continues to be a dynami c fie ld , one in which new venues an d
perspectives are still u n foldin g. Th e growth of new knowledge about
the how and the wh at of L2 teaching and learning is certain to continue
and will probably remain the hallmark ofTESOL's disciplinary maturatio n .
T
od ay, it is a truism to say that each era in the history of secon d
language (L2) teaching has been m arked by expansions of kn owled ge an d pivotal advancemen ts in dis ciplinary theory an d practice. One
unfortunate sid e effec t of ongoing dis ciplinary innovation and a searc h
for the be st tea ching m ethod is what Richards (2005) referred to as "the
theoretical fla vor of th e m onth" (n .p.), alluding to recurrently fas h io nable theories of language learning an d us e that claim to b e based on th e
findings of current research . H owever, implicit in a view of the o ngoing
development of L2 teac hing is an ex pectatio n that what is cu rren t,
innovative, and central in L2 pedagogy today is likely to bec ome a
stepping-stone in the expans ion and refinement of disciplinary kn owledge. This overview of th e curren t p erspectives in L2 teaching hi ghligh ts
the trends that began in th e 1990s an d the 2000s and are likely to
co n tin u e to affect instruction in L2 skills at least in the immediate future .
In the current dynamic p ersp ectives on found ational L2 skills, four
TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 40, No. I , March 2006
109
R ecognition of the essential roles of the teacher and the learner and of the n eed
fo r situ ation ally releva nt language pedagogy has brought about the decline of
methods, with their specific philosophies and prescribed sets of classroom procedures.
As early as th e mid-1980s, a sm all number of research ers an d methodologists began to voic e growing ap p re hensio n about the worldwide
applicability of any particular meth od to the enormous diversity of
learners and learning needs. Since th at tim e, many L2 professionals have
co me to see specific teaching methods as overly prescriptive an d inapplicable in divergent learning co n texts (e.g., Brown, 2001; Kumaravadi velu ,
2003, 2005). For exam p le, alth o ugh communicative skills can occupy a
high priority for ESL students who n eed to interact in th eir L2, for EFL
learners, communicating in English m ay h ave a reduced valu e relative to
preparing for en tra nce exams or tests fo r se cu rin g employm ent. The
past two decades h ave seen a shift in the responsibility for cu rricu lar and
1 The 25 th an n iversary issu es of TESOL Quarterly re flec ted th e ge ne ra l trend of treatin g th e
fo u nda tio nal lan gu age skills se para tely. A broad overv iew suc h as this o ne may we ll re p rese nt a n
innova tio n in itself to evince the m atu rati on of L2 teach ing as a discipline as well th e influen tial
expansion of integrat ed instructio n al models (disc ussed in th e section Integrated an d Mu ltiple
Skills T aught in Con text ).
110
T ES OL QU ARTERLY
Based on recent research on the role of cogn ition in L2 learning, L2 pedagogy
in practically all skills has come to recognize the importance of both accuracy and
flu ency and both bottom-up and top-down language skills (discussed in the
sections on teaching speaking, listening, reading, and writing).
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a number of studies were carrie d ou t
to determine wh ether expos u re to a nd co m m u n ica tive interacti on in th e
L2 enables learners to a ttai n L2 speaking fac ilities that ad d ress flu ency
an d acc uracy in language producti on (e .g., Lightbown & Spada, 1990 ;
Sch mid t, 199 3; Swain , 1991 ) . Research findings demonstrat e th at , withou t ex plicit and fo rm-focused instruction, extensive exposure to meaning-based input does n ot lead to th e d evelopment of syntacti c an d lexical
acc u racy in an L2. Currently, in th e teaching of the four skills, curricu la
an d instruction strive to ac h ieve a ba lance between the linguistic and th e
schem atic aspects of learne r lan guage development. At present, practically all teacher education textbooks on the essentials of lan gu age
instruction include material o n h ow to address both bottom-up and topdown abilities (e.g., Adger, Sno w, & Ch ristian , 2002; Brown, 2001; Carte r
& Nunan, 2001; Celce-Murcia, 2001; Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Nu nan,
1999, 200 3).
