuberance to her book and CD. This is not surprising. Her Jazz Chants books, also published by OUP, are found in teaching resource rooms and valued by teachers and students all over the world. Graham describes the value of chanting as a powerful memory aid and suggests that it can assist in accelerating language acquisition. Graham emphasises the importance of students enjoying learning experiences and her chants and songs help achieve this. Chants offer learners memorable, achievable, useful chunks of language. They can empower learners and help teachers to develop a range of effective teaching skills. Her songs and chants encourage fluency while they develop vocabulary, pronunciation, and intonation. Students can develop confidence and competency while being actively involved in the learning activity. The activities are easy to facilitate. The CD provides great listening practice, and the music helps maintain the rhythm of spoken English. The teacher’s notes are easy to follow. The activities are graded developmentally into three levels: Level 1 (basic word level and simple basic structures), Level 2 (basic sentence structure, some present tense usage) and Level 3 (‘widening vocabulary’, working with two main present tenses, past simple, future forms and other functional patterns eg. ‘So do I’ and contractions such as ‘No, it isn’t’. ‘They’re in…’, ‘It’s in…’, ‘I can’t...’). Each activity begins with a brief description of the task and the aims. All the chants have the rhythm shown in black dots above the stressed syllable. Graham reinforces the importance of keeping to a regular beat but the emphasis is on natural-sounding English, so the language is authentic rather than systemised as in rap or reggae. The themes are well laid out and useful. The chants and songs are divided into twelve useful, universal themes: getting to know student’s names, days of the week, weather,

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 69 colours, food and drink, animals, clothes and sport. As well as being developmentally sound, these topics easily fit in well with General English and IELTS themes. Furthermore, the language points covered acknowledge the common grammatical and pronunciation difficulties many ESL students face. There are photocopiable worksheets as well as flashcards. As a fun way to encourage fluency and language production, the activities can be done in small blocks of time so they are ideal for changing dynamics and boosting energy in the classroom. The simple structures allow fluency to develop in ‘chunks’, naturally and rhythmically. The emphasis is on authentic pronunciation and intonation. The vocabulary patterns offer very useful pronunciation practice with a range of syllable patterns which build on each other. There are also chants which focus on adjective/ noun and adverb/verb word order. As a baby boomer, the tunes are familiar to me. I often heard my mother sing My Bonnie Lies Over The Ocean, The Old Grey Mare, Have You Ever Seen a Lassie and so on. However, I doubt whether younger teachers or students would be familiar with these tunes. A touch of mentoring in the staffroom or team teaching combined with good use of the CD would be an effective solution. Other tunes used, like Frere Jacques and Row, Row, Row Your Boat are classics in most cultures so these should cause little problem. As a catalyst these activities could see students empowered to be able to incorporate tunes more current and familiar to them, in their class constructions. The soundtrack is remarkably user friendly. The singing, not unlike a Sesame St version of Julie Andrews, uses lyrical repetition which invites participation and successful language production. It is very easy to join in. As many adult ESL students enjoy karaoke, the second karaoke version of each track allows students to use it as such, and possibly move on to develop their own ‘chant’ or song. As well as providing ‘ready-to-use’ lessons, Graham explains, step by step, how to develop chants and songs with students. This is empowering and generous, encouraging teachers to harness creativity within the classroom to compose chants and songs meaningful to their class interests and needs. The book and CD are equally effective for new and experienced teachers. It is a supplementary resource, suitable for a wide range of language learners, immediately useful and useable. It would be fun and beneficial for ESL students and their teachers to fit in 15 minutes of this type of fluency practice on a regular basis. In the teaching notes, Graham reminds readers that ‘the point of jazz chants is the rhythm which links the brain to memory’. Furthermore the activities offer teachers the opportunity to extend the lessons to develop and produce authentic, creative, effective language. For an enthusiastic teacher, this is an excellent teaching resource.

