Sunshine State TESOL Journal Spring 2014

Sunshine State TESOL Journal Spring 2014 Volume 11 • Issue 1

Research and Classroom Issues for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages

Sunshine State TESOL

Journal 2014 Manuscripts Manuscripts may be submitted via the Sunshine State TESOL Website. Submit through the SSTCredits Journal link at: http://sstesol.org Interested in being a manuscript reviewer?

Please contact sstj@sstesol.org and send us your area(s) of expertise, a brief bibliography, and if relevant, select publications from the last five years.

Editor Ester de Jong University of Florida

Co-Editors: Maria R. Coady University of Florida

Candace A. Harper University of Florida

Book Review Editor Digital Design Team Nadine Wampler Santa Fe College Graphic Design

Editorial Review Board Advertising

Maria Coady University of Florida

Nora Dawkins Miami-Dade College

Interested in advertising? Submit an inquiry through the Sunshine State TESOL Website. Submit through the SST Journal link at:

Eric Dwyer Florida International University

Carinne Strebel Halpern University of Central Florida

http://sstesol.org

Candace Harper University of Florida

Cynthia Schuemann Miami-Dade College

The deadline for submission of advertisements is Feb. 15, 2014.

Evelyn Torrey Florida Atlantic University

Camilla Vazquez University of South Florida

Thank you to all the reviewers!

Sunshine State Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages in a state affiliate of TESOL, Inc. This journal is an annual publication of: Sunshine State TESOL 4801 Riverside Drive, Yankeetown, FL 34496

Sunshine State TESOL

Journal 2014 About Sunshine State TESOL Journal The Sunshine State TESOL Journal is a refereed journal published annually by the Sunshine State Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. The main purpose of the Journal is to provide a forum for TESOL professionals to share ideas and research on second language teaching and learning. The Journal welcomes submissions of manuscripts based on research projects, classroom practices, conference presentations, and other professional activities of substance and interest to the general membership.

A double-blind review process is used in which submitted manuscripts are distributed by the editor to two or three reviewers with expertise in the areas addressed in each manuscript. Written comments by reviewers and a recommendation on acceptance are returned to the editor, who then communicates the comments and decision on acceptance to the authors.

Manuscript Guidelines The manuscript should appeal to the instructional, administrative, or research interests of educators at various levels, such as adult education, K-12 issues, or teacher education issues.

• The manuscript should be substantive and present new ideas or new applications of information related to current trends in the field.

• The manuscript should be well written, clearly organized, and carefully proofed.

• A complete reference list should be supplied at the end of the manuscript, and the entire manuscript should be formatted according to guidelines in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 5th Ed. (2001) or later.

• Manuscripts should generally be no longer than 15-20 double-spaced pages.

• An abstract of 150 words or less should accompany each manuscript.

• A biographical statement of 50 words or less should be included for each author. Information should include current job or title, institution, degrees held, professional experience, and any other relevant information.

• Please include a cover letter with the name, postal and email address, and phone number of the first author (or other contact person) clearly noted.

• Manuscripts must be submitted in electronic format as an email attachment. Manuscripts must be submitted in Microsoft Word). Camera-ready figures and tables are requested.

• Manuscripts for SSTESOL Journal are accepted throughout the year and sent out for review. Reviews may take up to three months. Revisions are generally expected within one month (30 days) after you have received the review.

Book review guidelines • Materials reviewed must have been published in the past three years.

• Reviews should be a maximum of three double-spaced pages.

• Each review must include complete bibliographic information, a description of the book/material, the audience for whom it is designed, and how well it accomplishes its purposes.

• A cover letter should provide the author’s name, postal and email address, telephone number, and a brief (25-word) biographical statement.

• Reviews should be submitted as an email attachment in Microsoft Word.

Sunshine State TESOL

Journal 2014 Articles Ester de Jong

Keith S. Folse Alison M. Youngblood Melanie C. González Hengameh Ghandehari

Stacie Petitt

Ya-Yu Cloudia Ho

Note from the Editor

5

Conference Information

6

Five Suggestions for Creating a Richer Lexical Environment for English Language Learners

7

Using Dictogloss Task to Enhance EFL Learners’ Language Proficiency in Content-based Language Teaching (CBLT) Programs Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Beliefs about ELLs in Mainstream Classrooms

14

Book Review: “Take care. Communicating in English with U.S. Health Care Workers”

35

25

Note from the Editor It is with pleasure that we can say, with confidence, the SSTESOL Journal is back online!! Your patience and continued support has been much-appreciated.

Our work as educators in the field of English language teaching - whether as K-12 ESL or bilingual teachers, EAP teachers, adult ESL teachers, intensive English teachers or teacher educators, researchers, policy makers and advocates - is more important than ever in our diverse state.

Florida continues to be one of the states where immigrants and children of immigrants (U.S. born and nonU.S. born) continue to be a growing population. The American Immigration Council reports that Florida is home to over 3 million immigrants; they comprise almost one-quarter of the workforce. The buying power of both Latinos and Asian immigrants increased by more than 500 percent over the past two decades.

(New Americans in Florida; Retrieved Jan. 6, 2014 from http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/ new-americans-florida). In 2013, the Florida Department of Education reported 254,469 English language learners, up from 231,801 students in 2009-2010. Seventy-two percent of ELLs speak Spanish as their native language (FLDOE Presentation TESOL 2013).

The educational picture is diverse: The New Americans in Florida also reports data from the Migration Policy Institute that number of immigrants in Florida with a college degree increased by 70.7 percent between 2000 and 2011. At the same time, English language learners (ELLs) in K-12 schools do not fare as well. Only 24 percent of districts made progress towards English proficiency (AMAO 1), 19 percent of the ELLs reached proficiency in English (AMAO 2), and only three percent met expectations for academic achievement (AMAO 3) in 2011. This leaves 46percent of districts not meeting AMAOs for their ELL subpopulation. (FLDOE Presentation TESOL 2013, Retrieved Jan. 6, 2014 from http://www.fldoe.org/aala/pdf/TESOL.pdf ).

Clearly, there is a need for our expertise to support ELLs at the elementary, secondary, and tertiary levels.

We hope the SSTESOL Journal will support this goal and can be a resource for educators to inform policy, research, practice, and advocacy.

I hope you will enjoy this issue. We thank the authors for helping us think about vocabulary, the use of dictogloss, and considering mathematics teachers and ELLs. Please consider sharing your expertise yourself by submitting a manuscript! A big thank you, also, to all who made this come-back possible!

On behalf of the editors, Ester de Jong University of Florida

The 36th Annual SSTESOL Conference Thursday – Saturday, May 7th-10th

Creativity

THROUGH

Collaboration in Language Teaching and

Learning

Hotel Registration Hilton St. Petersburg Bayfront Thursday – Saturday, May 7th-10th For more information See: http://sstesol.org

sstesol.org twitter.com/sstesol facebook.com/sstesol.florida

Five Suggestions for Creating a Richer Lexical Environment for English Language Learners Keith S. Folse, Alison M. Youngblood, University of Central Florida, Melanie C. González, Salem State University A crucial and cyclical relationship exists between our English language learners’ vocabulary knowledge and their ability to decode and comprehend what they read or hear, which then fosters additional vocabulary growth (Hu & Nation, 2000). In short, knowing words enables you to learn more words, so vocabulary knowledge is not just a measure of a learner’s language proficiency, it is also a predictor of that student’s ability to learn more language. Many ESL teachers believe that the majority of vocabulary growth occurs primarily in reading class, but some research has shown that the teacher, not the subject, correlates more closely with the amount of explicit vocabulary focus in the classroom (Folse, 2010). In this paper, five research-based pedagogical suggestions are offered for the teaching and practice of vocabulary in both English language and content area classes.

Introduction Reading proficiency is a key predictor of academic success. In both language classes and content classes such as history, math, and science, the single most important factor in reading proficiency for any given learner may be lexical knowledge, perhaps even more important than that learner’s background or subject area knowledge (Guo & Roehrig, 2011; Laufer, 1997). This robust bond between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension ability, which is observable for both native readers and English learners (ELs) (Folse, 2010; Laufer & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, 2010; Lervåg & Aukrust, 2010), has been known for quite some time. In fact, nearly seven decades ago, Davis (1944) showed that reading ability correlates very closely with word knowledge.

While correlation does not indicate causality, i.e., knowing a lot of words does not cause you to become a good reader, good readers certainly know more vocabulary than less proficient readers. Therefore, a clear cyclical relationship exists between ELs’ vocabulary knowledge and their ability to decode and comprehend what they read, which then fosters additional vocabulary growth (Hu & Nation, 2000). In other words, the more vocabulary you know, the more vocabulary you are able to learn from input. Conversely, lack of vocabulary knowledge can lead to exponentially larger deficits in vocabulary learning as the aforementioned reading and vocabulary cycle is impeded.

Despite the clear importance of vocabulary in academic success, vocabulary development has historically been relegated to a secondary position in most classroom

contexts if it is present at all. In addition, direct vocabulary instruction is often viewed as solely the reading teacher’s job. However, because vocabulary knowledge is a crucial component of reading comprehension across all subject areas, direct vocabulary instruction cannot be the sole responsibility of the reading teacher (Folse, 2010).

Lexical knowledge operates as the fulcrum around which academic success moves; therefore, all teachers should assist with vocabulary growth. Many content teachers, however, lack a solid grasp of which vocabulary their ELs do and do not know, which vocabulary their ELs need to know, and how to effectively teach vocabulary to their ELs. Therefore, this important instructional responsibility often falls on the ESL teachers because they are supposedly better equipped to support ELs’ language and literacy development. ESL teachers are called upon to help our students overcome their “lexical plight” because neither strong grammatical knowledge nor reading strategies can make up for limited lexical knowledge (Laufer, 1997), While this article ultimately presents five explicit pedagogical practices for vocabulary instruction, it first frames these suggestions with a discussion of the vocabulary needs of ELs and the limitations of relying on context clues for lexical development.

How Much Vocabulary Is Enough?

It is crucial for all educators to have a firm understanding of these two foundational issues in second language (L2) vocabulary learning. Before addressing how vocabulary instruction should take place, it is imperative to understand the ideal target vocabulary size. Thus, the

first important pedagogical question here must address the number of words that ELs need to learn. A simple answer to this question might be that second language learners should aspire to know all the words of the target language. This is, however, neither necessary nor feasible.

As Nation (2006) correctly points out, not even native speakers know all of the words in their own first language; therefore, it is unreasonable to expect L2 learners to achieve such a lofty goal. Unlike many instances of L2 vocabulary learning, first language vocabulary acquisition takes place over an extended period of time. Nation (2006) estimates that native speakers acquire approximately 1,000 word families each year up to about age 20.

A word family is defined as a word with all its inflected and derived forms. Hedgecock and Ferris (2009) illustrate a word family for the word favor as: favor, favors, favored, favorite, favorable, unfavorable, and favorite. Thus, if native speakers acquire vocabulary at the rate of 1,000 word families per year, then an average adult native speaker of English would know approximately 20,000 word families (Goulden, Nation, & Read, 1990; Zechmeister, Chronis, Cull, D’Anna, & Healy, 1993). Regardless of the method of calculation, clearly the number of known individual words would be much larger than 20,000.

Another way to estimate target vocabulary size for ELs is to identify actual learner needs instead of native speaker knowledge. In this case, for example, research on the vocabulary requirements for successful reading comprehension in the L2 defines the L2 vocabulary threshold for reading as the minimum vocabulary needed to adequately read and understand texts (Hu & Nation, 2000; Laufer & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, 2010; Nation, 2006).

Research on adequate comprehension has examined the percentage of words that readers understand in a text and their ability to correctly answer comprehension questions (Hu & Nation, 2000; Laufer & RavenhorstKalovski, 2010; Nation, 2006). In order to reach adequate comprehension, the optimal threshold for independent reading with successful comprehension is 98 percent text coverage (Hu & Nation, 2000; Nation, 2006). In more concrete terms, this means that readers must be able to decode 49 of every 50 words in running text, a rate that is certainly beyond the ability of many ELs. In research designed to convert this figure into an ideal vocabulary size, Hu and Nation (2000) tested the reading comprehension of 66 pre-university ESL students. The comprehension tests were based on four different versions of a fictional, narrative text in which vocabulary had been incrementally simplified or replaced with nonsense words.

Each text version was the same length, and the researchers controlled for vocabulary level by only using the 2,000 most frequent words in English to create the story. Results supported that a 98 percent text coverage rate was needed for successful comprehension of an English text. This percentage translates to 8,000 to 9,000 word families.

Laufer and Ravenhorst-Kalovski (2010) offer a possible alternative by dividing Nation’s suggested threshold into two levels. In their study to examine the relationship of vocabulary size, coverage, and reading scores, Laufer and Ravenhorst-Kalovski (2010) compared the reading scores of 745 EAP students in Israel on the reading comprehension portion of a university entrance exam to their scores on Nation’s Vocabulary Levels Test (1983). The findings confirmed 8,000 word families as the optimal threshold for reading comprehension. However, they also proposed a minimal threshold for basic communication that could include as few as 4,000-5,000 word families to reach 95 percent coverage. The researchers concluded that this 95 percent coverage of words in an academic text, combined with the use of effective reading strategies, might in fact allow students to develop a good general understanding of a text.

Whether the instructional aim is to reach the optimal or minimal threshold, it is clear that students must accumulate a vast repertoire of L2 vocabulary in order to read independently in a second language. When faced with the daunting task of helping ELs’ acquire 8,000 word families, it is imperative that educators develop a plan for vocabulary instruction in their L2 classrooms. Currently, many educators rely on context clues and implicit vocabulary learning from reading to help students increase their vocabulary size. Reliance, however, on these strategies is often problematic.

Why Context Clues Alone Don’t Get the Job Done One way that teachers have attempted to help their students learn new vocabulary items is through the use of context clues or other implicit methods of instruction whereby vocabulary acquisition is assumed to be a positive byproduct of understanding words in the context of their natural environment (Joe, 2010; Sonbul & Schmitt, 2010; Waring & Nation, 2004). While vocabulary knowledge can be improved through contact with the language via reading or listening, the question is whether this is an efficient way for ELs to overcome the huge lexical gap they face.

Context clues are an important tool for L2 teachers.

However, many ELs are under very different constraints than when they naturally acquired their first language through comprehensible input over a period of 18 years or longer. Cobb (1999) aptly sums up this dilemma with “students typically need to know words measured in thousands, not hundreds, but receive language instruction measured in months, not years” (p. 345). To illustrate this point, consider research on both non-native and native speakers’ ability to learn word meaning from context. Sonbul and Schmitt (2010) compared vocabulary learning between L2 students who read a text and those whose reading was supplemented with teacher-student

interaction that focused on target word meanings. They found that incidental learning accounted for only a three percent gain in recall of vocabulary form, a seven percent gain in recall of meaning, and a 38 percent increase on meaning recognition test score. However, the explicit instruction (treatment) group posted a nine percent gain in form recall, a 19 percent gain in meaning recall, and a 52 percent gain in meaning recognition. Sonbul and Schmitt’s study corroborates findings by Zimmerman (1997) that college-age ELs who completed vocabulary exercises after a reading passage remembered significantly more words than students in a reading-only group.

Research with native speakers of English produced similar results. Swanborn and De Glopper (1999) conducted a meta-analysis of 20 incidental learning experiments with native speakers and found that native speakers had a mere 15 percent chance of learning an unknown vocabulary item from reading when no attention is drawn to the item in the text. If native speakers have a paltry 15 percent chance of implicit learning, second language learners are likely to face an even greater challenge. Many studies, however, have shown the contribution of focused vocabulary practice to greater lexical growth, and both native speakers and ELs can benefit from these practices.