CU RRENT PERSPE CTI VES O N TEAC HING THE FOU R SKILLS
III
guage corpora are p rim arily foc used o n the empir ica l study of langu age
to o btai n detailed descri ptio ns of its p rope rties that can be ap plied to th e
refinemen t of lan gu age th eo ries. Some p ro m in ent ex perts in L2 teaching and lin gui stics have questio n ed the value of applying co rp us findin gs
to L2 teach in g. Fo r instance , according to Wid d owson (1990, 2000,
2003) and Cook (1997, 1998), learners in EFL se ttings , who in effect
have few opportu niti es to interact with native speake rs of English, do not
need to be p arti cul arl y co n cerned with th e frequenc ies of linguistic
features in nati ve speaker cor p ora. These au thors also argu e that, in
many cases, co rpus find ings are too cultureboun d and narrowly specific
to a particul ar variety of English to be useful for learn e rs who have n o
acc ess to th a t cu lture or var iety. Furthe rmo re , the issues of di fficul ty,
learnabili ty, usefulness, relevance, an d pedago gical sequenci ng h ave to
be taken in to accou n t in co rp us-based L2 teachin g an d ins truc tio nal
m ateri als (e .g., Asto n, 1995; fo r a discu ssion , see also Co nrad , 200 5 ).
Many L2 m ethod ol ogists beli eve, however, that corpus fin d in gs can m ak e
L2 teaching far more effective and effi cient by id en tifyin g the language
features th at learn ers mu st know to achieve th eir learn ing goals (e.g.,
Byrd, 2005; Byrd & Reid, 1998; Conrad, 2000 ) .
112
T ESOL QUART ERLY
in pro m o ting co mmunicative language u se. At present, th e mod els for
integra ted teaching with a co mmu n icat ive foc us in clu de an extensive
a rray of cu rric u la a nd types of instru ct ional m odels, suc h as conten t
based (in clu ding th eme based ) , task based , tex t base d (also ca lled ge nre
bas ed ) , discou rse base d , proj ect base d, problem based , literature based ,
literacy base d , co m munity based , compe tency based, o r stan da rds based
(an d th is is n ot a co m plete list by any measure ). In fact, Rich a rds an d
Rodgers (200 1) note that , as lo ng as instru ctio n engages learn ers in
mean in gful com mu n ication and en ab les them to a ttain the cu rricu lar
objectives, the ran ge of models an d teaching materials co m p atib le with
integra ted language teach ing is "u n lim ited" (p. 165 ) .
It is safe to say, h owever, th at few movem e n ts in fo re ign langu age (FL)
a n d L2 teach ing ta ke place withou t contes t, an d in tegrate d lan gu age
instruction is certainl y no exceptio n . Cu r ren tly, task-based and conte n tbased in struction are probably am o n g the most widely ad op ted integrate d mod els . H owever, some leading specialists in L2 teach ing a nd
app lied lin guistics h ave main tain ed th a t th e superio rity of, for example,
task-based instruction over trad itio n al teach in g h as no t been d em onstrated e m p irically an d that to date research h as had littl e to say ab out its
effe ctive ness (e .g., Richards & Ro dgers, 200 1; See d ho use, 1999; Swan,
2005; Widdowson, 1990, 1993, 2003) . Critics also con ten d tha t in many
CUR RENT PERSPECT IVES ON T EACHING TH E FOUR SKILLS
113
the prevailing currents in the teaching of the L2 foundational skills:
speaking, listening, reading, and writing. This traditional division has the
sole purpose of easin g the reader's navigation through the article's
contents, a nd some generally accepted ways to integrate the teaching of
L2 skills will be addressed as a matter of course.
TEACHING SPEAKING SKILLS
The complexity of learning to speak in another language is refl ected
in the range and type of subskills that are entailed in L2 oral production .
Learners must simultaneously attend to content, morphosyntax and
lexis, discourse and information structuring, and the sound system and
prosody, as well as appropriate register and pragmalinguistic features
(Tarone, 2005) . In an interaction that typically involves speaking and
comprehending at the same time, L2 speakers need to self-monitor so
that th ey can identify and correct production problems at the fast pace of
a real conversational exch ange. Research on the characteristics and
development of L2 oral skills has shown conclusively that communicating in an L2 is a cognitively demanding undertaking, not to mention that
the success of an interaction often depends on production quality (e.g.,
McCarthy & O'Keeffe, 2004). Thus, speaking in an L2 requires fluency,
114
TESOL Q UARTERLY
flue n cy, acc uracy, and linguistic co m p lexity. Fo r exam ple, ad vance planning and re he arsals of co n te nt an d formul ation, th at is, what to say and
how to say it, lead to su bstantial improvem e n ts in th e amou nt of spoke n
d isco u rse and in gram ma tical, lexical , an d articu latory accuracy. In
con ten t-based and tas k-based instruction, co n textualize d use s of specific
gram m ar structu res an d vocabulary can be em p has ized to connect th e
su bject matte r an d la ngu age learning ac tivities (fo r a th o rough overview,
see Snow, 2005).