70 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 There is no doubt that Graham’s book and CD would be very effective in early childhood and the primary ESL classroom, however I find them equally useful, well received and effective in the adult ESL classroom. To do this review I trialed some of the chants and songs with 18 adult international students in an intermediate EAP class. After an intense hour doing an academic reading activity, I introduced three of the songs to change the classroom dynamics. Following the teachers’ notes and using the photocopied sheets provided, the activity went very smoothly with students engaging in the task quickly. In less than fifteen minutes, they were chanting and soon singing in rounds. After, three 20 minute sessions over a week, the students were singing enthusiastically and fluently. In a short time, I saw through experience how chants and songs could energise a classroom and empower students language skills. The students said they enjoyed singing and chanting and wanted to do more: very pleasing feedback indeed! Take the time to peruse this book and listen to the CD. Any motivated teacher or group of teachers interested in helping students accelerate and enjoy English language acquisition, would find Graham’s book and CD inspiring. Take the challenge and see what you and your class can produce. Indeed, colleges could run their own competitions, like ‘ELT Idol’ offering students a platform to present their chants and songs to peers and the college community. Graham suggests that by developing chants and songs with classes, teachers work on personal and professional development. The activity requires active engagement and may involve teachers facing long held fears regarding own singing ability. Lao Tse suggested that fear gives the opportunity to face danger, assess the risks and take action. In the language classroom, it is useful for teachers and students to collaborate together to overcome self doubt and limitations regarding singing ability and embrace the challenge. This is mindful learning, which can be described as leading to a flexible state of mind, being sensitive to context, and an increase in competence, memory and creativity. These are valuable skills for all learners. I believe this book and CD could become a treasured teaching resource. Used enthusiastically, teachers will have classrooms full of chanting, singing, laughing students: and we all know, to quote Australia’s favorite children’s author, and teacher trainer Mem Fox, that ‘laughing students learn.’ Simple as that.

Jo Steele teaches at Insearch, UTS Sydney

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 71 Ship or Sheep? An intermediate pronunciation course (3rd edition)

A NNE B AKER

Cambridge University Press 2006

R EVIEWED BY R UTH W AJNRYB

Way back in the old days (note I didn’t commit to whether they were good or bad old days), when material resources for teaching EFL or ESL were very thin on the ground, certainly compared to today, there was a book called Ship or Sheep by Anne Baker, that everyone - that is, everyone who wasn’t trying to forget about pesky pronunciation – used to consult in order to manage the vexatious problems of students’ accents. At least, that part of their accents that was caused by faulty pronunciation of sounds. There was also a sister text - congruently calledTree or Three? - written for beginner to elementary level. The first publication was 1977 and that was when I first encountered it, a few years after I’d started teaching new arrival migrants. The second edition was in 1981, and the latest, the one this review focuses on, is 2006. The third edition is a whole lot flashier looking than its predecessors. Yet it also remains faithful to the simplicity of the original style and pedagogic design. It’s bigger, shinier, more colourful and with a more contemporary feel and user-friendly layout. The four audio CDs that accompany the book provide more listening practice, along with review units, tests, and an answer key. The book now, as before, is about facilitating mastery of the sounds of English, which presents a challenge in some part to any adult learner of English as another language – that is, to be more precise, any learner who starts learning English post-puberty. The core principle on which it is based is minimal pair contrasting. Minimal pairs are couplets of words (hence ‘pairs’) whose production differs at only one sound (hence ‘minimal’). So, ‘bed’ and ‘bad’, like ‘ship’ and ‘sheep’, differ in their median vowel; ‘Sue’ and ‘zoo’ differ in the initial consonant, as do ‘rice’ and ‘lice’; while ‘cash’ and ‘catch’ differ in the final consonant cluster. Of course, sometimes there’s more than one point of difference (for example, ‘postcard’ and ‘coastguard’), and there are many other factors involved in intelligibility (see further, below), but the fact remains that the kind of pronunciation demonstrated in Ship or Sheep is an important ingredient in communication. It is also true that from both teachers’ and students’ perspectives, there are few commercially available materials designed for help in this department. Ship or Sheep? remains a classic.