Although the role of reading in vocabulary acquisition is important (i.e., encountering words in context), the actual lexical learning that takes place is slow and unpredictable (Wesche & Paribakht, 1994). Wesche and Paribakht (1994) caution that if the goal of a language program is solely to develop ELs’ reading and receptive vocabulary skills then, “a reading-based, incidental learning approach may be adequate, but for programs which aim at developing learners’ production skills, rapid vocabulary expansion, and some measure of influence over what is learned, such an approach would appear insufficient” (p. 3). In addition, explicit vocabulary activities result in a higher level of vocabulary retention. This paper aims to provide concrete suggestions for teachers who would like to accelerate their students’ vocabulary learning in the classroom.

Five Suggestions for Creating a Rich Lexical Environment Each of these suggestions is designed to help teachers and learners focus more on vocabulary, which plays a pivotal role in language comprehension and proficiency. These suggestions range from ideas for initial vocabulary presentation to techniques for practicing the use of new vocabulary.

Suggestion 1: Present Vocabulary in a Thematic Context (Instead of Semantic Sets) As indicated in the previous section, the use of context clues and independent reading for meaning can result in incidental vocabulary development, but reading and context clues are often insufficient to support the

amount and rate of lexical growth needed by many ELs. A logical teacher response is direct, explicit vocabulary instruction; a traditional way of approaching explicit vocabulary instruction is by presenting vocabulary in semantic sets. Semantic sets are groupings of vocabulary items that represent examples or members of a larger category, or shared characteristics, such as a list of color adjectives (Folse, 2004). Other examples of semantic sets might include the seven days of the week, seven professions, seven items of clothing, or perhaps seven colors (See Table 1). The vocabulary for four lessons could look like this: Lesson 1: Days of the Week Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

Lesson 2: Professions accountant actor bus driver lawyer nurse plumber teacher

Lesson 3: Clothing dress jeans pants shoes slacks sweater t-shirt

Lesson 4: Colors blue black brown gray green red white

TABLE 1. Four Examples of Typical Semantic Vocabulary Sets from Daily Lessons In an actual lesson, these words would be practiced in context. For example, for the days of the week, there might a story about what Ashley does every day: On Monday, Ashley goes to school early. On Tuesday, she has a piano lesson after school. She watches her favorite show on Wednesday, etc. An alternative to this involves presenting and practicing vocabulary that are related to a topic or theme but are not members of the same semantic set. In a thematic vocabulary lesson, there would be one overarching theme or topic for the lesson, and the vocabulary covered would be connected to that theme (See Table 2).

Using some of the same words from the four semantic set lessons above, a sample thematic vocabulary unit might look like this (e.g., a listing of target vocabulary taken from a dialog about taking the bus to the supermarket): Mr. Miller’s Difficult Monday Mr. Miller is glad today is Tuesday. He had a very difficult day yesterday.

On Monday morning, the weather was very cold. He had to go to his son’s school to talk with his teacher. He really wanted to wear blue jeans, but he decided to wear his favorite gray slacks instead. It was warm, but when he got to the school, he noticed that the sweater had a huge hole in the left sleeve.

TABLE 2. One Example of a Typical Thematic Vocabulary Set in a Daily Lesson Thematically linked words are connected in logical ways to a larger topic and may appear with naturally occurring collocations. (Simply stated, a collocation is the company that a given word keeps. For example, we say strong coffee, not powerful coffee, because strong naturally collocates with coffee, while powerful – clearly a synonym

for strong – does not naturally co-occur with coffee.)

Research suggests that teachers and textbook authors should introduce words that occur together, such as blue jeans or left sleeve, rather than presenting all color words in one lesson followed by another lesson focused only on items of clothing. Instead, the optimal learning condition is provided by the organization of vocabulary items thematically, or in naturally occurring contexts (Tinkham, 1993; 1997; Waring, 1997).

Suggestion 2: Use Corpus Linguistics to Your Advantage Advanced vocabulary competence extends beyond the meaning of a single term to include various collocations of that item and how this term may appear within a formulaic sequence of words. For example, the term nature can appear as a noun, but also appears often in readings with the and of in the formulaic sequence the nature of which can function as a single vocabulary item with a different meaning than the noun itself. Thus, it is not enough for an EL to know the meaning of a word; they must also know how it appears most often within natural written and spoken language contexts and the corresponding meanings when not a literal translation (Byrd & Coxhead, 2010; Nesselhauf, 2003).

Advancements in technology have made corpus data, i.e., hundreds if not thousands of real language samples collected for a specific purpose, accessible to students and teachers alike. Once teachers have established thematic word lists based on class texts, the lists can be enhanced by using free resources such as the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), the British National Corpus (BNC), and LexTutor (Cobb, n.d.).

The main reasoning behind enhancing thematic lists with actual samples of real English from a corpus is that it provides real usages of the words instead of potentially contrived teacher-created examples that may or may not reflect actual usage. The use of a corpus – instead of a teacher’s intuition – allows teachers to present items with meaningful collocations, which can incidentally increase students’ text coverage and draw learners’ attention to repeated lexical and even grammatical patterns (Byrd & Coxhead, 2010; Liu & Jiang, 2009).

In a study of lexical bundles found within the Academic Word List (AWL) corpus, Byrd and Coxhead (2010) offered suggestions for how teachers can use some of these corpus websites in more accurate instruction. They highlighted the creation of concordances of authentic classroom texts by teachers and learners in order to draw attention to important vocabulary items (2010). For example, the COCA allows the user to enter a vocabulary item and find common collocations based on specific contexts such as spoken language, fiction, magazines, newspaper, academic language, or even time span.

Categories such as fiction, magazines, and newspapers can be further broken down into additional categories. A

search of the word dozen reveals that the top three words used with dozen are or (a dozen or so), years, and times.

Therefore, these combinations of words that naturally occur with a word, which are called collocations, should be featured in classroom worksheets or on classroom word walls as good examples for students to mimic.

LexTutor (Cobb, n.d.) is another free online resource that allows instructors to insert a reading text directly into an electronic concordancer that draws out lexical bundles ready for use in word lists. While many teachers may find this helpful, it can be especially useful for writing teachers. Students can copy and paste their own writing assignment into LexTutor, which will then provide a vocabulary analysis showing the percentage of words from the General Service List (West, 1953), the Academic Word List (Coxhead, 2000), and off-list words, thus providing a lexical analysis of each student’s writing. Many students like this tool because it color codes each category of words for each analysis in the students’ writing.

Another advantage of analyzing student writing through LexTutor is that it also shows how many times a particular word is used within a text. Teachers and students can employ this feature to point out overreliance on certain core vocabulary items in writing. In a lexical analysis of 172 academic essays by both non-native and native writers, Gonzalez (2013) found that compositions exhibiting greater variation in word choice (i.e., lexical diversity) earned higher scores from raters. Thus, essays that tend to repeat certain words are perceived to be of lower quality than more lexically diverse texts. By demonstrating corpus resources such as LexTutor and the COCA, teachers can give their students the tools to recognize and utilize vocabulary items in context and use them in diverse and natural sounding ways (Byrd & Coxhead, 2010).

Another important way that corpus linguistics helps teachers is through the analysis of large samples of real language use so that students can see how certain words function. For example, if a student wants to know the correct plural of child (childs vs children), he or she can do a very simple and quick search on Google to compare the number of hits. On the other hand, a much more accurate check can be completed at the COCA (http://corpus. byu.edu/coca/). Inputting childs gives 826 instances, all of which are the incorrect spelling of child’s without the apostrophe, as in “concerned about your childs fever.”

In sharp contrast, the term children produced 238,133 hits. Clearly, children is much more frequent than childs.

Similar searches can be done for many people vs. much people, begining vs. beginning, or she told me the news vs. she said me the news.

Suggestion 3: Embrace the L1 as a Potential Vocabulary Learning Tool In order to encourage students to use their L2 skills, teachers often shy away from allowing students’ first

language (L1) in the classroom. Allowing the L1 a place in the L2 classroom can be seen as giving students a crutch (Rivers & Temperley, 1978). Other language educators have argued that vocabulary items often do not have exact translations; therefore, giving students L1 translations for vocabulary can imply a false sense of simplicity and correspondence between the two languages. However, Folse (2004) assured teachers that while there are items that do not translate well, “it is very important to note that the number of these words is actually quite small. In fact, it is minuscule in the big language picture” (p. 63).

Valid reasons for not using the students’ L1 do exist. The use of the L1 may not be possible in classes with students who have multiple native languages, or with teachers who are not bilingual. In addition, many teachers want their classrooms to be a constant source of English for their students. While these are three good reasons for using only English in class, the issue of L1 use is different when ELs are learning new vocabulary.

In terms of a vehicle for L2 vocabulary acquisition, the native language can in fact be a very valuable tool. In empirical studies of learners of foreign language vocabulary, translations have consistently proven more effective than English glosses in vocabulary learning (Grace, 1998; Hulstijn, 1992; Knight, 1994; Laufer & Shmueli, 1997; Prince, 1995; Ramachandran & Hajar, 2004). Thus, when learners are attempting to learn vocabulary in the target language, having access to translations of those words has been proven to be an extremely effective learning tool.

In a comprehensive review of early vocabulary studies, Nation (1982) concluded that vocabulary learning takes place more rapidly for many learners when the meaning of the word is given through a translation first.

In a separate study, Hulstijn, Hollander, and Greidanus (1996) found that Dutch students studying advanced French who received translations of French vocabulary in marginal glosses resulted in better vocabulary learning than those who had not received the translations. Further empirical proof comes from a study evaluating the recall of 80 vocabulary words by 58 Dutch university students studying Italian (Lotto & de Groot, 1998), where word retention scores were significantly higher for the students working with translations than for those who had pictures. In addition, Grace (1998) noted that translation is a viable if not preferable option for many English learners of French at the beginning level. Laufer and Shmueli (1997) discovered that EFL words glossed in L1 were always retained better than words glossed in English.

Finally, Prince (1995) found that less proficient students were able to recall more words when they had learned them through translation rather than through context.

The common negative perception regarding the use of the native language in learning L2 vocabulary is based on the faulty assumption that establishing a mental link with the L1 translation is somehow harmful or does not

actually happen in the real world. Instead, the use of L1 translation serves as yet another tool in learning English vocabulary, a tool that research has been shown to be a very effective one.

It is important to note that the research presented does not suggest that teachers speak a foreign language in the classroom. It does, however, urge teachers to permit students to use bilingual dictionaries, discuss a word’s meaning in the L1 with a classmate, or write notes about an English word in the L1. It is also important to caution novice teachers in particular about speaking the students’ native language in class because once students know the teacher can speak their language, it can require a great deal of experience and classroom management skills to get students to use English in classroom communication with the teacher.

Suggestion 4: Make Vocabulary Visible The next suggestion is to encourage students to engage with new words frequently, or use deep processing skills where the meaning is analyzed and then connected to stored knowledge. Joe (2010) calls this a “permanent memory trace” that students can access in the future (p.

118). In this event, students’ multiple interactions with the item are a key difference between direct vocabulary instruction and other vocabulary teaching methods.

Hulstijin (2001) takes this notion further by suggesting that classes should include enough frequency to convert items into sight words. In order to facilitate this type of learning, teachers must make vocabulary a visible component in the classroom. Instructors should provide multiple opportunities for students to mentally “touch” the vocabulary items. In-class activities, homework assignments, and test items that address vocabulary items coupled with reading skills will remind students to keep vocabulary in the forefront of their L2 learning.

Folse (2004) recommends a simple application of this such as keeping a running list of all the vocabulary items discussed during class, either on the board, or on poster paper. At the end of class, teachers can ask students questions about the words such as: “Which of these words has a negative connotation? Which of these words are adjectives? Which of these words means the opposite of X? Which word would you use in Y situation?”

Each of these questions requires the students to mentally run through the entire list thereby reinforcing memorization (Folse, 2004). It also encourages students to view the items from multiple lenses. It is important to ask questions that go beyond simple dictionary definitions because lexical items are used in a variety of ways in texts.

Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) and Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) discuss the benefits of such deeper processing of vocabulary that can lead to fuller knowledge of a term. Nation (2001) reiterates the benefits of encountering previously studied words in new examples to further push the

learner’s depth of word knowledge. Hence, activities that question, compare, categorize, and quiz allow students to develop familiarity with target words. Such repeated learning of vocabulary creates ease of access in future contexts thereby enabling comprehension and fluency in reading (Rupley, Blair, & Nichols, 2009).

Suggestion 5: Share the Responsibility for Vocabulary Development Teachers influence where, when, how, and how much vocabulary knowledge is transferred in class by how much meaningful output they encourage (Folse, 2010; Rupley et al., 2009). In a case study involving 25 hours of classroom instruction (five different classes with five different teachers observed over a five-day period), Folse (2010) found that the teacher in an upper-intermediate ESL course of an intensive English program was a much more important factor in vocabulary exposure than the subject being taught. While the reading class had been predicted as the major conduit for vocabulary teaching, it was the speaking class that had the greatest amount of vocabulary instruction because the teacher made vocabulary a central and visible part of each class meeting. Despite this finding, only 121 instances of direct vocabulary instruction were observed per week.

This number is inadequate, especially given the lexical threshold needed for successful reading comprehension discussed earlier.

Based on the findings of this case study, it is clear that teachers should do something – anything – with vocabulary to increase its presence and focus in classes. Students need much more explicit attention to many more words, regardless of the means. Folse (2010) reminds us that teacher-initiated learning and student-initiated learning are equally effective, and direct vocabulary instruction is equally beneficial regardless of the originator. It is important to encourage this balance of power because teachers need to help students become self-sufficient learners (Rupley et al., 2009). In the classroom, direct vocabulary instruction encourages teachers to gradually relinquish the responsibility of text comprehension to the student by building vocabulary over time through the use of scaffolding techniques and thematically connected lessons (Rupley et al., 2009). Scaffolding techniques expose learners to meaning through a combination of drills that utilize polysemy, connotation, spelling and pronunciation, part of speech, frequency of use by native speakers, pragmatics, and collocations (Folse, 2004). This systematic, direct instruction of vocabulary reinforces the relationship between vocabulary, L2 reading, and language proficiency in general. The more vocabulary students learn, the more they can read on their own which fosters further vocabulary awareness.

End-of-course surveys consistently report that students desire more vocabulary development and vocabulary instruction in all classes (Folse, 2004). The students

recognize the need to have an extensive knowledge of vocabulary in order to be successful in an academic environment. Ultimately, the amount of vocabulary learning can vary depending on the students’ perceptions of the instructor’s vocabulary teaching skills. Teachers perceived as skilled at teaching vocabulary get more student-initiated interactions in their classrooms. In general, students want vocabulary and respond positively to teachers whose classes focus on learning vocabulary. Such explicit focus leads to more learning of vocabulary, so teachers should incorporate vocabulary as an instructional focus in their classrooms through direct, explicit instruction.

Conclusion Ultimately, the reading teacher alone cannot make enough headway toward the optimal vocabulary threshold. Vocabulary instruction should be in the forefront of each subject in an ESL program. Ideally, a program-wide vocabulary development plan would be in place to ensure the necessary integration of vocabulary development in all classes, not just reading (Folse, 2010). Through the suggestions outlined in this paper, instructors’ classes can include much more focus on vocabulary in a variety of ways that foster acquisition. If the teacher is successful at increasing student attention to vocabulary, then student-driven interactions with vocabulary and lexical output can increase, thus creating an even richer contextual environment for continued vocabulary acquisition.

References Byrd, P., & Coxhead, A. (2010). On the other hand: Lexical bundles in academic writing and in the teaching of EAP. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 3, 31-64.

Cobb, T. (n.d.). Compleat lexical tutor. Retrieved from http://www.lextutor.ca/ Cobb, T. (1999). Breadth and depth of lexical acquisition with hands-on concordancing.

Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12, 345-360.

Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213-238.