Speaking Integrated With Other Language Skills
Speaking and Pronunciation
The rapid pace of th e in ternatio nalizatio n of English has led to
changing perspectives on th e teach ing of p ronun ciati on. In ge n era l
terms, as Taron e (2005) poin ts o u t, th e goal of pron u nciation teaching
h as shifted fro m targe ting a na tivelike accen t to targeting in telli gibility,
that is, the d egree to wh ich th e listener u n derstands th e speake r's
utterance. In an age when En glish has become a p rimary med iu m fo r
in ternatio n al com m unica tio n , most cross-cul tural interactions take place
CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON TEACH ING T HE FOUR SKILLS
115
has th e o bjective of enablin g nonnati ve speake rs to co m mu n icate
effec tively and to nego tia te cross-cu ltural inte racti onal no rms successfull y (Kasper & Roeve r, 2005 ; McKay, 2002) . The teaching of L2
soc io pragmatic skills elucid ates the issues of power in co m m u nicatio n,
suc h as th e im pact of soc ial sta tus, social di stan ce , a nd lin guistic registe r
on L2 speec h.
At presen t, pedagogy o n L2 sociopragmatic norms of speaking typically in co rp orates effec tive com m u n icatio n strategies; di scou rse o rganization an d str uctu ring; conversational routines (e .g., small talk); conversational fo rm u lae (e .g., fo rms of address); and sp eech acts, suc h as
reques ts, refusals, compliments, or clarification questions (e.g., McKay,
2002; Yule & Tarone , 1997) . According to Kasper's (2001 ) overview of
several em pi rical stu d ies on teaching L2 pragmatics, exp licit teachin g
and di rec t exp la nations of th e L2 form-function connections re prese n t a
highly p rodu ctive m e ans of helping learners imp r ove th e ir L2
soc iopragmatic skills. Fo r exam ple, turn the radi o down an d could you please
turn the radio down have th e sam e function (re ques t) bu t d ifferent
pragmalinguisti c fo rms, an d , depending on th e co n tex t, o ne is likely to
be m o re effec tive th an the other. Impli cit in structi on in var io us co m m uni cati on tac tics and ap p ro pria te language uses (i.e. , when p ragma tic
featu res are p racti ced in co n tex t withou t d escriptions a nd ex p lanations)
116
T ESOL Q UARTE RLY
contractions, ind ividual sou n ds, and sou nd combi n ations, th at is, bottom-up linguistic processing. The 1980s saw a shift from th e view of L2
listening as predominantly lin guistic to a schema-based view, an d listening pedago gy m oved away fro m its foc us on the lin guistic asp ects of
comprehension to the ac tivation of learners' top-down kn owledge . In
top-down processing, aural co m p rehensio n hinges o n listeners' abilities
to activ ate their kn owledge-based schemata, such as cultural co nstructs,
topic fam iliar ity, di scourse clues, and pragmati c co nven tio ns (e .g., CelceMurcia, 1995 ; Mendelsohn, 1994; Rost & Ross, 1991). In th e practice of
teaching L2 listening, however, neither ap p roach-a focus o n bottom-up
or top-down processing-proved to be a resounding success: Learners
who rely o n linguistic processing ofte n fail to acti vate higher o rd e r L2
schema ta, and th ose who co rre ctly ap p ly sch ema-bas ed knowledge tend
to n eglect the lin guistic input (e.g., Tsui & Fullilove, 1998; Vandergrift ,
2004) .