72 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 Apart from impeding intelligibility, mispronunciation of sounds can also get you into trouble. A colleague of mine once mentioned the difficulties faced by her Portuguese- speaking migrant mother who had trouble with the long ‘ee’ sound (‘sheep’), which she replaced with a short vowel sound (‘ship’). This caused problems when she was looking for bed linen, and eventually, giving up on getting it right, she took to using ‘manchester’ in place of ‘sheets’. End of problem. But such solutions are not always available for other words. The contents of Ship or Sheep? follow the list of vowels and consonants of English. Section A deals with the vowels and dipthongs; Section B with the consonants and consonant clusters. Importantly, the units are all stand-alone, which allows learners to tailor the study to their particular needs. No one learner will need practice in all the sounds: which ones will be problematic for whom is generally related to the learner’s first language. It is particularly suitable, therefore, for classes sharing a first language, as often occurs in elective programs where students are drawn from a range of levels to make up, say, a class of Japanese speakers, another of Brazilians, etc. One of the features of this edition is the link to the Cambridge University Press website for a guideline to the likely errors for any particular language group. Indispensable. Interference, as the influence of the first language on the articulation of the second used to be called, is considered by many to be at the heart of phonological work and well worth the teacher’s background inquiry. There are fifty units in all, of which seven are review units. It is designed to be used either by students working independently or by classes under the direction of a teacher. The material is the kind that is best practised in short sharp bursts: because the activity is largely mechanical, it’s not easy to sustain concentration for long periods. Each unit also has drawings (front view and side-on) of the mouth and the role of the major sound-related organs in the production of the particular sound in question. (I’m afraid I’m one of those people who doesn’t benefit from either drawings or mirrors, either in my teaching or in my learning of foreign languages. This is not to say these techniques are not efficacious – there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence to support them). Of course, speaking English comprehensibly (and I’m not implying or recommending all learners strive for ‘foreign accent’-free received pronunciation) is more than mastery of the production of sounds at the point of articulation. This is important of itself, but is best worked on in combination with the other elements of phonology - word stress, sentential stress and intonation. The latter two are intimately connected to context and meaning, and are crucial to intelligibility; some have argued that intonation accounts for at least fifty percent of meaning. The third edition ofShip and Sheep? pays more attention to these other variables – each unit offers practice in word and sentence stress as well as intonation. It also directs students to the phonological information available

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 73 in dictionaries and trains them to be able to read and understand this information. Wise strategies, as they contribute to learner autonomy and self-development. Despite its updates – including its colourful, well illustrated and easy-access look - this edition lacks a substantial introduction. (Maybe there’ll be one in the next edition?) The four pages of tips to students and teachers could be made far more effective, especially given its intended use by students working independently. As far as teachers go, more guidance is needed. Pronunciation continues to be the Cinderella of TESOL, neglected and by-passed by teachers who fear it, feel embarrassed by it, doubt its efficacy, and remain under-trained and under-equipped. A heavy pessimism is never far away: ‘You can’t change accent’; ‘Anything they learn will be washed out when they return’; ‘It’s too hard to bring about change’. Yes, it is hard, and yes, the embarrassment factor is not only genuine but far more important than is acknowledged. What’s ignored in all of this, in classes around Australia, is the psycho-social component of improving the way you speak the language, with its issues of group membership, identity, fragility, and ego permeability. We need more research into how these areas intersect and play out in students’ attempts to improve the way they speak English. Meanwhile, we have Ship or Sheep? to help us help our students.

Ruth Wajnryb is a researcher, writer, trainer and consultant with many years experience in English Language Teaching.