Crossley, S.A., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D.S., & Jarvis, S. (2010). Predicting lexical proficiency in language learner texts using computational indices. Language Testing, 28(4), 561-580.

Davis, F. (1944). Fundamental factors of comprehension in reading. Psychometrika, 9, 185–197.

Folse, K. (2004). Vocabulary myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching. Ann Arbor: Michigan Press.

Folse, K. (2010). Is explicit vocabulary focus the reading teacher’s job? Reading in a Foreign Language, 22, 139-160.

Gonzalez, M.C. (2013). The intricate relationship between measures of vocabulary size and lexical diversity as evidenced in non-native and native speaker academic compositions. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from University of Central Florida Theses and Dissertation Database.

Goulden, R., Nation P., & Read, J. (1990). How large can a receptive vocabulary be?

Applied Linguistics, 11(4), 341-363.

Grace, C. (1998). Retention of word meanings inferred from context and sentencelevel translations: Implications for the design of beginning-level CALL software.

The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 533-544.

Guo, Y., & Roehrig, A. (2011). Roles of general versus second language (L2) knowledge in L2 reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 23, 42-64.

Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59-82.

Hedgcock J. S., & Ferris, D. R. (2009). Teaching readers of English: Students, texts, and contexts. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis. Hu, M., & Nation, P. (2000).

Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1), 403-430.

Prince, P. (1995). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus translations as a function of proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 80(4), 478-493.

Hulstijn, J. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in incidental vocabulary learning. In P. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics (p. 113-125). London: Macmillan Academic and Professional Limited.

Hulstijn, J. (2001). Intentional and incidental second-language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal, and automaticity. In P. Robinson, (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (p.258-286). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hulstijn, J., Hollandar, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal, 80(3), 327-339.

Ramachandran, S. D., & Hajar, A. R. (2004). Meaning recall and retention: The impact of the translation method on elementary level learners’ vocabulary learning. RELC Journal, 35(2), 161-178.

Rivers, W., & Temperley, M. (1978). A practical guide to the teaching of English as a second or foreign language. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rupley, W. H., Blair, T. R. & Nichols, W. D. (2009). Effective reading instruction for struggling readers: The role of direct/explicit teaching. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 25, 125-138. doi: 10.1080/10573560802683523 Sonbul, S. & Schmitt, N. (2010). Direct teaching of vocabulary after reading: Is it worth the effort? ELT Journal, 64(3), 253-260. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccp059 Swanborn, M. S. L., & de Glopper, K. (1999). Incidental word learning while reading: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 261-285.

Hulstijn, J., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539-538.

Tinkham, T. (1993). The effects of semantic clustering on the learning of second language vocabulary. System, 21(3), 371-380.

Joe, A. (2010). The quality and frequency of encounters with vocabulary in an English for academic purposes programme. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 117-138.

Tinkham, T. (1997). The effects of semantic and thematic clustering on the learning of second language vocabulary. Second Language Research, 13(2), 138-163.

Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and vocabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 285-299.

Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading: Words you don’t know, words you think you know and words you can’t guess. In Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: A Rationale for Pedagogy, pp. 20-34, Eds. J. Coady and T. Huckin. Cambridge University Press..

Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics 22, 1-26.

Laufer, B., & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G. (2010). Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 15-30.

Laufer, B., & Shmueli, K. (1997). Memorizing new words: Does teaching have anything to do with it? RELC Journal, 28(1), 89-108.

Lervåg, A., & Aukrust, V. (2010). Vocabulary knowledge is a critical determinant of the difference in reading comprehension growth between first and second language learners. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(5), 612-620. doi: 10.111/j.1469-7610.2009.02185.x Liu, D., & Jiang, P. (2009). Using a corpus-based lexicogrammatical approach to grammar instruction in EFL and ESL contexts. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 61-78.

Lotto, L., & de Groot, A. (1998). Effects of learning method and word type on acquiring vocabulary in an unfamiliar language. Language Learning, 48(1), 31-69.

Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 223-242.

Nation, I. S. P. (1982). Beginning to learn a foreign vocabulary: A review of the research. RELC Journal, 13(1), 14-36.

Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Learning vocabulary in lexical sets: Dangers and guidelines.

TESOL Journal, 9(2), 6-10.

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

Waring, R. (1997). The negative effects of learning words in semantic sets. System, 25(2), 261-274.

Waring, R., & Nation, P. (2004). Second language reading and incidental vocabulary learning. Angles on the English Speaking World, 4, 97-110.

Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. (1994, March). Enhancing vocabulary acquisition through reading: A hierarchy of text-related exercise types. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL), Baltimore, MD. West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words. London: Longman Green.

Zeichmeister, E., Chronis, A., Cull, W., D’Anna, C., & Healy, N. (1995). Growth of a functionally important lexicon. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(2), 201-212.

Zimmerman, C. (1997). Do reading and interactive vocabulary instruction make a difference? An empirical study. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 121–140.

About the Authors Keith Folse, Ph.D., is Professor of TESOL at the University of Central Florida teaching in the Ph.D. (TESOL), MA (TESOL), and Undergraduate Certificate (TEFL) programs. His main research area is second language vocabulary, especially the connection between vocabulary and grammar. He is the author of 60 textbooks on grammar, writing, reading, and speaking. keith.folse@gmail.com Melanie Gonzalez, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of ESL and Literacy at Salem State University. Her research interests center on learners’ vocabulary use in second language writing and English for academic purposes. She currently teaches in the MAT (ESOL) and undergraduate Education and English programs at SSU. gonzalezmelaniec@gmail.com Alison Youngblood is currently a doctoral candidate in TESOL at the University of Central Florida. Her research interests include English for specific purposes, teacher education, and vocabulary, particularly the application of formulaic language to reading and writing. She has taught adult language learners in the U.S., Japan, and South Korea. a.youngb@gmail.com

Using Dictogloss Task to Enhance EFL Learners’ Language Proficiency in Content-based Language Teaching (CBLT) Programs Hengameh Ghandehari Hermes Institute of Science and Technology, Iran This study investigated the effect of using dictogloss task, which directs learners’ attention to linguistic forms through meaningful task-based activities, on EFL learners’ language proficiency. A sample of 60 participants, completing Iran’s Preliminary English Test (PET), was selected and randomly assigned to two groups -- experimental and control. The experimental group participants participated in Dictogloss tasks, and the control group participants worked on a grammar book containing several language building tasks. A post-test PET was administered to both groups at the end of the instruction. Findings from independent samples t-test which compared the mean scores of both groups on the post-test showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the language proficiency mean score of the experimental and control groups, indicating that the dictogloss task had significant impact on learners’ English language proficiency. Moreover, a questionnaire was given to the participants in the experimental group at the end of the course. The results suggested that the majority of the participants had a positive attitude toward the use of dictogloss task.

INTRODUCTION A claim often made with regard to Foreign Language Learning (FLL) is that learners need to be provided with sufficient opportunity to engage in meaningful use of the target language in a relatively stress-free environment (Loewen, 2003). For Krashen (1991), teaching language involves making the language comprehensible to learners.

Similarly, Crandall (1997) has argued that content classes should provide learners with naturally meaningful input.

A number of theoretical and empirical concerns have been expressed with respect to language learning in content-based language teaching contexts. The most significant concern is that the activities used in content-based classes may not be sufficient to attain the level of structural accuracy required for the learners’ communicative competence (Pica, 1995). In other words, although learners develop high levels of fluency and communicative ability in the target language, they may still have problems with linguistic accuracy and complexity (Doughty & Williams, 1998).

Long (1996) suggested that classroom instruction incorporating focus-on-form (FonF) tasks has the advantage of providing direct or indirect feedback on form i.e. comprehensive accuracy is taken into account. This is in contrast to purely meaning-oriented instruction in which focus on form generally does not occur. Therefore, attention to linguistic forms within the meaning-oriented context of content-based language teaching can help learners in two ways: 1) by improving their performance in processing input, and 2) by increasing their accuracy especially in

production (Long, 1996; Long & Robinson, 1998).

Accordingly, to examine whether form consideration within the meaning-oriented context of content-based language teaching would stimulate learners’ accurate production in the present study the researcher made use of a dictogloss task as a focus-on-form task in content-based classrooms to draw learners’ attention to form as they become engaged in listening to text read out loud, taking notes from that text, and then in reconstructing the meaning of the text by working in small groups (Swain & Lapkin, 2001). The research questions in this study were: 1. Does the use of a dictogloss task in content-based language teaching have a significant effect on EFL learners’ language proficiency?

2. What is the overall attitude of EFL learners with respect to using a dictogloss task in content-based language teaching?

LITERATURE REVIEW Content-Based Language Teaching The language pedagogy arena can by no means be conceived nowadays without “the very robust contribution of communicative methodology to the language teaching community” (Pica, 2000, p. 4). It is commonly agreed that the fundamentals of communicative language teaching (CLT) have remained healthily operational for the past three decades. The present-day applicability of CLT is perceived with a two-fold projection. On the one hand, the basic CLT framework in the context of

contemporary language teaching trends continues to shape curricular planning, syllabus design, methodological guidelines, and material writing. On the other hand, as Rodgers points out, Communicative Language Teaching has spawned a number of offshoots that share the same basic set of principles, but which spell out philosophical details or envision instructional practices in somewhat diverse ways. These CLT spin-off approaches include The Natural Approach, Cooperative Language Learning, Content-Based Teaching, and Task-Based Teaching (Rodgers, 2001, p. 2).

Among this array of communicative-based methodological options, Content-Based Instruction or ContentBased Language Teaching (CBLT) is one of the options whose “popularity and wider applicability have increased dramatically since the early 1990s” (Stoller, 2002, p. 107).

Content-based approaches suggest that optimal conditions for learning a second or foreign language occur when both the target language and some meaningful content are integrated in the classroom, the language therefore being both an immediate object of study in itself, and a medium for learning a particular subject matter.

In CBLT, therefore, teachers use content topics rather than grammar rules, vocabulary spheres, operative functions or contextual situations as the framework for instruction.

Authors such as Stryker and Leaver (1997) agree that CBLT proposals meet four basic characteristics: 1. subject matter core — the fundamental organization of the curriculum should be derived from the subject matter, rather than from forms, functions, or situations; 2. use of authentic texts — the core materials (texts, videotapes, audio recordings, visual aids, etc.) should be selected primarily (though not exclusively) from those produced for native speakers of the language; 3. learning of new information – students should use the second/foreign language to learn new information and to evaluate that information, based on knowledge of their own culture (C1) and their own emerging cultural literacy in the second culture (C2); and 4. activities appropriate to the specific needs of students – the topics, content, materials, and learning activities should correspond to the cognitive and affective needs of the students and should be appropriate to the language proficiency level of the class (Leaver & Stryker, 1998, p. 271).

However, Swain (1991), on the basis of data she and others collected from immersion classes, suggests that not all content teaching is necessarily good language teaching and points out several problems. Firstly, the focus in such classes is entirely meaning oriented. This was the condition Krashen (1982) stipulated for second language acquisition. However, Swain (1991) argues that

if students are actually to acquire a second language by ‘going for meaning’ they will have to focus on the form of the utterance as it is used to express the meaning they are extracting. Secondly, because the main focus is on meaning, teachers frequently provide learners with inconsistent and possibly unsystematic information about grammatical features of their target language. Finally, the input students receive may be functionally restricted, that is, the full functional range of the linguistic item of focus is not used, or is infrequently used. This occurs as the linguistic item of focus is dependent on the content focus. For example, if the content focuses on past tense markers, as in history, the present tense may occur only infrequently, or it may not occur at all.

Current theoretical and empirical work on content-based classrooms suggests that, though communication and content learning make an important contribution as activities for language use, they cannot also be seen as processes for language learning (Pica, 1995). Emphasis placed on facilitating and ensuring communication and content learning in the classroom may not leave sufficient room for language learning itself, or on the cognitive processes considered essential for language learning.

The importance of these cognitive processes has been reflected in numerous writings seen in constructs such as “consciousness raising” (Swain, 1995), “focus on form” (Long, 1996) and “notice the gap” (Schimidt & Frota, 1993).

Language Learning in Iran Being among the world’s youngest population, the Islamic Republic of Iran bears the responsibility of educating more than 18 million students at schools. In the past two decades, the education system and curricula have been reformed several times. Iran, a multicultural society, is home to a number of language communities speaking Turkish, Kurdish, and Arabic. Persian as an official language is used as linguistic and cultural homogenization while minority languages are not used in education system. Currently, most parents prefer that their children learn English, as the language is becoming an omnipresent language, used as the language of business, aviation, and scientific research. However, in a system where English is not considered as a main course as of math or science, GTM is contemplated as the sole way of teaching English, and there is almost no footprint of authenticity in the chosen contents, meeting parents and/or learners’ expectations and needs would be a very difficult task.

Problems within the Iranian system of English education can be found in recognizing its goals, output, cause, and nature. Some of these problems may be due to the performance of the system of English education, while others might be due to an increase in the number of institutions, the students, and the diversification of the needs. Some remedies may be sought with respect to reforming content, methodology, and performance

of institutes such that they improve English instruction.

However, improvements may not be made without any of the following administrative maneuvers: determining needs and defining goals, programming curriculum content, implementation of the program, appropriate methodology, end products of the curriculum, and a system of evaluation. Consequently, as a means of fostering remedies through such administrative maneuvers, bilingual schools, where mostly the method of teaching is CBLT, have come into fashion (Sarkar Arani, 2006).

Of course, when students study academic subjects in a non-native language, they require a great deal of assistance in understanding subject matter texts; therefore, there must be clear language objectives as well as content learning objectives. According to Larsen-Freeman (2003), the followings are the main principles on which the content-teacher’s behavior and techniques are based: 1. The subject matter content is used for language teaching purposes; 2. When learners perceive the relevance of their language use, they are motivated to learn; that is, they know that it is a means to an end, rather than an end in itself; 3. Language is learnt most effectively when it is used as a medium to convey informational content of interest to the students; 4. When they work with authentic subject matter, students need language support. For instance, the teacher may provide a number of examples, build in some redundancy, use comprehension checks, and so forth; 5. Learners work with meaningful, cognitively demanding language and content within the context of authentic material and tasks; and 6. Communicative competence involves more than using language conversationally. It also includes the ability to read, discuss, and write about content from other fields.

Krashen (1991) argued that language learners should acquire a second language (L2) through meaningful communication instead of grammatical drills stripped out of context. He proposed that an L2 is best learned when learners are placed in naturalistic environments, faced with authentic tasks, and using the language for authentic purposes. Content-based language teaching is based on this theory of authenticity in meaningful context in which the learners learn content-area knowledge via the L2 just as what native speakers do with their first language.

In this context, a focus on linguistic form is also important. In L2 content-based classes, learner output (i.e., learners’ L2 production with other learners) often supersedes natural authentic input as well as pedagogical

input, both of which aim at facilitating intake (i.e., mental processing of input). This heavy reliance on learner-generated output as classroom input would seem to violate conditions that favor L2 learning, jeopardizing the opportunity for L2 learners to develop their language system in the direction of the target (Krashen, 1991). According to VanPatten and Sanz (1995), learning in such an environment may have a fossilizing effect on language development, with ‘false fluency’ being the likely outcome.

Figure 1. A Model of Second Language Learning and Use (VanPatten&Sanz, 1995)

The need to redress any input/output imbalance in teaching format is therefore critical. Thus, it seems that these imbalances could be addressed by making two important additions: 1) more natural language should be introduced to the classroom to improve foreign language learners’ exposure to the target language; and 2) provision of pedagogical input including form-focused instruction and error correction should be built into classroom processes to facilitate L2 learners’ knowledge construction and enhance knowledge use.

Focus on Form (FonF) Decades of research on content-based instruction of English as a second/foreign language have shown that although students develop both excellent listening and reading comprehension skills even at early grade levels, and although they are able to get their meaning across communicatively, at higher grade levels they often do so with non-target-like morphology and syntax (Long, 1996; Norris & Ortega, 2000; Swain, 2005). Teachers believe that there is no need to pay extra attention to form as far as long as students are able to communicate with no blockage.

The research findings from the content-based classrooms discussed above have shown that these classrooms seem to lack conditions considered essential for language learning. Moreover, focus on form seems to be lacking in these classrooms (Ahamad Shah, 2003).

In production skills, i.e. speaking and writing, one converts the knowledge of words and grammar into fluid speech or a piece of writing; however, many Iranian learners complain that they know a lot of grammatical points and a wide range of vocabulary but they cannot use them to produce in English, that they have been learning English for a long time but they cannot speak or write with accuracy, and that they understand the conversation or the reading material but they cannot provide an appropriate target-like reply immediately (Sarkar Arani, 2006).

Therefore, the interest in focus on form in part stems from the suggestion that it can enable learners to develop linguistic accuracy because it creates the conditions

for interlanguage restructuring to take place; it allows learners to take time out from a focus on meaning to notice linguistic input, thereby overcoming a potential obstacle of purely meaning-focused lessons in which linguistic forms may go unnoticed (Loewen, 2003). Such noticing is necessary for L2 learning.

Not only does focus on form provide learners with an opportunity to notice linguistic items, but it may also help them to ‘notice the gap’ between models of the target language and their own language production (Schmidt & Frota, 1993). Furthermore, focus on form provides opportunities for ‘pushed output’ which stretches learners’ competence through the need to express themselves in language that is accurate and appropriate (VanPatten & Sanz, 1995).

Even though comprehensible input may be available in sufficient quantities in content-based classrooms, research has shown that this input may be deficient in several important ways (Swain, 1991). As discussed earlier, first, the focus of the input is entirely meaning-oriented.

Second, it is functionally restricted, and third, teachers provide inconsistent and unsystematic information about target language use. It was also found that, in such classes, many grammatical errors went uncorrected. Content classrooms may also be presenting a cognitive overload on the language learning process (Pica, 1995).

As a result of all of the above problems, students may not be emerging from these classrooms with sufficient control of L2; i.e., there may be no balance in their language proficiency between form and meaning.

Dictogloss (DG) Task Though focus-on-form has received recent considerable attention, researchers and theorists have called for an integration of meaning-focused and form-focused instruction in the L2 classroom. Recent research on focuson-form has sought ways to draw learners’ attention to linguistic form without isolating these forms from their meaningful context (e.g., Doughty & Williams, 1998; Ellis, 2002; and Norris & Ortega, 2000). As noted earlier, a key issue regarding task-based language acquisition is that learners likely still need to be provided with content oriented tasks that also focus on form. From among a large number of focus-on-form tasks, dictogloss (Wajnryb, 1990) has been found to be useful in leading learners to pay attention to form as they become engaged in listening to text read out loud, taking notes from that text, and then finally in reconstructing the meaning of the text by working in small groups (Swain & Lapkin, 2001).

The most empirically examined benefit of dictogloss (DG) is ‘metatalk’ (Swain, 1995), defined as occasions where L2 learners discuss or question their language use while carrying out a reconstruction task in the L2.

However, it should be pointed out that recent research concerning what specific linguistic forms are actually

focused on ‘metatalk’ has revealed that L2 learners seem to be less concerned with grammatical features than with lexical meanings in DG (Qin, 2008).

García Mayo (2002, cited in Qin, 2008) offers the explanation that learners are mainly concerned with producing a coherent meaningful text in DG, and thus less attention is paid to grammatical features. Toshiyo (1996, cited in Qin, 2008) emphasizes the importance of ensuring learners’ comprehension of a reconstruction text in DG so that more of learners’ attention can be left for the discussion of forms instead of arguing for the accuracy of meaning of the text during the reconstruction stage, especially for beginning-level learners.

As a result, it is been widely accepted that focus on linguistic form in addition to focus on meaning is beneficial for language learning (Yilmaz, 2008). Learners need to have sufficient control over their L2 in regard to both form and meaning in order to be fit correctly into the approved proficiency level; therefore, DG tasks have been designed to provide learners with opportunities to interact with peers and receive feedback on their production of the targeted grammatical forms. As a result, learners have an increased ability to organize and integrate the four language skills – listening, reading, speaking, and writing.

METHOD Participants and Context of the Study Sixty pre-intermediate level participants of the study were selected out of the 100 students attending remedial English classes at Sama Bilingual School in Tehran on the basis of the scores they obtained on the Preliminary English Test (PET) (see below). Candidates whose scores fell within one standard deviation above and below the mean were selected as the participants of the study. The sample was considered representative of typical Iranian students at pre-intermediate proficiency level, while having different social, economic, and cultural backgrounds.

The selected sample included both male (23) and female (37) learners, and the researcher had no control over the gender variable since the participants were randomly assigned to control and experimental groups with unequal number of males and females. The teacher of the groups was the researcher herself, holding a Master’s degree in TEFL and having eight years of experience teaching different levels, from beginners to advanced.

Materials and Instruments 1. Two parallel general English Proficiency Tests (PET) were administered to the participants.

Test A was given a week before the course started and was used to ensure the homogeneity of the subjects with respect to their language proficiency. Test B, administered a week after the course was finished,

was used as the post-test and was used to measure participants’ language proficiency level at the end of the treatment period to investigate whether there was any significant difference between the language proficiency of the subjects in the control and experimental groups.

2. The Writing and Speaking Rating Scales of PET A holistic writing rating scale provided by Cambridge under the name of General Mark Schemes for Writing (Hawkey and Barker, 2004) was used in this study to rate the writing section of PET test; 5 marks for ‘task’ – task coverage, elaboration, organization and 10 marks for ‘language’ – language range, variety, complexity, errors.

The speaking rating scale was also the one provided

by Cambridge under the name of General Mark Schemes for Speaking. Candidates were assessed on their own individual performance and not in relation to each other. Both examiners assessed the candidates according to the following criteria: grammar and vocabulary, discourse management, pronunciation, and interactive communication, which elicited a band score between 0 and 5 points and ultimately translated to a mark out of a total 25 point.

3. Dictogloss Task The four-step dictogloss task shown in Table 1 below served as the treatment during the 60 sessions of the course. Twenty-one DG tasks extracted from different course books available for intermediate level were practiced by the participants in the experimental group. The first DG task was just for practice and the other twenty were the treatment in the experimental group.

TABLE 1. Steps in DG Task (Wajnryb, 1990)

(Click here to view table) 4. Student-attitude Questionnaire This Likert-type scale questionnaire, originally developed by Karavas-Doukas (1996), consisted of 24 statements to investigate the attitude of the participants towards the use of the dictogloss task.

According to Karavas-Doukas (1996), the maximum score obtained in the attitude scale and the one indicative of the most favorable attitude toward DG is 120, whereas the minimum score and the one indicating the least favorable attitude is 24. As such, the participants’ responses would fall within the range of 24 to 120, the neutral point of the continuum being 72. The reliability estimate of the questionnaire was reported to be .79 in the original study. A Cronbach’s alpha of the same questionnaire was calculated in the current study and found to be .81.

Procedure To answer the questions of the study, specific procedures were followed. First,, 60 participants of the study whose scores on the piloted PET test fell within the range of one standard deviation above and below the mean were selected and randomly assigned to two groups— experimental and control. The teacher, the book (Natural English), the instructions, and the language content were the same for both groups during the participants’ regular class time; the only difference was in the application of the treatment (DG task) in the experimental group.

The 21 DG sessions consisted of different phases: 1. First, the researcher presented a five-minute review of each topic.

2. Next, in order to orient the learners’ attention to the forms they needed to complete the task, they were notified to study the Grammar Reference Section of their course book for five to 10 minutes because the information contained in it would help them complete the task.

3. Subsequently, the learners listened to the teacher reading a passage twice. The participants took no notes the first time they heard the passage. The second time, they were told to jot down notes but not to complete the sentences. After hearing the passage for a second time, they worked together in their respective groups to construct their own version of the text in a written paragraph (Appendix A).

4. Once the learners came up with their final draft, the students’ texts were written on the board for all to see and discuss. The original passage was not given to the students until after their versions were analyzed. Students were then asked to compare their constructed passage with the original one and make notes on parts that were different.

As for the control group, instead of the aforementioned treatment, having introduced The Great Grammar Book by Marsha Sramek, the teacher used fun facts, news article excerpts, and goofy trivia to demonstrate the principles of grammar, and students were mainly assigned to do the grammar exercises in the book represented in the form of gap-fill, cloze, and multiple choice tests.

Finally, when the treatment was over, the 60 participants of the study were given parallel, piloted PET tests, serving as a post-test. Also, the subjects of the experimental group were given a student-attitude questionnaire asking about the major principles of dictogloss task, namely asking them about group work, quality and quantity of content, the place and importance of grammar, the role and contribution of the learners, and the role of the teacher to survey their attitude regarding the use of the dictogloss task.

Data Analysis

6

Frequency

Considering the nature of the variables and the fact that the researcher was seeking the impact of the independent variable (use of dictogloss) on the dependent variable, an independent sample t-test was used to analyze the data obtained through the post-test in this study to compare the obtained mean of the control and experimental groups on the general proficiency post-test.

Moreover, the data collected through participants’ attitude questionnaires was subjected to descriptive statistics calculating minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation with the help of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).

4

7

5 2

4

RESULTS

1

1. The effect of DG task on learners’ overall language proficiency Following the piloting of the post-test, Test B was administered at the end of the treatment to the 60 participants of the study in control and experimental groups. Table 2 below displays the descriptive statistics for this administration in both groups.

Code Total Experimental

N Mean

80.00

85.00

Figure 3. Histogram of the Experimental Group’s Scores on the Post-test

The reliability of the post-test in this actual administration was calculated too (Table 3). An index of .80 reassured the researcher of the reliability of the post-test.

.427

0

68.94

6.735

1.229

93

39

7

.013

Figures 2 and 3 display the distribution of scores for each of the control and experimental groups, respectively.

6

5

4

Frequency

75.00

The first research question of the study was does the use of a dictogloss task in content-based language teaching have a significant effect on EFL learners’ language proficiency?

68

6 5

2

4 3

3

1

1

Mean = 68.95 Std. Dev. = 6.735 N = 30

1

0 70.00

75.00

Cronbach’s Alpha (α)

N of Items

.803

65

To answer this question, an independent t-test was run to compare the mean score of the experimental group that received dictogloss task and that of the control group, which did not receive the treatment on the general proficiency post-test.

In order to be able to run a t-test, the normality of the distribution of scores on post-test within each group had been checked (Table 2) and since both values, .030 (.013 / .427) for the control group and -1.53 (-.655 / .427) for the experimental group fell between -1.96 and 1.96, running a t-test was legitimized. The results of the t-test are demonstrated in Table 4.

As the other condition for running the t-test, homogeneity of variance was also checked by Levene’s test (Table 4) and the ρ value did not become significant (F = .84, ρ = .36 >.05), and thus, homogeneity of variance was assumed.

6

65.00

70.00

TABLE 3. Reliability of the Post-test (Test B)

70

60.00

65.00

.427

TABLE 2. Descriptive Statistics of the Experimental and Control Groups’ Total Scores on the Post-test (Test B)

55.00

60.00

-.655

0

1

55.00

Std. error

1.326

3

0

Statistic

7.262

0

Mean = 73.70 Std. Dev. = 6.364 N = 30

1

Std. Error Mean

72.56

Control 3

2

2

Std. Deviation

3

Skewness

3

3 2

80.00

Figure 2. Histogram of the Control Group’s Scores on the Post-test

TABLE 4. t-Test Results for Comparing Means of Control and Experimental Groups on Post-test (Test B) (Click here to view table) As Table 4 indicates, the t-test results were found to be statistically significant at the .05 level (t=-2.8, df=58,

ρ=.007). Therefore, the mean obtained by the experimental group on the post-test (72.57) was significantly higher than that of the mean obtained by the control group (68.95) (refer to Table 2), suggesting that the dictogloss task significantly affected the general proficiency of the participants.

2. Overall students’ attitudes towards DG task The second research question was what is the overall attitude of EFL learners with respect to using a dictogloss task in content-based language teaching?

The researcher used the piloted questionnaire to survey the attitude of the subjects in the experimental group towards the use of dictogloss task.

Student-Attitude Questionnaire Valid N (listwise)

N

Min.

Max.

Mean

Std. Deviation

30 30

82

113

95.07

7.98

TABLE 5. Descriptive Statistics of the Attitude Questionnaire – Experimental Group Figure 4 below shows the histogram of the distribution of experimental group’s score on the attitude questionnaire.

12

TOTAL

10

Frequency

8 6 4 Mean = 95.1 Std. Dev. = 7.98 N = 30

2 0

80.0

85.0

90.0

95.0

100.0

105.0

110.0

115.0

Figure 4. Histogram of the Experimental Group’s Scores on the Attitude Questionnaire

As noted earlier, the participants’ responses should fall within the range of 24 to 120, and the neutral point of the continuum would be 72 (the mean). Comparing the mean obtained in the actual administration of the questionnaire (95.07) with that of the neutral point of the continuum (72), i.e., 95.07 > 72, it can be concluded that on the whole the participants had a positive attitude toward the use of the dictogloss task in the classroom.

The items of the student-attitude questionnaire were also examined in terms of percentage, in order to understand participants’ general attitude toward the factors representing dictogloss tasks. To demonstrate the pattern of the respondents’ answers to the questionnaire, the first two alternatives (Strongly Agree and Agree) and

the last two (Disagree and Strongly Disagree) were combined. Table 6 presents the results of the questionnaire.

For every question, participants’ responses were showed more favorable attitude toward DG. TABLE 6. Participants’ Attitude in Terms of Frequency and Percentage (Click here to view table)

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Research on focus-on-form (FonF) to date has given little attention to the particular qualities of FonF tasks that might give rise to learners’ interest or that learners might perceive to be useful in helping them shape their language performance (Shak, 2003). In the meantime, a long-raging debate in content-based instruction of English as a second or foreign language revolves around this point that although students are able to get their meaning across communicatively, they still do not have sufficient control of L2 even at intermediate and higher grade levels; i.e., there is no balance in their language proficiency between form and meaning (Long, 1996; Norris & Ortega, 2000; Swain, 2005). Dictogloss was selected for this study because it allows learners to engage in meaningful negotiation while drawing their attention to linguistic form, thus rendering it as a FonF task. More significantly, it holds noticing, the main cognitive construct in FonF, as the essential component of instruction.

Kowal and Swain (1997) have found evidence of noticing, hypothesis-testing, and metatalk when using dictogloss task with 8th grade French immersion students.

The teacher using this technique found that students often focused on more than just the grammatical aspect being emphasized. They discussed grammatical aspects, but also orthographic and semantic issues. The pair work and whole class discussion afterwards did promote student discussion about the links between meaning and form in relation to the composing process.

A follow-up study (Swain, 2005) showed that when students, reached a correct solution through dialogue (that is, the problem they discuss was solved correctly), there was a strong tendency for them to perform accurately on a post-test on that item a week later. Similarly, when students co-constructed an incorrect solution, they tended to be inaccurate on the post-test given a week later. In other words, students tend to ‘stick with’ the knowledge they had co-constructed collaboratively.

Such results strongly suggest that when students reflect consciously on the language they are producing, this may be a source of language learning.

The results obtained in the present study provide support for the premise that practicing dictogloss tasks as the account of focus-on-form tasks in content-based language teaching classrooms, where the focus is on meaning, results in a considerable improvement in

participants’ English proficiency. This suggests that the dictogloss task may be a highly effective task to be used in an EFL content-based class. Indeed, particularly in that students seem to find DG activities a positive aspect of language classes, DG may be a powerful technique in helping many students with various skills and language use, especially with respect to less salient aspects of target language morphology and syntax.