74 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 Academic Culture: A Student’s Guide to Studying at University

J EAN B RICK

Macquarie University 2006

R EVIEWED BY G ERMANA E CKERT

If you have ever investigated the study skills section of a university library, you will know that there is a multitude of texts which aim to assist students in their studies. You may also have realised, though, that many of these resources are outdated, that most give the necessary information without provision for the reader to use such information in set tasks or activities, and that the number of texts which are aimed at students studying specifically in the Australian context is relatively small. In addition, as the English for Academic Purposes (EAP) field matures and develops, it is becoming increasingly obvious that while our EAP students need to improve their English language proficiency, there also needs to be a focus on the effective learning strategies they require to study in their new English-speaking and ‘western education’ environment. With that in mind, it is wonderful to see a resource like Jean Brick’s Academic Culture: A Student’s Guide to Studying at University. As Jean mentions in the introduction, the book would be useful for first-time English speaking as well as non-English speaking students; students returning to tertiary study; and also academics and teachers focusing on developing their students’ academic study skills. The book begins with an outline of issues aimed at improving learning strategies such as ‘What do we mean by Academic Culture, Attitudes and Values’, ‘The Roles of Students and Lecturers at University’, ‘Sources of Academic Knowledge’ and ‘What are Independent Learning Skills’. However, other chapters also focus on much more detailed issues such as ‘Deductive and Inductive Arguments’, ‘What Makes Writing Flow’, ‘Linking Clauses Together’ and the all-important ‘Avoiding Plagiarism’. A great deal of the book does focus on writing skills and the elements of skills needed for understanding and producing different text types, but there are also sections on critical reading skills, tutorials and seminars, presentations and laboratory tutorials, and a guide to effective group work. The book also has a useful section titled Further Reading, comprising a reading list of recommended texts for academic students, and a glossary of important terms used through the book.

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 75 Each chapter begins with the learning objectives for that chapter, as well as a list of words used in the chapter, with their meanings also given in the glossary at the back of the book. The chapters are designed to take the reader through a learning cycle where model texts are analysed, and tasks provided where scaffolding is gradually removed until the reader can apply the knowledge they have gained on authentic tasks such as analysing university plagiarism policies. In this way the learning process is extremely clear and realistic and students are shown the ‘why’ as well as the ‘how’. The book is quite small and could easily be thrown into a student’s back pack and carried around for ready reference. However the smaller size has meant that the presentation and design of the book seems too squashed; there is not really sufficient space to complete the tasks in the book itself, and there is not enough room to make valuable notes in margins while studying through the book. Also, the formatting is sometimes confusing and closer attention to design could have created a clearer presentation. Having said that, the book is still a terrific resource for classes and for students studying independently. It is a welcome addition to the bookshelves of university libraries and EAP providers, as well as those of academics and students themselves.

Germana Eckert is the Head of Studies of the Language Teacher Education Programs at the UNSW Institute of Languages and the current EA Journal Editor.

76 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 Insights from the Common European Framework

K EITH M ORROW ( E DITOR )

Oxford University Press 2004

R EVIEWED BY K ATH B RANDON

As Keith Morrow points out in his Introduction to Insights from the Common European Framework, the Framework or CEF as it is referred to throughout the resource, is “much talked about at the moment but little understood” (p. 1). The CEF was developed to provide ‘a common basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, textbooks etc across Europe’ (Council of Europe, p.1). At the core of the CEF is a set of six global levels, describing users as Basic (A1, A2), Independent (B1, B2) or Proficient (C1, C2). The levels describe competency in a wide range of communicative activities in the areas of spoken and written reception, interaction and production. The CEF also outlines scales of performance in areas including lexical, grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse and pragmatic competence. It is a rather forbiddingly large and complex document. Morrow, however, as editor of this collection of reflections on and responses to the Framework, attempts to familiarise people with its background and content . This volume looks at some of the implications of the CEF and includes examples of how it has been applied practically in a number of different contexts. I need to be upfront with my perspective: I’m a fan of the CEF. The descriptors reflect views of language and language learning that I am comfortable with and I found it to be a flexible and wide-ranging framework that could be easily adapted for a recent curriculum project, a General English syllabus developed for a national ELT provider. I believe it has significant potential for application in Australia as well as in Europe, where it is widely used. I wish I’d had Insights a little earlier in my project as it would have helped me make more efficient use of the CEF. Insights from the CEF covers five main content areas starting with a background to the CEF, then outlining how the CEF can help learners to learn; how the CEF can be used in course design and teacher education; assessment issues; and finishing with three case studies on designing syllabus and materials in different contexts. Contributors to the resource are practitioners from a range of contexts and language backgrounds and include Brian North, Head of Academic Development at Eurocentres, who had a significant involvement in the development of the CEF.