In general, some of the results of the present study concur with the findings about the effects of dictogloss tasks discussed in the literature (e.g. Swain, 2005). For example, the experimental group, in which dictogloss was practiced, improved significantly in both comprehension and production, although students were not as quite as successful in developing reading ability. Furthermore, the experimental group performed significantly better than the control group on listening and speaking sections of the PET post-test; this was no surprise, since the main purpose of the dictogloss task, if conducted regularly, is to refine students’ global aural comprehension along with helping them monitor and adjust their interlanguage to approximate the target language.

Long and Robinson (1998) discussed the role of focus-on-form practice only in the way of helping with fluency and accuracy in production, and they stated that output was not responsible for getting the grammar into the learners’ heads. Nevertheless, the result that the experimental group also improved significantly in comprehension, namely the listening and note-taking found in this study, appears to contradict their claim. However, since a significant effect of dictogloss on learners’ reading ability was not found in the present study, caution needs to be exercised when interpreting this result.

The possible reason why dictogloss might facilitate learners’ comprehension of target linguistic features deserves further explanation. Kowal and Swain (1997) maintain that learners need to know the meaning, form, and function of the target syntactic form, which are closely intertwined, in order to internalize the target form. Therefore, one may hypothesize that the ‘metatalk’ conducted by the participants and the meaningful contexts embedded in the texts might contribute to the participants’ comprehension of the target feature.

On the other hand, results of this study also indicate that the experimental group improved on the written tasks of the PET post-test, though it was natural, since the dictogloss treatment focused on learners’ production of the target language features. This result seems to support Jacobs’ (2003) argument that DG can help L2 learners change their underlying system. Further, he emphasizes that dictogloss should be differentiated from any other kinds of input-based activity, because it pushes L2 learners away from inefficient processing of input and prompts them to rely on linguistic forms to interpret meaning so as to maximize their intake.

Finally, if we then consider the results of the attitudinal questionnaire, the majority of the participants in the experimental group agreed with and appreciated the principles of the dictogloss task. The results indicate that learners were encouraged to discover what they do and do not know about English, namely their weaknesses and strengths, as they themselves reported in the questionnaire.

These results suggest possibilities regarding DG impact upon the learners’ language proficiency in content-based classrooms. One may actually think that frequent correction of errors of linguistic type would disrupt the smooth flow of learners’ inter-communication in the classroom, ultimately taking their attention away from the content; however, having tasks like DG, which directs learners’ attention to linguistic forms through meaningful task-based activities, may actually encourage them to reflect on their own output, thereby gearing them to focus on both meaning and form simultaneously.

Meanwhile, teachers might feel the priority to ensure that their students comprehend material presented in their classes as it is often tested. Given the limited class time at their disposal and the need to ensure student comprehension of material, teachers might have favored focusing on content over linguistic form (Doughty and Williams, 1998).

The results of this study suggest that teachers can obtain a deeper understanding of the integration of form and meaning in content-based classes when they guide their learners to make use of more target-like morphology and syntax in line with the meaning. On the other hand, when learners are actively involved in the process of their own learning, they seem to attend to the four skills with more target-like outcomes.

Implications for EFL Teachers This positive impact of utilizing a dictogloss task in content-based classroom brings about a number of pedagogical implications. It is the teachers’ duty to employ exercises and tasks that develop learners’ awareness of gaps in their interlanguage, as research into second language learning suggests that the first stage of improving accuracy is awareness raising. Indeed, the dictogloss task demonstrated effectiveness as a pedagogical tool to help learners acquire target grammatical forms. The role of the teacher seems critical.. If teachers fail to properly assist students with the comprehension of the original text, students’ interaction with one another and their negotiation of the text may be restricted. As a result, the teacher would need to be available during collaborative activities and attend to the accuracy of the final product.

Implications for Task Designers Similarly, two implications may be stated in regard to task designers. First, when designing a task, one needs to consider the possibility that more proficient learners

are capable of noticing more and also learning more from such noticing than less proficient learners. In this regard, the language level of the model needs to be carefully considered so that the learners can benefit from it.

It should be pointed out, however, that several limitations exist in this study. Due to the participants’ low English proficiency level, the DG tasks were restricted in content and vocabulary. Future research with upper intermediate or advanced EFL learners with more variability of forms is needed to test the generalizability of the result of the study. In addition, our understanding of the benefits of DG can be enriched by future studies of what learners actually focus on when engaging in these tasks.

REFERENCES

Classrooms. Paper presented at Georgetown Roundtable, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. Pica, T. (2000). Tradition and Transition in English Teaching Methodology. System, 28, 1-18.

Qin, J. (2008). The Effect of Processing Instruction and Dictogloss Tasks on Acquisition of the English Passive Voice. Language Teaching Research, 12, 61-69.

Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Language Teaching Methodology. ERIC Digest. Retrieved Sep. 5, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/rodgers.html.

Sarkar Arani, M. R. (2006). Transnational learning: The integration of Authentic Texts into Iranian Course Books. In M. Motaba & M. R. Sarkar Arani (Eds.), Lesson study: International perspective on policy and practice (pp. 41-55). Tehran: Educational Science Publishing House.

Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1993). Developing Basic Conversational Ability in a Second Language: A Case Study of an Adult Learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 239-326). Rowley: Newbury House.

Crandall, J. (1997). Content-centered Learning in the United States. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 111-126.

Shak, J. (2003). Children Using Dictogloss to Focus on Form. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 5(2), 47-62.

Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical Choices in Focus on Form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom SLA (pp. 197-261). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Stoller, F. (2002). Project Work: A Means to Promote Language and Content. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.) Methodology in Language teaching. An anthology of current practice. (pp. 107-119). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hawkey, R. & Barker, F. (2004). Developing a Common Scale for the Assessment of Writing. Science Direct, 122–159.

Jacobs, G. (2003). Combining Dictogloss and Cooperative Learning to Promote Language Learning. The Reading Matrix, 3(1).

Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using Attitude Scales to Investigate Teachers’ Attitudes to Communicative Grammar Tasks. ELT Journal, 52(4), 187-198.

Kowal, M. & Swain, M. (1997). From Semantic to Syntactic Processing: How Can We Promote it in the Immersion Classroom? In R. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion Education: International Perspectives (pp. 284-309). NY: Cambridge University Press.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practices in SLA. New York: Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. D. (1991). The Input Hypothesis: An Update. Paper presented at the Georgetown Round Table for Languages and Linguistics. April 3, 1991.

Washington, D. C. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.

Leaver, B. L. & Stryker, S. B. (1998). Content-based Instruction for Foreign Language Classrooms. Foreign Language Annals 22:3, 269-275.

Loewen, S. (2003). Variation in the Frequency and Characteristics of Incidental Focus on Form. Language Teaching Research, 7, 315-322.

Long, M. (1996). The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.

Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on Form: Theory, Research, and Practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom SLA (pp. 15-41). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Met, M. (1991). Learning Language through Content: Learning Content through Language. Foreign Language Annals, 24(4), 281-295.

Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta-Analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.

Pica, T. (1995). Teaching Language and Teaching Language Learners: The Expanding Roles and Expectations of Language Teachers in Communicative, Content-Based

Stryker, S. & Leaver, B. L. (Eds.) (1997). Content-based Instruction in Foreign Language Education. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Swain, M. (1991). Manipulating and Complementing Content Teaching to Maximize Second Language Learning. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. S. Smithe, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign and Second Language Pedagogy Research: A Commemorative Volume for Claus Faerch (pp. 234-250). Clevedon, Eng.: Multilingual Matters.

Swain, M. (1995). Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and Practice in the Study of Language: Studies in Honor of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (2005). The Output Hypothesis: Theory and Research. In E. Hinkel (Ed), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 471-483).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on Form through Collaborative Dialogue: Exploring Task Effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Research Pedagogical Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing (pp. 99-118).

Harlow: London.

VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From Input to Output: Processing Instruction and Communicative Tasks. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Mileham & R. Weber (Eds.), Second Language Acquisition Theory and Pedagogy. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar Dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yilmaz, Y. (2008). Collaborative Dialogue during Tasks in Synchronous ComputerMediated Communication. Language Teaching Research. Florida State University, Florida.

About the Author Hengameh Ghandehari is currently the Head of English Department at Hermes Institute in Tehran. She has an MA in TEFL and holds Cambridge CELTA. She has taught in both public and private sectors as an EFL teacher and teacher trainer. Her research interests include testing and assessment, teacher training and education. hengameh_ghandehari@yahoo.com

Appendix A Original Version ONE IN TEN MILLION On the last day of the school term, eleven-year-old Timmy stayed home with a cold. It was a rain day and his mother thought he’d better not go to school. His father, who was out of work, stayed at home too and looked for odd jobs to do. He was getting out his old gun to clean when the telephone rang. While his father was chatting on the phone, Timmy wandered in, picked up the gun, turned it around, pulled the trigger and shot himself. He was sent to the hospital; doctors managed to save his life. The police did not charge anyone with any crime; it was simply an accident, one of those things, one chance in ten million.

The utterances written in Italics are texts which the students remembered from the listening or attempted to reconstruct. Underlined utterances are the key features for the categories.

Meaning-based Episodes a) Confirming the meaning of the original text S1 The doctor managed to save his life. Did he die?

S2 No S1 Yes. He S3 I think to save his life. Managed to save his life. It didn’t say he died or not.

He was looking for. What do you think?

In that time time in that time he was … doing something. He was looking for another job to do S2 odd jobs to do ---------------------------------------------------------------------S3 Timmy … was wandering. Right?

S2 Timmy S3 Do you use progressive?

S2 Progressive S1 Uh, I think we should use passive. Was wandering S3 Do you wander wander in? Simple past tense?

S1 Here is the simple past.

---------------------------------------------------------------------S1 And he … he S2 he … uh. When the telephone ring, an … telephone is ringing, and he S1 he take. he … no. He take out he old gun to clean when telephone ring.

S2 Yeah. He stop to to he stop to … uh he stop to clean old gun when the telephone ring.

Yeah.

Uh, ah, yes. When the telephone is ring.

S2 I don’t know he died or not saved his life maybe not die.

Here should be the past tense. Here is should be the pre-, uh, what do you say?

---------------------------------------------------------------

He was taking his old gun out when the telephone rang.

Right?

S2 But last sentence, I didn’t S3 Uh, it’s simply an accident. One of those things. One chance in ten million.

Here is the ing and here uh, is

S1 uh, I know he didn’t use the progressive tense

S2 What does it? One chance to win? The one million?

Why?

S2 Progressive tense … yeah, I agree to use … but I think in the later sentence, use the Progressive

S3 It’s an accident.

S3 The first use the past tense. You reverse … Reverse this.

S2 It’s accident to win.

b) Preposition

S3 Not win.

S1 It is last day of school term of this term or this termor school term

S2 To lose I think. But I heard … is win … the ten million.

S3 I think nothing win or lose.

S2 Uh, … is … what?

S3 just said this kind of accident is one chance in ten million.

S3 This term of school S1 This term of school. Yeah. c) Verb + preposition S1 round … around … which one should we use?

S2 O.K. … O.K.

S2 turned round turned it to

(S2/S3 laugh)

S3 I think I use himself here

b) Vocabulary correction

S1 turned it round himself. Turned it to himself we don’t need to use the exact same word

S2 check the phone S3 No No He was chatting on the phone. He was talk-talking.

Grammatical Episodes

d) Pronoun S1 Yes. I don’t have to use himself here again.

S3 Turned it to himself. Turned it to himself. Right?

a) Verb tense

S1 Yeah, I know. I write down to himself again.

S3 Mmm why don’t we use the … he was looking for?

S3 Uh, turned it to uh, turned it to

S2 ### S3 Because …

S1 turn … is it turn?

S3 Turn round … Turn back … Turn to … turned to S1 O.K. turned it to himself, it’s self.

Students’ Version (Group A) ONE IN TEN MILLION On the last day of the school, Timmy stayed home because he had a cold.

It was raining and his mother thought he should stay at home. His father stayed at home too and looked for odd jobs to do. He was getting out his old gun to clean when the telephone rang. While he was chatting on the phone, Timmy wandered in, picked up the gun, turned it to himself, pulled the trigger and shot himself. He was tooken to the hospital. Doctors managed to save him. The police did not charge anyone for crime; it was an accident, one chance in ten million.

Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Beliefs about ELLs in Mainstream Classrooms Stacie Petitt Georgia Regents University The purpose of this study was to explore the beliefs middle school mathematics teachers have about ELLs, to identify the strategies used to help ELLs, and to explore the support teachers need to teach ELLs. A questionnaire was completed by 106 middle school mathematics teachers from 11 school systems in Georgia.

Introduction

Purpose

English Language Learners (ELLs) are the fastest growing student population in public schools (Jones, 2002). According to the Migration Policy Institute, Georgia in particular had a 52.1 percent increase its English language learner population between 2000 and 2010. Georgia ranks 8 out of the 51 states for the largest sized ELL population (Migration Policy Institute, 2010).

The experiences ELLs will have in school are dependent upon the beliefs of the teachers they encounter. However, many teachers are not adequately prepared to work with a linguistically diverse student population (Gandara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly, & Callahan, 2003; Jones, 2002).

Without proper training, it is difficult to hold teachers accountable for feelings of inadequacy. Only 12.5 percent of U.S. teachers have received eight or more hours of recent training to teach students of limited English proficiency (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). Because mainstream teachers are very likely to teach ELLs at some point in their careers, they need to be equipped with the skills to meet the needs of those students.

The purpose of this study was to explore the beliefs middle school mathematics teachers have about the ELLs in their classrooms. In addition, I identified the strategies these mathematics teachers reported using to help the ELLs in their classrooms. I also explored the support teachers need to teach the ELLs in their classrooms. The following research questions guided the study: (1) What are the beliefs of middle school mathematics teachers about ELLs in mainstream classrooms?, (2) What reported strategies, if any, do teachers use to help ELLs succeed, and (3) What types of support do teachers receive, and what additional support could they use to meet the needs of ELLs?.

The term teacher belief has many definitions (Author, 2011a). Sahin, Bullock, and Stables (2002) indicate the idea of belief may refer to “perceptions, assumptions, implicit and explicit theories, judgments, opinions, and more” (p. 373). Many scholars differentiate knowledge from belief (Calderhead, 1996; Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992), while other researchers do not differentiate beliefs and knowledge (Kagan, 1992). Here, I have chosen to use the definition of “belief “ to include mental constructs such as knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions. Teachers’ beliefs about ELLs, referred to herein, include knowledge about second language acquisition, attitudes toward having ELLs in mainstream classrooms, as well as beliefs concerning the role of the ESOL teacher.

Teachers can no longer expect that because a student is labeled Limited English Proficient (LEP), federal designation to describe ELLs, his or her test scores will not count in grading the school. Instead, under The No Child Left Behind Act (2001), schools are graded on the percentage of ELL students that do meet the standards according to their proficiency level. The ESOL teacher alone cannot prepare all of these students in every subject area without the help of mainstream teachers, and the beliefs of these mainstream teachers will influence the students’ performances. Middle school mathematics teachers in Georgia in particular are affected because according to State Board of Education Rule 160-3-1-.07: ELL students enrolling for the first time in a United States school may receive a one-time deferment from content area assessments, other than mathematics and science, if their proficiency in English indicates that testing is not in the best educational interest of the student.

This deferment does not apply to the mathematics and science sections of state mandated tests regardless of the

student‘s length of time in a US school (Cox, 2007).

There is a mistaken idea that students who do not speak English can still perform well in mathematics, when in fact the Common Core State Standards, adopted

by Georgia, place an emphasis on problem solving and communication (Georgia Department of Education, 2013). The mathematics portion of the CRCT holds high stakes for middle school students. For example, Georgia’s policy O.C.G.A. § 20-2-281 reads: “No eighth grade student shall be promoted to the ninth grade if the student does not achieve grade level on the Criterion-Referenced Competency Test in reading and the Criterion-Referenced Competency Test in mathematics.” Dillon (2001) argues, “Any system that asks students who do not read or write in English to complete complex state tests is not confronting reality” (p. 99).

Mathematics and English Language Learners A positive relationship exists between English proficiency and mathematics achievement (Cahnmann & Hornberger, 2000; Remillard & Cahnmann, 2005).

English (2007) notes that “the myth that mathematics is ‘culture-free’ or a ‘shared language’ obscures the reality that learning mathematics in a second language requires linguistic, cultural, and content development.” Studies have consistently found that ELLs generally achieve poorly in mathematics (Herman & Abedi, 2004). For example, Abedi and Lord (2001) found that ELLs scored lower on a mathematics assessment than native speakers of English and that ELLs scored higher when linguistic modifications were made. According to Cahnmann and Hornberger, “Numeracy practices are always associated with relations of power, and are intricately connected to the contexts where mathematics is performed and the cultural beliefs and value systems of individuals and social groups” (p. 40). Clearly the language demands embedded in mathematics must be addressed for ELLs for conceptual understanding. Students need language skills, as well as cultural knowledge to perform well in mathematics (Author, 2011b).

Review of the Related Literature Teachers’ beliefs influence their classroom behavior (Pajares, 1992; Rueda & Garcia, 1996) and affect student learning. Fang (1996) writes, “teachers teach in accordance with their theoretical beliefs” (p. 53). According to Harklau (2000), the actions of teachers of ELLs “not only serve to teach language but also serve to shape students’ attitudes toward schooling and their very sense of self” (p. 64). Many researchers (Rueda & Garcia, 1996; Walker, Shafer, & Iams, 2004) have found that training affects teachers’ practice in working with ELLs. Researchers have found that teachers hold misconceptions about how second languages are learned

(Karabenick & Noda, 2005; Reeves, 2006). For example, Reeves’ participants held misconceptions that ELLs should be able to acquire English within two years and should not use their native language as they are learning English. Similarly, Karabenick and Noda (2005) found that teachers believed the use of a first language at home interferes with learning a second language. In reality, research has shown it can take 5 to 7 years for students to learn the academic language of English (Cummins, 1981), and proficiency in a native language can facilitate the acquisition of a second language (Cummins, 2000; Freeman, Freeman, & Mercuri, 2005; Lee, 2002).

Richardson (1996) states that the study of beliefs is a crucial element in teacher education because beliefs “drive classroom actions and influence the teacher change process” (p. 102). Furthermore, Macnab and Payne (2003) point out “the beliefs and attitudes of teachers–cultural, ideological and personal–are significant determinants of the way they view their role as educators” (p. 55).

Therefore, not only do teachers’ beliefs affect the expectations they hold of students, but their actions in the classroom also reflect their beliefs. Beliefs affect not only what teachers see as their purpose in teaching, but also the ways teachers think about their subject matter and the choices they make in their teaching (Richardson, 1996).

Teachers will emphasize different aspects of the curriculum based on their stance on education. Teachers make choices throughout a lesson, a unit, or a course, each of which is influenced by their beliefs (Author, 2011a).

Rueda and Garcia (1996) found that teachers’ beliefs about second language learning and teaching shape their perceptions and judgments, which, in turn, affect students’ behavior in the classroom. This shows the powerful implications teachers’ beliefs hold for the ELLs in their classrooms. Similarly, teachers’ attitudes toward ELLs affect the classroom interaction between these students and the teacher, which ultimately affects achievement (Mantero & McVicker, 2006). In particular, teachers’ beliefs about their ability to meet the needs of ELLs account for high student motivation and performance (Karabenick & Noda, 2005).

Many teachers hold numerous misconceptions about the best ways to learn a second language and have low expectations of ELLs (Author, 2011a). For example, Walker, Shafer, and Iams (2004) found that teachers were not interested in having ELLs in their classroom and that many objected to adapting classroom instruction for ELLs. In fact, “mainstream teachers must adopt a new set of beliefs in order to be effective with the ELLs in their classrooms. These beliefs for the successful inclusion of ELLs include the following: (1) high expectations for ELLs, (2) accepting responsibility for ELLs, (3) encouraging native language use both at home and in the classroom, (4) an

awareness of the time it takes ELLs to learn academic English, and (5) a desire for professional development in relation to ELLs when needed” (Author, 2011a).

Method Middle school mathematics teachers of ELLs completed the “Mathematics Teachers’ Beliefs about English Language Learners Questionnaire” (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=Bro4m44VxP0_2fVXH46M0mbw_3d_3d). The questionnaire was created by this author and subsequently distributed to 439 teachers in 11 school systems in Georgia. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyze the questionnaire results. Interviews of teachers and ELLs were conducted, but due to space limitations, only the quantitative data will be reported here.

Procedures I sent out a web-based questionnaire as an HTML link through email. A web-based questionnaire is the collection of data through a self-administered electronic set of items on the web (Archer, 2003). One advantage of web-based questionnaires is that data can easily be imported into a data analysis program (Archer, 2003; Dillman, 2000); I used Survey Monkey to gather the data, which was then imported into SPSS. Similarly, Solomon (1999) believes web-based questionnaires help researchers avoid the often error-prone and tedious task of data entry. Additionally, web-based questionnaires may increase motivation by providing an interactive survey process. For example, researchers have the ability to use advanced design features such as color and innovative item displays (Gosling et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2002).

Research has shown that web-based samples are just as diverse with respect to gender, socioeconomic status, geographic region, and age as mail questionnaires (Gosling et al., 2004). The quality of data of web-based questionnaires is also comparable to mail questionnaires (Fowler, 2002; Gosling et al.). In addition, Gosling et al. found that web-based findings are consistent with findings based on traditional methods.

Questionnaire design In designing the questionnaire, I began by identifying topics related to ELLs in mainstream classrooms. I also examined other questionnaires (i.e., Karabenick & Noda, 2005; Reeves, 2006) used in research with ELLs. Next, I narrowed the topics and drafted questionnaire items.

Archer (2003) advises researchers to simplify web-based questionnaires even more so than paper questionnaires.

As suggested by Bradburn, Sudman, and Wansink (2004), in order to justify the inclusion of each questionnaire item, I created a conceptual framework where each question relates back to specific variables in my study.

The final step in designing the questionnaire was to change the paper version into an electronic version. I

used the program Survey Monkey to convert the questionnaire into its final web-based form. Survey Monkey is an online survey tool that enables researchers to create their own surveys using premade templates and item response formats.

Questionnaire topics and items The questionnaire was composed of 56 items: 24 items focus on teacher beliefs, 11 items focus on factors influencing teacher beliefs, 13 items focus on teacher strategies, and 7 items focus on teacher support. In addition, one question asked teachers to identify their school system. In order to increase the internal reliability of the questionnaire, six of the items are negatively worded.

Fourteen of the 56 items were borrowed from other researchers and modified; 10 items derived from the work of Reeves (2006), and 4 items derived from Karabenick and Noda (2005). I modified the wording in the items to maintain terminology, such as ESOL student.

Of the 24 items under the topic of teacher beliefs, 12 items focused on beliefs about the impact of having ELLs in mainstream mathematics classrooms, and 4 items focused on beliefs about how languages are learned.

Because teachers’ self efficacies have been shown to affect student success (Garcia, 1996; McSwain, 2001), six questions focused on teachers’ beliefs about how they are doing in meeting the needs of the ELLs in their classrooms. Because this questionnaire was intended for mathematics teachers, two questions focused specifically on teachers’ beliefs about mathematics in relation to ELLs. Eleven questionnaire items concentrated on factors influencing teacher beliefs. These items elicited teaching experience, living in another country, training received in teaching ELLs, gender, languages spoken, travel experience, and the number of ELLs taught. As previously discussed, research has shown that each of these variables is related to teachers’ beliefs. For example, Youngs and Youngs found that the population of ELLs can affect teachers’ beliefs (2001).

The 13 items under the topic of teacher strategies focused on teacher collaboration and classroom practices. For example, I included items related to assessment strategies because continual assessment is important for the success of ELLs. The final topic of teacher support included seven items addressing professional development and teacher resources. Professional development has been shown to affect teachers’ beliefs (Clair & Temple, 1999; Guskey, 1986).

I asked about the support teachers need and what they would like to learn more about in the area of teaching ELLs. Questionnaire response formats The questionnaire was composed of categorical, ordinal, interval, Likert, and open-ended response formats. I began with 11 categorical, or nominal, items to

measure factual information and behavior. I used these items to find out more specifics than I would be able to using another format. For example, instead of just finding out if teachers thought assignments should be modified for ELLs, I asked how often they actually do this. Also, I was able to inquire about the specific nature of the professional development the teachers may have received and the exact topics the teachers would like to learn about in future professional development sessions.

A combination of cluster and purposeful sampling was employed to choose school systems that varied in size and location across Georgia to participate in the study. This process resulted in the identification of 16 school systems for possible participation in this study. Of the 16 counties, 11 agreed to participate, 3 declined to participate, and 2 did not respond. There were a total of 55 middle schools in the 11 participating school systems.

There were 439 grades 6-8 mathematics teachers in the 55 participating schools. After eliminating teachers who responded that they did not teach any ESOL students and those whose email addresses were undeliverable, the sample for the questionnaire was then 413. The questionnaires were anonymous. Because I was not able to identify nonrespondents, 2 weeks after the Questionnaire Cover Letter was emailed to the teachers, I emailed a follow-up letter to all the teachers. One week later, I sent a final reminder email. I closed the questionnaire 2 weeks after the final reminder email was sent.

Results Response Rate Of the 413 questionnaires sent out by email, 146 were returned via the electronic website and 3 were returned in paper form, for a total of 149 responses. This constitutes a response rate of 36 percent. Nonresponse error should be approached from the standpoint of representativeness of the respondents. As middle school mathematics teachers in the state of Georgia, my respondents were relatively similar demographically and have similar educational backgrounds.

Demographic Characteristics of Questionnaire Respondents Data reported in this section are based on the 106 respondents who indicated they were currently teaching ELLs or did so the prior year. Eighteen of the respondents were male, and 87 were female. Twenty-three respondents indicated they spoke a language other than English, and three spoke more than one language other than English.

Eighty-seven of the respondents never lived in a non-English speaking country for more than one month. The number of students the respondents taught mathematics to ranged from 8 to 140 with a mean of 86.8. Also, the number of ELLs the respondents taught varied from 1 to 50 with a mean of 11.1. Table 1 shows the number of years

respondents completed as a school teacher.

Years as a Teacher

Frequency

%

0 years

3

3%

1 year

9

8%

2-5 years

26

25 %

6-10 years

22

21 %

11-15 years

18

17 %

16 or more years

26

24 %

Not Reported

2

2%

TABLE 1. Number of Years Respondents Completed as a School Teacher

Analyses The questionnaire was analyzed through crosstabs, correlations, and analyses of variance (ANOVA) using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software.

An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests.

Results of the analyses for each research question follow.

Research Question 1: What are the beliefs of middle school mathematics teachers about ELLs in mainstream classrooms? The data from the questionnaire indicated many teachers were optimistic about teaching ELLs. For example, 86 percent of teachers welcomed the inclusion of ELLs in their classes, and 92 percent trusted that ELLs could master the required curriculum when given proper support.

Additionally, 61 percent of teachers believed that the inclusion of ELLs in mainstream classes benefits all students.

The questionnaire data indicated that teachers were not confident in their ability to teach ELLs. For example, only 53 percent of questionnaire respondents felt they were good at helping ELLs understand the material in their classes. Similarly, just 56 percent of these teachers believed they could adapt their instruction so that ELLs can understand the material presented.

Many of the teachers who completed the questionnaire felt overwhelmed with the challenge of meeting the needs of ELLs in their classrooms, primarily because of the language barrier (88 percent) and a lack of time (50 percent). Although only one county had any type of all day placement for recent immigrants, 54 percent of the teachers believed ELLs should not be in mainstream classrooms until they reach a minimum level of English proficiency. Trying to communicate with ELLs was challenging for many teachers. Specifically, only three percent reported on the questionnaire that they agree or strongly agree that language was not an issue. Seventy-eight percent of teachers believed speaking English at home would facilitate English acquisition for ELLs. Additionally, results of the questionnaire indicated that 49 percent of teachers believed there was a place for the use of native languages in their classrooms. When asked if ELLs should

be able to acquire English within 2 years of arriving in U.S. schools, the teachers’ answers were divided; 33 percent agreed, 36 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, and 31 percent disagreed. Only nine percent of teachers believed that it is not their responsibility to bring ELLs up to the same level as other students mathematically.

Research Question 2: What strategies, if any, do teachers use to help ELLs succeed?

To answer this question, a one-way ANOVAs and a crosstab were conducted to determine if having training in teaching ELLs affected the teachers’ beliefs and actions about strategies to help ELLs. Teachers who had received training in teaching ELLs reported using differentiation to meet the needs of the ELLs in their classrooms significantly more than those who had not received training (see Table 2). However, teachers who had received training were not significantly different from those who had not concerning how often they reported using collaborative learning or their beliefs about direct instruction (see Table 2).

Questionnaire Items Related to Strategies

Training Receiveda

Training Not Receivedb

p value

Eta squared

I use differentiation to meet the needs of the ESOL students in my classes.

4.20

3.67

.001

.115

I use collaborative learning to meet the needs of the ESOL students in the classes.

3.98

4.02

> . 05

ESOL students are best taught using direct instruction/ lecture to the entire class.

2.35

2.42

> . 05

Note: N ranged from 87 to 91. an ranged from 45 to 46. bn ranged from 42 to 45.

TABLE 2. Means of Teacher Strategy Variables against Training Received In addition, having received training in the area of teaching ELLs was significantly related to the frequency of modifying assignments (See Table 3). Follow-up crosstabs indicated that teachers who modified almost everyday were significantly more likely to have received training than those who modified about once a week or about once a month, X2(1, N = 73) = 7.14, p = .007). In addition, teachers who modified almost everyday were significantly more likely to have received training than those who never modified X2(1, N = 60) = 10.79, p = .001.

Frequency of Modified Assignments

Training Received

Training Not Received

Total

Never or a couple times a year

6 (13 %)

16 (33 %)

22 (23 %)

About once a week or about once a month

14 (30 %)

21 (44 %)

35 (37 %)

Almost everyday or everyday

27 (57 %)

11 (23 %)

38 (40 %)

Total

47 (100 %)

48 (100 %)

95 (100 %)

Note: X2(2, N = 95) = 12.67 Cramer’s V = .37 p < .01

TABLE 3. Frequency of Modifying Assignments (Collapsed) by Training Received The teachers reported using collaborative learning (81 percent) and differentiation (77 percent) to meet the needs of ELLs in their classrooms. Only five percent strongly agreed or agreed that ELLs were best taught using direct instruction. This finding is in contrast to Harklau’s (1999) observation that in mathematics classes in particular, teachers spent most of class lecturing on concepts from the course text and tended not to make adjustments to their speech to accommodate for ELLs. It is possible that the teachers reported on the questionnaire that they used these strategies, but if the teachers were observed, these strategies would not be apparent.

The participants had mixed views on assessing ELLs. For example, teachers were divided (Strongly Agree / Agree, 44 percent; Strongly Disagree / Disagree, 34 percent) on whether they should give ELLs a failing grade if they show effort. Similarly, a little over half (52 percent) of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed that ELLs should not be graded on work they cannot read, while 20 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed. In addition, 56 percent strongly agreed or agreed that ELLs can show understanding on a few exercises, rather than be given the whole assignment. In addition, a decisive majority (70 percent) believed that teachers should modify assignments for ELLs, and 82 percent thought it is good practice to allow ELLs additional time to complete assignments.