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 77 In the Background section, Morrow gives an overview of the CEF outlining the reasons for and aims of its development since the late 1950s. He also gives a useful outline of the structure of the Framework, with its six global levels covering a number of different aspects of language development. He closes with a discussion of whether the CEF actually works. Perhaps not surprisingly he thinks it does, but he gives us the core of many of its criticisms and responds to these. In the next chapter Frank Heyworth sets out reasons why he thinks the CEF is important. The next section describes how the CEF relates to learner autonomy and self assessment. The first chapter deals with a description of the European Language Portfolio (ELP), a document developed concurrently with the CEF. Peter Lenz outlines how the ELP provides “a learning companion, a reporting and a documentation tool” for learners. In particular it aims to help learners develop skills in self-assessment. One of the underlying assumptions of the CEF is that the ability to learn is an important competency of the language learner/user, and the following chapter by Luciano Mariani contains a useful discussion of how effectively learning skills and strategies have been incorporated into the CEF. Julia Starr Keddle begins the next section which is on curriculum design and teacher education. She describes her experiences of the CEF in her context as a materials developer for 11 – 16 year olds. She noted a problem in that the CEF did not allow for description of progress in terms of grammar knowledge, which was the system used by secondary schools in Italy where she worked. However she was able to integrate the CEF into her new syllabuses and outlined several advantages as well as disadvantages of working with the CEF. In the other chapter in this section Hanna Komorowska describes how she used the CEF in pre- and in-service teacher education to highlight learners’ perspectives. She, too, identified problems with the CEF, highlighting the difficulty teachers from language backgrounds other than English had with accessing the document. Assessment, always problematic, is covered in the following section, with a chapter by Ari Huhta and Neus Figueras on how the CEF can be used to promote language through diagnostic assessment, and Brian North’s chapter on how existing assessment events, examinations and courses can be related to the CEF, including a sample table outlining how institutions can demonstrate their assessment outcomes are consistent with CEF descriptors. The final section describes three different uses of the CEF to design syllabus and materials: an ESL curriculum for new arrivals in an Irish primary school; English courses for teenagers at the British Council in Milan and English courses for adults in the UK. Certainly the most immediately relevant unit for me was Piers Wall’s

78 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 description of how he developed English courses for adults at the University of Gloucestershire English Language Centre. He provided a useful framework for approaching the curriculum renewal process though consulting and collaborating with teachers. The Australian Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) recently commissioned an investigation into the feasibility of setting standardised English language levels within English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students (ELICOS) in Australia, with one of the possible options being adoption of the CEF. The researchers found a general lack of knowledge about the CEF among research participants, and concluded that although there was some support for a common language levels framework, it was not feasible in Australia for a number of reasons (Elder & O’Loughlin, 2007). The researchers recommended that a program of familiarisation with the CEF be initiated so that the framework could be used to “complement existing frameworks, tests and curricula already in use in the ELICOS sector” (p. 5). Not all of the book will be relevant to everyone. However Insights from the Common European Framework will certainly add to the general understanding of anyone wanting to become more familiar with the CEF. It certainly meets Morrow’s goal of ‘encouraging more practitioners to engage in a principled way with the Framework’ (p.1).

Kath Brandon has been a teacher, trainer and curriculum developer in adult ELT and is currently Project Officer at English Australia.