Although 84 percent of respondents strongly disagreed or disagreed that it is unfair to make modifications for ELLs, teachers reported actually modifying their assignments at varying rates. For example, 39 percent reported modifying assignments almost every day or every day, while 19 percent reported never modifying their assignments.

Research Question 3: What types of support are teachers receiving, and what additional resources could they use to meet the needs of ELLs? Findings from the survey showed that only 25 percent of the teachers felt they were well prepared. In addition,

74 percent of teachers would like to receive more training to help ELLs.

would like to receive more professional development in teaching ELLs.

It appears that when teachers had what they need to teach ELLs, they had a more positive attitude toward ELLs in their classrooms. For example, three correlations that were related to professional development and resources found that “I welcome the inclusion of ESOL students in my class” significantly correlated with “I am well prepared to teach the ESOL students in my classes” (r = .33, p < .01, N = 100). In addition, how often a teacher spoke with the ESOL teacher positively correlated with the item “I welcome the inclusion of ESOL students in my class” (r = .29, p <.05, N = 94). However, there was not a significant correlation between the questionnaire items “I am not responsible for the mathematics achievement of students who have limited English proficiency” and “I have the resources I need to successfully teach the ESOL students in my mathematics classroom.”

Two factors were found to make significant difference on teachers’ beliefs; the most notable differences were between those who had received training in teaching ELLs and those who had not. Also, the data indicated that females believed significantly more than males that teachers should modify assignments for ELLs.

On the questionnaire, 39 percent of respondents reported they had received training in teaching ELLs. Seventy-four teachers responded to the question of approximately how many hours of training received dealing specifically with ELLs. The answers ranged from 0 to 150 hours with a mean of 13.43 hours. Specifically, 82 percent of these respondents had received less than 20 hours of training.

One questionnaire item read, “In order to better serve the educational and developmental needs of ESOL students in your classroom, which would you need to know more about?” The 100 respondents to this question responded with the following: the “tools” or instruments available to assess ESOL students’ needs (65 percent); appropriate instructional models or strategies for teaching content areas to ESOL students (82 percent); the history, culture and arts of the target cultures (28 percent); and the language(s) of the students I teach (45 percent).

Respondents were able to check all that applied.

When teachers had ELLs in their class, 43 percent of them reported regularly speaking with the ESOL teacher.

The data indicated that speaking with the ESOL teacher was an effective resource for the mainstream teacher. For example, the questionnaire item, “I welcome the inclusion of ESOL students in my class” positively correlated with “When I have an ESOL student in my class, I regularly speak with the ESOL teacher at my school” (r = .23, p < .05, N = 94).

The data indicated teachers are in need of resources and training to better meet the needs of the ELLS in their classrooms. Only 24 percent of teachers thought they have adequate training to work with ELLs; additionally, only 23 percent reported having the resources they need to successfully teach ELLs in their classrooms. Fortunately, these teachers were willing to learn more about educating ELLs. Specifically, 74 percent answered that they

To summarize the qualitative results, also published elsewhere by Author (2013), the teachers reported lack of time as being a challenge to meeting the needs of ELLs. Teachers also responded that they believed ELLs have difficulties with the amount of reading, word problems, and specialized vocabulary in mathematics classrooms.

During interviews, the ELL students reported having difficulties in mathematics class because of the number of word problems and words they could not understand.

They also desired more materials in their native language and more time to complete assignments.

Discussion The questionnaire data indicated many teachers are optimistic about teaching ELLs and they overwhelmingly believed that ELLs could master the required curriculum when given proper support. However, over half believe that ELLs should not be in regular education classes until they attain a minimum level of English proficiency.

Teaching mathematics to ELLs is a concern for the majority of these questionnaire respondents.

The questionnaire data indicated that over half of the teachers are not confident in their ability to teach ELLs or to adapt their instruction to meet the needs of ELLs. Only 49 percent of teachers on the questionnaire disagreed with the item “Students should not use their native language at school” despite that many researchers (e.g., Cummins, 2000; Freeman, Freeman, & Mercuri, 2005) have found that knowledge of literacy in a first language can transfer easily and therefore facilitate second language learning. Similarly, 78 percent of teachers responding to the questionnaire accepted as true that speaking English at home is desirable, when in fact, the loss of proficiency in the native language breaks down communication with family members and lowers self esteem (Lee & Oxelson, 2006; Tannenbaum & Howie, 2002).

On the questionnaire, teachers reported using collaborative learning (81 percent) and differentiation (77 percent) to meet the needs of ELLs. This finding is in contrast to Harklau’s (1999) observation that in mathematics classes in particular, teachers spent most of class lecturing on concepts from the course text and tended not to make adjustments in their speech to accommodate for ELLs. It is possible that the teachers reported on the questionnaire that they used these strategies, but if the teachers were observed, these strategies would not

be apparent. Results from the questionnaire indicated 24 percent of teachers never modify or modify only a couple times a year for an ELL in their classroom. Perhaps this is related to the fact that only 23 percent of the teachers in the present study reported they have the resources they feel they need to meet the needs of the ELLs in their classrooms. However, teachers who had training in teaching ELLs used differentiation and modified assignments significantly more than those without training.

Researchers (Reeves, 2006 & Walker, Shafer, & Iams, 2004) have had similar findings to the ones in this study that many teachers do not believe it is fair to make accommodations for ELLs. This idea certainly is contrary to what we know as best practices in any field of education, so it is alarming to consider possible reasons for these negative beliefs toward ELLs in particular. In-depth interviews could provide more information related to why these beliefs exist.

Limitations One limitation is the format and data collection using a questionnaire. A questionnaire cannot measure people’s behaviors; it can only measure their perceptions of those behaviors or their willingness to discuss their behaviors (Sherblom, Sullivan, & Sherblom, 1993).

Another potential limitation in this study is that teachers’ self-reported beliefs may not indicate their actual behavior in the classroom.

Implications for Middle School Mathematics Teachers This study has specific implications for mathematics teachers of ELLs. First, mainstream teachers need to claim each student in their classroom as their responsibility. As Yoon (2008) states, “Teaching ELLs is not a responsibility of only ESL teachers but also of classroom teachers. It is crucial to form a new concept of classroom teachers’ roles to include ELLs’ diverse needs and to take full responsibility for their needs” (p. 516). Likewise, teachers should not blame the difficulties of ELLs on their home lives. Every student comes into a classroom with different needs and each deserves an equal access to the curriculum.

Second, mainstream teachers and ESOL teachers need to work together to meet the needs of ELLs. Dillon (2001) states that ESOL and mainstream teachers need opportunities to collaborate. Moore (1999) believes collaboration must be practiced and discussed for mainstream teachers to be aware of the ESOL teacher’s responsibilities versus their responsibilities in the classroom. Fewer than half the teachers in this study agreed that they regularly speak with the ESOL teacher at their school.

Recommendations for Professional Development Multiple researchers have provided suggestions regarding professional development for teachers of ELLs. For example, Ryan (1995) writes that the fact that culture is inseparable from language needs to be taught and put

into practice. Harklau (1994) recommended inservice professional development with a focus on “how input can be adjusted for nonnative speakers and “how appropriate, explicit, and consistent language instruction for ESL students might be incorporated into mainstream instruction” (p.

268). Godley, Sweetland, Wheeler, Minnici, and Carpenter (2006) state, “only relevant information anchored in practice is likely to affect teacher practice significantly” (p. 33) because teachers will disregard information that doesn’t seem to apply to them. In summary, “teachers must have opportunities to gain specialized skills to work effectively with ESL students; otherwise, mainstreaming is not a positive solution” (Young, 1996, p. 18).

The data in this study also suggest a need for increased professional development for mathematics teachers of ELLs. The results clearly showed that these 106 teachers who teach ELLs did not believe they are prepared nor have enough training to meet the needs of these students. For example, only 24 percent of questionnaire respondents deemed they have adequate training to teach ELLs. Moreover, 74 percent of these teachers wanted more training in working with ELLs. Specifically, 82 percent responded on the questionnaire that they wanted to know more about instructional models or strategies used with ELLs in the content areas.

This finding is in contrast to previous researchers whose participants were not open to professional development in working with ELLs (Clair, 1995; Gandara et al., 2005; Reeves, 2006; Walker et al., 2004). Results from the questionnaire indicated that teachers with training believed they could adapt their instruction to meet the needs of ELLs significantly more than those without training.

As ESOL programs continue to move toward inclusion, this issue will increase in importance. This study supports an earlier finding (Author, 2011a), that a “poverty of language learning” exists in U.S. teacher education meaning that many certified teachers are lacking the necessary skills and knowledge of second language acquisition to be successful teachers of ELLs. The teachers in the present study are eager to receive professional development in teaching ELLs. Specifically, teachers want training on instructional models and strategies to use with ELLs in mainstream classrooms. Results from the questionnaire indicate that the teachers need more knowledge in the principles of second language acquisition, as well as opportunities to communicate and better understand the home lives of ELLs. These results support Author’s (2011a) conclusions that teachers need to adopt the following “beliefs for the successful inclusion of ELLs listed previously.

Recommendations for Future Research This study was unique in that it examined the beliefs of middle school mathematics teachers about ELLs. The research related to mathematics teachers’ beliefs about

ELLs and middle school teachers’ beliefs about ELLs is sparse. No articles that I found examined mathematics teachers in middle schools specifically. Additionally, this study utilized a new questionnaire: “Mathematics Teachers’ Beliefs about English Language Learners Questionnaire.” As such, this study presents opportunities for further research. The following recommendations are presented for consideration.

Author (2013). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs about ELLs in mainstream mathematics classrooms. Journal of Contemporary Research in Education, 1(3).

First, further studies need to be conducted using this questionnaire or modifications of the instrument.

It appears that the instrument adequately provided information relevant to mathematics’ teachers’ beliefs, but the questionnaire needs to be validated. Shortening the length of the questionnaire, or breaking it down into more than one instrument may encourage a larger response rate.

Bradburn, N. M., Sudman, S., & Wansink, B. (2004). Asking questions: The definitive guide to questionnaire design—for market research, political polls, and social health questionnaires. John Wiley & Sons: San Francisco.

Additionally, there is a need to replicate this study to confirm or reject the conclusions made. This study was conducted in 11 school systems in one state in the southeast region of the United States. Future research across the country would provide additional support for the findings presented. Future research should examine school systems with ELL populations that vary in size and nationalities to see if the findings remain consistent.

Finally, beyond replication of this study, there is a need to complete studies to further examine teachers’ beliefs about ELLs. Additional data could be gained by using a qualitative approach. For example, more detailed information about ELLs’ experiences would help to strengthen this body of research. Also, the term “strategy” was defined in a broad way in this study as seen in Table 2 with the approaches to classroom organization. More specific examples of techniques such as vocabulary instruction or Total Physical Response (TPR) could be examined. More in-depth interviews with teachers could help us understand how teachers actually viewed terms used in the questionnaire such as “collaborative learning” or “differentiation.”

Additionally, observational data are necessary to examine what is actually happening in mainstream, mathematics classrooms with ELLs. Researchers could also use longitudinal studies to investigate changes in teachers’ beliefs over time. Similarly, it is important to examine how teachers’ beliefs affect the ELLs in their classrooms. For example, how do teachers’ beliefs about the English language proficiency of their students affect perception of their academic abilities?

References Abedi, J., & Lord, C. (2001). The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 14(3), 219-234.

Archer, T. M. (2003). Web-based surveys. Journal of Extension, 41(4). Retrieved Aug. 3, 2007 from http://www.joe.org/joe/2003august/tt6.shtml.

Author (2011a). Teachers’ beliefs about English language learners in mainstream classrooms: A review of the literature. International Multilingual Research Journal.

5(2), 123-147.

Author (2011b). Factors influencing middle school mathematics teachers’ beliefs about ELLs in mainstream classrooms. Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers: The Journal, 5, [www.k12prep.math.ttu.edu].

Brown, K.M. (2004). Assessing preservice leaders’ beliefs, attitudes, and values regarding issues of diversity, social justice, and equity: A review of existing measures. Equity and Excellence in Education, 37, 332-342.

Cahnmann, M. S., & Hornberger, N. H. (2000). Understanding what counts: Issues of language, culture, and power in mathematics instruction and assessment.

Educators for Urban Minorities, 1(2), 39-52.

Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D.C. Berlin & R.C. Calfee (Eds.) Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 709-725). New York: Macmillan.

Clair, N. (1995). Mainstream classroom teachers and ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 189-196.

Clair, N., & Temple, C. A. (1999). Professional development for teachers in culturally diverse schools. Eric Digest. Retrieved Feb. 10, 2005, from www.eric.edu.gov. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED435185).

Cox, K. (2007). Georgia student assessment program student assessment handbook.

Atlanta, GA: Georgia Department of Education.

Cummins, J. (1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada: A reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 2, l32-l49.

Cummins, J. (1992). Bilingual education and English immersion: The Ramirez report in theoretical perspectives. Bilingual Research Journal, 16, 91-104.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy. Bilingual children in the crossfire.

Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Dillon, P. W. (2001). Labeling and English language learners: Hearing recent immigrants’ needs. In G. M. Hudak & P. Kihn (Eds.) Labeling: Pedagogy and politics. (pp. 93-105). London, England: Routledge Falmer.

Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38 (1), 47-65.

Fowler, F. J. (2002). Survey research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Freeman, Y. S., Freeman, D. E., & Mercuri, S. (2005). Dual language essentials for teachers and administrators. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language learners: A survey of California teachers’ challenges, experiences, and professional development needs. The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. Santa Cruz: CA. Gandara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003). English learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(36). Retrieved June 30, 2007, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/ v11n36/v11n36.pdf.

Garcia, E.E. (1996). Preparing instructional professionals for linguistically and culturally diverse students. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 802-813). Simon & Schuster Macmillan: New York.

Georgia Department of Education (2013). Common Core GPS Mathematics. Retrieved April 21, 2013 from https://www.georgiastandards.org/Common-Core/Pages/ Math.aspx.

Gilette, M. (1996). Resistance and rethinking. White student teachers in predominately African-American schools. In F. Rios (Ed.) Teacher thinking in cultural contexts (pp.

104-128). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Gitlin, A., Buendia, E., Crosland, K., & Doumbia, F. (2003). The production of margin and center: Welcoming-unwelcoming of immigrant students. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 91-122.

Godley, A. J., Sweetland, J., Wheeler, R. S., Minnici, A., & Carpenter, B. D. (2006).

Preparing teachers for dialectally diverse classrooms. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 30-37.

Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust webbased studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59(2), 93-104.

Grusin, E. K., & Stone, G. C. (1992). Using focus groups to improve survey research: Recalling classroom newspapers. Newspaper Research Journal, Winter/Spring, 72-82.

Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5-12.

Mantero, M., & McVicker, P. (2006). The impact of experience and coursework: Perceptions of second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Radical Pedagogy. Retrieved Jan. 1, 2007 from http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/ issue8_1/mantero.html.

Macnab, D. S., & Payne, F. (2003). Beliefs, attitudes and practices in mathematics teaching: Perceptions of Scottish primary school student teachers [Electronic version]. Journal of Education for Teaching, 29, 55-65.

McSwain, A. (2001). The effects of multicultural and bilingual training on preservice students’ self-reported level of competency. Multiple Voices, 5(1), 54-65.

Migration Policy Institute (2010). Migration facts, stats, and maps. www. migrationinformation.org.

Moore, C. (1999). Teacher thinking and student diversity. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED429947).

National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). School and staffing survey 1999-2000: Overview of the data for public, private, public charter and Bureau of Indian Affairs elementary and secondary schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2006). How many school-aged English language learners are there in the U.S.? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved Aug. 18, 2008 from http://www.ncela.gwu. edu/expert/faq/01leps.html.

Hamann, E.T. (2002). ?Un paso adelante? The politics of bilingual education, Latino student accommodation, and school district management in southern Appalachia. In S. Wortham, E.G. Murillo, & E.T. Hamann (Eds.) Education in the New Latino Diaspora: Policy and the Politics of Identity. (pp. 67-97). Ablex Publishing.

Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317-328.

Harklau, L. (1994). ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning environments. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 241-272.

Reeves, J. (2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English-language learners in mainstream classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 131-142.

Harklau, L. (1999). The ESL learning environment in secondary school. In C. J. Faltis & P. Wolfe (Eds.) So much to say: Adolescents, bilingualism, & ESL in the secondary school. (pp. 42-60). New York: Teachers College Press.

Harklau, L. (2000). From the “good kids” to the “worst”: Representations of English language learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 35-67.

Herman, J. L., & Abedi, J. (2004). Issues in assessing English language learners’ opportunity to learn mathematics (CSE Report 633). University of California, Los Angeles, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

Johnson, P., & Johnson, R. (1996). The role of concrete-abstract thinking levels in teachers’ multiethnic beliefs. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 29(3), 134-140.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.

Remillard, J. T., & Cahnmann, M. (2005). Researching mathematics teaching in bilingual-bicultural classrooms. In T. McCarty (Ed.), Language, literacy, power, and schooling (pp. 169-188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.; pp. 102-119). New York: Macmillan.

Rueda, R., & Garcia, E. (1996). Teachers’ perspectives on literacy assessment and instruction with language-minority students: A comparative study. The Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 311-332.

Ryan, P. M. (1995). Foreign language teachers’ perceptions of culture and the classroom: A case study. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED385135).

Jones, T. G. (2002, Feb.). Preparing all teachers for linguistic diversity in K-12 schools.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New York, NY.

Sahin, C., Bullock, K., & Stables, A. (2002). Teachers’ beliefs and practices in relation to their beliefs about questioning at key stage 2 [Electronic version]. Educational Studies, 28, 371-384.

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65-90.

Scheuren, F. (2004). What is a survey? Booklet from the American Statistical Association. Retrieved July 31, 2007 from http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/ pamphlet.pdf.

Karabenick, S.A., & Noda, P.A.C. (2005). Professional development implications of teachers’ beliefs and attitudes toward English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 28(1), 55-75.

Lee, C., Frank, J. R., Cole, G., & Mikhael, N. Z. (2002). Web-based surveys for data gathering from medical educators: An exploration of the efficacy and impact of follow-up reminders. Paper presented at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED465792) Lee, J.S. (2002). The Korean language in America: The role of cultural identity in heritage language learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15, 117-133.

Lee, J.S., & Oxelson, E. (2006). It’s not my job: K-12 teacher attitudes toward students’ heritage language maintenance. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 453-477.

Sherblom, J. C., Sullivan, C. F., & Sherblom, E. C. (1993). The what, the whom, and the hows of survey research. The Bulletin, December, 58-64.

Solomon, D. J. (2001). Conducting web-based surveys. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 7(19). Retrieved Aug. 1, 2007 from http://edresearch.org/pare/ getvn.asp?v=7&n=19.

Tannenbaum, M., & Howie, P. (2002). The association between language maintenance and family relations: Chinese immigrant children in Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 23, 408-424.

The No Child Left Behind Act. (2001). Public Law no. 107-110. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.

Walker, A., Shafer, J., & Iiams, M. (2004). “Not in my classroom”: Teacher attitudes towards English language learners in the mainstream classroom. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 130-160.

Yoon, B.(2008). Uninvited guests: The influence of teachers’ roles and pedagogies on the positioning of English language learners in the regular classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 495-522.

Young, M. W. (1996). English (as a second) language arts teachers: The key to mainstreamed ESL student success. English Journal, December, 17-24.

Youngs, C. S., & Youngs, G. A., Jr. (2001). Predictors of mainstream teachers’ attitudes toward ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 97-120.

Zhang, Y. (1999). Using the Internet for survey research: A case study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(1), 57-68.

About the Author Dr. Stacie Pettit is an assistant professor in the Department of Teacher Education at Georgia Regents University. She received her PhD in Middle School Education from the University of Georgia. Dr. Pettit’s certifications include middle school mathematics, Language Arts, K-12 gifted and English to Speakers of Other Languages. stacie.pettit@ gmail.com

Book Review: Take care. Communicating in English with U.S. Health Care Workers Ya-Yu Cloudia Ho 2008 Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

Take Care is a recently released English for Specific Purposes (ESP) book aiming to meet English as a Second Language (ESL) nurses’ and other health care workers’ communication needs in the U.S. medical context.

Instructors from a non-nursing background can use this book to help ESL learners increase lexical capacity, improve conversational skills, and enhance pronunciation in clinical English communication.

Although the book title does not directly specify, “nurses” as the target audience, statements in the “to the teacher” section indicate that ESL “nurses”, “nursing students”, “certified nursing assistants (CNAs)”, and “other health care workers” will benefit from this book (p. xiii). The book does not explain who the “other health care workers” are. The absence of first-person in the book’s title and the inclusion of the phrase “other workers in health care” show the authors’ ambition to make the book accessible to broader audiences in the field of U.S. health care.

The book is composed of five parts. Each part includes two to three units and in total there are 12 units. Every unit is subcategorized into two themes. Each theme has seven sections including: listening, dialogues, vocabulary, communication strategies, pronunciation, dialogue review, and role-plays. At the end of every unit, a discussion and cultural point session are offered. Each unit starts with an introduction to illustrate the particular unit’s purpose and background. This helps instructors and ESL learners construct a basic understanding of the lesson before they approach it. Instructors can also decide what to teach based on what is most applicable to ESL learners from different nursing specialties, such as registered nurses (RNs), certificated nursing assistants, or medical assistants. This standard format makes the book systematic and easy-to-follow for both instructors and learners.

The book differs from other professional English textbooks for nursing and medical purposes (Glendinning & Holmstrom, 2005; Glendinning & Howard, 2007; Grice, 2003; Grice, 2007), which offer complicated reading tasks, and place a heavy emphasis on medical terminology that has already been taught in nursing classes. Instead, Ito and Mefford focus on language features and communication strategies rather than industry-based knowledge for

healthcare communication in English. It can be inferred that the book’s theoretical basis is communicative competence (Hymes, 1972), which requires grammar competence, discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence, strategic competence, and cultural competence to support communication (Bachman,1990; Canale & Swain, 1980, Canale 1983).

The sections on vocabulary and pronunciation are designed to increase ESL learners’ knowledge of language codes, which fall under the category of grammatical competence where words, grammar, and sounds are essential components. In addition, activities in the book encourage ESL learners to practice register and speech acts to enhance sociolinguistic competence. Register determines the word choices that people make and ways of speaking to diverse speakers in various situations (Halliday, 1978; Simon-Vandenbergen, 1983). A speech act refers to how actions can be accomplished by speaking (Austin, 2001; Searle, 1969), such as complaining, requesting, and apologizing. The book also provides a list of sentence patterns from which ESL learners’ can model speech acts.

According to Baleghizadeh (2007), the formal instruction of speech acts can noticeably improve ESL learners’ oral language performances.

Furthermore, the book addresses strategic competence in terms of repairing and compensating miscommunication. The sections on cultural point, at the end of each unit raise ESL learners’ awareness of cultural competence and cross-cultural pragmatics, including nonverbal cues. Helping ESL nurses increase cultural awareness and communication skills, such as negotiating meaning, confirming information, and asking for repetition and clarification, is extremely important. ESL nurses need to clearly understand speakers’ utterances and cultural implications in order to avoid serious patient safety issues and mistakes caused by miscommunication, such as overdose of medication (Chinen, 2001; Xu et al., 2008).

This book does an excellent job of introducing new concepts and language practices in an organized format. New concepts are introduced first, and then language-based activities covering these new concepts are offered in the follow-up sections. By means of the

“concept--practice” format, ESL learners are able to absorb, practice, and ultimately apply what they learn outside classrooms. The book also provides ample opportunities for conversation through the use of dialogues, rolepays, and end-of-unit discussions. Bruner (1996) stated, “Understanding is fostered through discussion and collaboration” (p.56). It is important to offer both language practice and opportunities to talk in communication-based classes. Moreover, discussion conveying higher-order thinking skills can also increase ESL learners’ autonomy (Mohr & Mohr, 2007; Wenglinsky, 2000). In addition to highlighting the importance of listening and speaking, nursing relevant writing skills are also advocated in the book, such as charting and filling out medical forms.

the myth that nursing English is always academic, complicated, and deep. The book makes English for nurses easy to access and understand.

The design of language-based exercises with clear guidelines insures that this book will appeal to ENP (English for Nursing Purposes) instructors from non-nursing backgrounds. It has the potential to build instructors’ confidence in teaching cross-field knowledge, which is using English language in healthcare communication.

Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-27). New York, NY: Longman Group Limited.

Some things, nevertheless, have been omitted from the book. First, it doesn’t directly specify the English level of the target audience. Activities to promote vocabulary acquisition and pronunciation are offered in the form of, models and back-up activities, with the goal of scaffolding beginning, intermediate, and advanced English learners’ language acquisition. This attention to detail, however, is not present in every section. The role-plays and scenarios are over-generalized. Situations and tasks are not explicit to ESL learners. They lack modeling and scaffolding to guide beginning and intermediate ESL learners to create dialogues and role-plays. Nonetheless, this lack of direction in certain lessons and activities can be supplemented by experienced English instructors who explicate social scripts and conversational stages of the scenarios to model the conversations for learners.

Third, in the stories from the cultural point section, the book does not identify the characters’ ethnicity and cultural background. The unidentified arrangement may have been used to avoid stereotypes and prejudice against people from certain cultural communities.

However, the book can develop nurses’ cross-cultural awareness more directly and effectively. For instance, D’Avanzo’s “Mosby’s pocket guide to cultural health assessment” (2008) and Geissler’s “Mosby’s pocket guide to cultural assessment” (1998) include the world’s main countries’ geography, language, ethnic population, healthcare system, patient-nurse-doctor relationships, communication styles, nonverbal interactions, and pain reactions. The information can help ESL nurses have ideas of patients’ cultural needs in a more specific way.

In summary, I highly recommend ENP instructors to use this book as a tool to help increase ESL nurses’ communication skills in the U.S. healthcare context. It breaks

References Austin, J. L. (2001). How to do things with words. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The Discourse Reader (pp.63-75). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Baleghizadeh, S. (2007). Speech acts in English language teaching. Iranian Journal of Language Studies, 1(2), 143-154.

Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.

Chinen, C. L. (2001). Christine’s easy English conversation for nurses. Japan: IgakuShoin.

Chinen, C. L. (2001). Christine’s “level-up” English conversation for nurses. Japan: Igaku-Shoin.

D’Avanzo, C. E. (2008). Mosby’s pocket guide to cultural health assessment. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier.

Geissler, E. M. (1998). Mosby’s pocket guide to cultural assessment. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.

Grice, T. (2003). Everyday English for nursing: An English language resource for nurses who are non-native speakers of English. United Kingdom: Elsevier.

Grice, T. (2007). Oxford English for careers: Nursing 1. Student Book. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Glendinning, E. H., & Holmstrom, B. A. S. (2005). English in medicine: a course in communication skills. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Glendinning, E. H., & Howard, R. (2007). Professional English in Use. Medicine. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). New York, NY: Penguin Modern Linguistics Readings.

Mohr, K. A. J. and E. S. Mohr (2007). Extending English-language learners’ classroom interactions using the Response Protocol. The Reading Teacher, 60(5), 440-450.

Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (1986). Register theory and communicative teaching. In F. Lowenthal & F. Vandamme (Eds.), Pragmatics and education (pp. 143-155). New York, NY: Plenum.

Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ, Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.

Xu, Y., Gutierrez, A., & Kim, S. H. (2008). Adaptation and transformation through (un) learning: Lived experiences of immigrant Chinese nurses in US healthcare environment. Advances in Nursing Science, 31(2), 33-47.

About the Author Ya-Yu Cloudia Ho (PhD) is an assistant professor of Department of Applied English at Kainan University in Taiwan. She received her doctoral degree in the field of ESOL/Bilingual Education from University of Florida, USA in 2012. Her research interests focus on curriculum and instruction in English for Nursing Purposes (ENP). cloudiaho@hotmail.com

Hyperlinked Tables Steps

Task

DG Steps

Area of Focus

1

Teacher introduces the topic. Students are given a one-page handout reviewing the focused grammar point in the passage.

Preparation

form

2

The teacher reads the passage and learners listen only. They listen to the passage a second time and jot down notes.

Dictation

content

3

Students work in small groups; compare Reconstruction notes and write a shared version of the text.

form and content

4

The teacher gives the original passage to the students and asks them to compare their constructed passage to the original passage and make notes on places that are different from the original passage.

form and content

Analysis and Correction

TABLE 1. Steps in DG Task (Wajnryb, 1990) (Return to page) Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F

Post test (Test B)

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

Sig.

.804 .363

t-test for Equality of Means

t

-2.8

95 % Confidence Interval of the Difference

df

58

-2.8 57.8

Lower

Upper

**.007

-4.75300

1.69183

-8.140

-1.37

.007

-4.75300

1.69183

-8.140

-1.37

TABLE 4. t-Test Results for Comparing Means of Control and Experimental Groups

on Post-test (Test B) (Return to page)

Hyperlinked Tables (cont.)

Items

strongly agree + agree

disagree + strongly disagree

neutral

F

P

F

P

F

P

1. The Group work part of DG task was really enjoyable.

22

73.4

2

6.7

6

20.0

2. The DG task helped me to understand the grammar point(s) in focus.

26

86.6

4

13.3

-

-

3. I found the task easy to understand.

21

70.0

6

20.0

3

10.0

4. I took charge of my own learning from the very start.

23

76.6

4

13.3

3

10.0

5. I had an active role in the class.

22

73.4

4

13.3

4

13.3

6. The teacher was not an authority and instructor, but an aid.

24

80.0

6

20.0

-

-

7. DG task activated and developed my existing language skills.

22

73.4

3

10.0

5

16.7

8. Group work allowed me to explore my problems.

17

56.7

9

30.0

4

13.4

9. I prepared myself both psychologically and cognitively for doing the task.

21

70.0

6

20.0

3

10.0

10. I was able to support my teammates in collaborative modes of learning.

17

56.7

11

36.7

2

6.7

11. DG task was useful in helping me improve my English language.

21

70.0

9

30.0

-

-

12. Group work activities were practical.

23

76.6

5

16.7

2

6.7

13. DG task mainly focused on grammar.

21

70.0

8

26.6

1

3.3

14. The tasks were sequenced according to difficulty.

20

66.7

9

30.0

1

3.3

15. The teacher had many different roles while teaching.

26

83.3

5

16.7

-

-

16. Mastering the rules of grammar was not enough.

22

73.4

8

26.7

-

-

17. The tasks were easy to carry out.

23

76.7

6

20.0

1

3.3

18. The teacher clearly defined the background knowledge required for doing the task.

23

76.7

3

10.0

4

13.3

19. The tasks were based on my needs.

24

80.0

4

13.3

2

6.7

20. Small group work could replace whole class and formal instruction.

19

63.4

4

13.3

7

23.3

21. Through Group work I was able to show my English language abilities.

22

73.3

6

20.0

2

6.7

22. I learnt language by interacting purposefully while engaging in the task.

20

66.6

6

20.0

4

13.3

23. The teacher must supplement the textbook with other materials and tasks like DG.

21

70.0

5

16.7

4

13.3

24. Grammatical correctness was one of the criteria to judge my performance.

22

73.3

2

6.7

6

20.0

TABLE 6. Participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Attitude in Terms of Frequency and Percentage (Return to page)