References: Elder, C. and O’Loughlin, K. 2007. ELICOS Language Levels Feasibility Study Final Report. Canberra: Department of Education, Science & Training Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press also available at http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 79 Publications received for review

English for Work (with CD) Business Presentations Anne Freitag-Lawrence Longman 2003 Face2Face Intermediate Chris Redston & Gillie Cunningham CUP 2006 Face2Face Pre-Intermediate Rachel Clark & Anna Young With Chris Redston & Gillie Cunningham CUP 2006 First Language Support in Adult ESL in Australia Teaching in Action 1 Series Editor: Denise E Murray Macquarie University 2005 Grammar Resource Books for Teachers Scott Thornbury Series Editor: Alan Maley OUP 2006 Grammar Michael Swan Series Editor: H G Widdowson OUP 2005 IELTS Masterclass Simon Haines & Peter May OUP 2006 Language Learning in Distance Education Cynthia White Cambridge Language Teaching Library CUP 2003

80 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 New Oxford Business English Dictionary (for learners of English) CD-ROM edition OUP 2005 Vocabulary Activities Oxford Basics for Children Mary Slattery OUP 2005 Oxford Wordpower Dictionary 3rd Edition OUP 2006 Oxford Wordpower Trainer New Edition OUP 2004 Statistical Analyses for Language Assessment Lyle F Bachman CUP 2004 Study Listening (2nd Edition) Tony Lynch CUP 2004 Study Skills in English Michael J Wallace CUP 2004 Study Speaking (2nd Edition) A Course in Spoken English for Academic Purposes Kenneth Anderson, Joan Maclean & Tony Lynch CUP 2004 New Headway Upper Intermediate Liz & John Soars OUP 2005 Writing (2nd Edition) Resource Books for Teachers Tricia Hedge

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 81 Series Editor: Alan Maley OUP 2005 Basics for Children: Listen & Do Hana Svecova OUP 2007 Teaching Other Subjects Through English Sheelagh Deller & Christine Price OUP 2007 Storybuilding Resource Books for Teachers Jane Spiro Series Editor: Alan Maley OUP 2007 Cambridge Grammar for IELTS Diana Hopkins with Pauline Cullen CUP 2007 Common Mistakes at IELTS Intermediate and how to avoid them Diana Hopkins with Pauline Cullen CUP 2007 Five-Minute Activities for Young Learners Penny McKay & Jenni Guse CUP 2007 Dialogue Activities: Exploring spoken interaction in the language class Cambridge Handbooks for Language Teachers Nick Bilbrough Series Editor: Scott Thornbury CUP Form Focused Instruction and Teacher Education Sandra Fotos & Hossein Nassaji (Eds) OUP 2007 Doing Task-based Teaching Dave & Jane Willis OUP 2007

82 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 English for Specific Purposes Keith Harding OUP 2007 Teenagers Gordon Lewis OUP 2007 Literature Alan Duff & Alan Maley OUP 2007 Professional English in Use – Law Gillian D Brown & Sally Rice CUP 2007 Professional English in Use – ICT Santiago Remacha Esteras & Elena Fabre CUP 2007 Professional English in Use – Medicine Eric Glendinning & Ron Howard CUP 2007 English Pronunciation in Use – Elementary (with CD ROM & audio CDs) Jonathan Marks CUP 2007 English Pronunciation in Use – Intermediate (with CD ROM & audio CDs) Mark Hancock CUP 2007 English Pronunciation in Use – Advanced (with CD ROM & audio CDs) Martin Hewings CUP 2007

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 83 From the editor

EA Journal is published twice each year, in April and September. It welcomes contributions of interest from those involved in TESOL teaching, training and research.

Guidelines for contributions. Detailed guidelines for contributors may be found on pages 87-89 of this issue. Contributors are asked to refer to these and observe them closely. Copies may also be obtained from the Editor. Please direct any queries to the Editor before submitting copy.

Documents should be in Microsoft Word. If you have any queries about submitting your copy on email, please contact the Editor.

Deadlines for copy: April issue: 30 February September issue: 30 July

Advertising: EA Journal is read by professionals involved in TESOL throughout Australia and, increasingly, overseas. Advertising for relevant courses, publications, computer software, hardware or any other products is welcome. Details of rates are to be found elsewhere in this issue.

For further information please contact:

English Australia (ELICOS Association) PO Box 1437 Darlinghurst NSW 1300 Australia Telephone: (02) 9264 4700 Facsimile: (02) 9264 4313 Email: [email protected]

84 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 Correspondence should be addressed to: The Editor EA Journal English Australia PO Box 1437 Darlinghurst NSW 1300 Australia Telephone: (02) 9264 4700 Facsimile: (02) 9264 4313 Email: [email protected]

Contributions See Guidelines for Contributors (Page 87)

Book review enquiries before should go to: Booshelf Editor Pauline Baylis Email: [email protected]

EA Journal is published by English Australia Pty Ltd

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 85 EA Journal subscription

Cost of annual subscriptions – 2 Journals per year: • Posted to an address within Australia $50.60 (GST and postage included) • Exported to an address outside Australia $64.00 (postage included; GST not applicable) Individual copies: • Posted to an address within Australia $25.30 (GST and postage included) • Exported to an address outside Australia $32.00 (postage included; GST not applicable)

Order Form Please supply the following order: (tick applicable) Amount A$ 1 year subscription posted to an address within Australia: ...... 1 year subscription posted air overseas mail: ...... Individual volume -indicate volume(s) and number: Vol...... No......

Name: Postal Address: Postcode: Amount enclosed: A$ Signature:

Please post cheques or money orders, payable in Australian dollars, made out to ELICOS Association Limited, to: English Australia, PO Box 1437 Darlinghurst NSW 1300 Australia English Australia, acting for an on behalf of ELICOS Association Limited (ABN 86 003 959 037)

86 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 Guidelines for contributors

Contributors are asked to read and observe these guidelines carefully. The editor reserves the right to return for retyping and resubmission manuscripts which deviate substantially from them. Articles Articles submitted for publication in EA Journal should be of a practical nature and should preferably not exceed 3,000 words. It may not be possible to publish without modification articles which are longer than this. The contents of articles should be relevant and of interest to practising classroom teachers of adult TESOL who do not necessarily have extensive specialist knowledge of linguistics. Articles which are of a theoretical nature are also welcome but should contain clear and explicit relevance to classroom practice. The EA Journal is a peer-reviewed journal and each article will be reviewed anonymously by at least two readers. Please send your articles by e-mail attachment to the editor: [email protected] Letters to the editor Readers are invited to write to the editor on current and controversial issues relating to TESOL, or in response to articles appearing in earlier issues of EA Journal. Letters should be concise and may be edited for reasons of space. Book reviews If you are interested in reviewing new titles for EA Journal, please contact the Reviews Editor. Please note that unsolicited reviews cannot normally be accepted for publication. There are separate guidelines for writers of reviews which will be sent to you together with a request for a review. Originality of material All contributions will be presumed to be original and unpublished unless otherwise indicated. Appropriate permission to reprint must be supplied for contributions which have previously appeared in other publications. Please note that editorial policy is to give preference to previously unpublished material.

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 87 Style Contributions should be easy to read, but in generally formal style. Care should be taken that TESOL and linguistics jargon is used correctly and sparingly. Contractions (‘isn’t’, ‘doesn’t’, and so on) should generally be avoided in the main text of articles, although they may, where appropriate, appear in samples of teaching materials reproduced within an article. Editorial preference is for a neutral pronoun reference system (‘s/he’, ‘his/her’, ‘their’, etc) except where a specific female or male reference is essential to the meaning. Manuscripts Send your articles by email attachments to the editor: [email protected] Manuscripts should comply with the following guidelines. Layout • Type in double space on one side of A4 leaving generous margins on all four sides of the page. • Number all pages and name your manuscript clearly. • Paragraphs should not be indented. Leave an extra double space between paragraphs. • Please include at the beginning of your manuscript, following the title and by-line, an abstract (150 words maximum) summarising the main points of your article. • Do not use double spacing after full stops. • Points should be made using bullet points rather than numbers. • Use lower case for titles and authors' names except in references (see notes under references) Quotations • Single marks should be used for short quotations, words used in special senses, etc. Quotations within quotations should be enclosed within double quotation marks. • Short quotations (30 words or less) should be included within your text and should preserve the punctuation and capitalisation of the quoted text: e.g. Littlewood (1984:27) states that ‘There are many instances where it is not possible to decide whether overgeneralisation or transfer is the cause of specific error’. • Longer quotations should be indented at the left, typed in single spacing and separated from the surrounding text by a blank line above and below.

88 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 English Australia Member colleges

June 2007

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ANU College University of Canberra, English Language Institute NEW SOUTH WALES Ability Education Access Language Centre ACL - Australian Centre for Languages Aspect College Sydney Australian College of English - Bondi Junction, City & Manly Australian Pacific College Billy Blue School of English Centre for English Teaching, University of Sydney EF International Language Schools Embassy CES Sydney GEOS Sydney: St Mark’s International College Insearch, UTS International House Sydney Meridian International School - Sydney Milton College National Centre for English Language Teaching & Research NSW English Language Centre TAFE NSW Hunter Institute Regent Sydney Pacific Gateway International College Sydney Specialty Language Centre Step One College Sydney College of English Sydney English Language Centre (SELC) Sydney West International College TAFE English Language Centre, Northern Sydney TAFE International Education Centre, Liverpool

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 89 TAFE NSW Sydney Institute English Centre (SITEC) Universal English College (GV Sydney) University of New England, English Language Centre University of New South Wales, Institute of Languages University of Newcastle Language Centre Wollongong College Australia NORTHERN TERRITORY ACL Darwin English Centre QUEENSLAND Australian College of English - Brisbane Bond University English Language Institute Cairns Language Centre Central Queensland University Language Centre Embassy CES Brisbane & Gold Coast GEOS Cairns College of English GEOS Queensland College of English Brisbane GEOS Queensland College of English Gold Coast (GEOS QCE GC) Griffith University English Language Institute, Brisbane & Gold Coast Institute of Continuing & TESOL Education University of Queensland International House Queensland English Language College Langports English Language College Language Studies International Pacific Gateway International College Queensland University of Technology International College English Language Programs Sarina Russo Schools Australia English Language Centre Shafston International College / University of New England Brisbane Centre Southbank Institute Language Centre Whitsundays College of English SOUTH AUSTRALIA CELUSA (Centre for English Language in the University of South Australia) Eynesbury College Academy of English GEOS Adelaide

90 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 South Australian College of English TAFE SA Adelaide English Language Centre TASMANIA University of Tasmania English Language Centre VICTORIA AMES International Chisholm Institute of TAFE Deakin University English Language Institute Embassy CES Melbourne GEOS Melbourne College of English Hawthorn English Language Centre Holmes English Language Centre La Trobe University Language Centre Melbourne Language Centre Meridian International School - Melbourne Monash University English Language Centre RMIT English Worldwide Swinburne University English Language Centre Victoria University English Language Institute WESTERN AUSTRALIA Aspect College - Perth Australian College of English - Perth Centre for English Language Teaching, The University of Western Australia Department of Languages & Intercultural Education, Curtin University of Technology Education & Training International (ETI) Embassy CES Perth Eurocentres Perth Milner International College of English Perth International College of English Phoenix English Language Academy PIBT International English Centre St Mark’s International College

EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 91 EA Journal advertising

TYPE OF AD DEPTH WIDTH COST (GST included) FULL PAGE 205mm 130mm $200.00 1/2 PAGE 100mm 130mm $100.00

Please Note 1 These rates are for advertising space ONLY. 2 Copy must be submitted in the correct size (i.e. be able to fit within an area of the above dimensions), as a digital file. 3 Preferred format for files to be supplied as PDF. 4 A design service for advertising is available at extra cost. Advertisers wishing to make use of this services please contact the editor. 5 Payment should accompany your advertisements. Cheques should be made payable to ELICOS Association Limited. EFT payments may be made. BSB: 082 057 (NAB). Account number: 55 414 3089. Account name: ELICOS Association Limited. Please fax or email a remittance advice to the EA Secretariat if you use EFT. 6 All correspondence should be addressed to: The Editor EA Journal English Australia PO Box 1437 Darlinghurst NSW 1300 Australia

E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://www.englishaustralia.com.au

92 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2 93 94 EA JOURNAL VOLUME 23 NO 2