Advan ce s in the stu d ies of spoke n co rpo ra and co nve rsa tio n analysis
have illuminated the complexity of oral discourse and lan guage. Th e
findin gs of th ese an alyses h ave mad e it evident that, in m any cases,
employing authentic language in liste ning instruction can be of limited
benefit because of a variety of co ns train ts, suc h as the fas t pace of speech,
specific charac te rist ics of sp oken gram mar and lexicon (e. g., in complete
CURR ENT PERSPECTI VES O N TEAC HIN G TH E FOU R SKILLS
117
strat egies ca n be useful in a broad range of teaching co n texts and ca n
meet di verse learning needs. For instance , prelistening ac tivities ca n be
employed in teaching le arners to notice the cultural sche ma a nd to raise
their aware ness of the effe ct of culture on discourse organizati on,
information struc turing, a nd pragmatics (see, e.g., Rost , 2005; Van dergrift,
2004). In add itio n, learning to listen to conversations provides a fruitful
venue for fo cu sin g o n morphosyntax, lexical parsing, and phonological
variables, thus ad d ing new dimensions to the teaching of gr ammar and
vocabulary. An alyses of L2 co nversa tion s can similarly emphasize L2
sociocultural n orms a nd p ragmatics to expand learners' repertoire of
common spee ch ac ts a nd dis course structuring. As has been mentioned,
the teaching of pronunciation skills is also ubiquitously integrated with
both sp eaking an d listening instruction.
The lin guistic an d sch ema-d riven staples of teaching listening h ave
found appli cati ons in curren t integrated approaches, such as task-based
or content-based in structi on (see Snow, 2005, for overviews) . The d esign
oflistening practi ce ca n in corporate a number of features that m ak e the
developm ent of L2 listenin g abilities relevant and realistic. List en-and-d o
tasks, for in stan ce, represent a flexible source of listening input fo r
beginning or intermediate learn ers. According to Ellis (2003), the
118
T ESO L Q UART ERLY
tant differen ce between skills and strategies is that strategies are under
learners' conscious control, and listeners can be tau gh t to co mp e nsa te
for in complete understanding, missed lin guistic or schemati c input, o r
misid entified clues (see Rost, 2005, for a discussion ).
Thus, current L2 listening pedagogy includes the modeling of
metacognitive strategies a nd str ategy training in tandem with teaching
L2 listening. A co nsiste n t use of metacognitive stra tegi es is more effective
in improving learners' L2 listening comprehension than work on listening skills alone (e.g., Vandergrift, 2004) . The key metacognitive strategies widely ad o p ted in L2 listening instruction include planning for
listening, self-monitorin g the co m preh e ns io n processes, evaluating co mprehension, and identifying comprehension diffi culties (e. g., see Rost,
2005, for a discussion ) . Learners at beginning and intermediat e levels of
proficien cy may benefit from instruction that concentrates on bottom-up
and top-down listening processes, together with sele ctive strategy train ing. For more advanced learners , an addition of cogn itive strategies,
su ch as dis course organization, inferencin g, elaboration, and summation, also represent an effective approach to teaching listening (Rost,
2001; Rost & Ross, 1991 ).
CURR ENT PER SPECTI VES O N TEACHl NC TH E FOUR SKILLS
1I9
Reading Integrated With Other Language Skills
Bottom-Up and Top-Down Skills
T he bo tto m-u p pro cessin g of read ing invo lves a bro ad array of dis tinc t
cognitive subs kills, suc h as word re cogni tio n, spelling and p ho nologica l
p rocessin g, mo rp h osyntac tic pa rsin g, and lexical re cognition a nd access
(e .g., Eskey, 2005). The read er n eed s to ga th e r visual info rm a tion fro m
th e wri tten text (e.g., letters and words) , identify the m ean in gs of words ,
an d th en move forward to th e p rocessing of the structu re a nd th e
meani ng of larger syntactic units, suc h as phrases o r se nte nc es . A
num ber of stu d ies, such as th ose by Kod a (1999), Chikam atsu (1996) ,
an d Shimron an d Savon (1994), h ave shown that visu al processin g of
words and letters represents a cogn itively co m plex task. Th ese and o ther
researc hers fo u n d th at read ers whose L1 o rthograp hies (e .g., Chi nese,
J ap anese , o r H ebrew) are ma rkedl y d istin ct from th e L2 orthogra phy
may be slowe d d own in th eir read ing progress by th e need to a ttai n
flu en t L2 wo rd recognition before th ey ca n acq u ire text-processin g skills.
Fu rth e rmo re, positive L1-to-L2 transfer of reading skills does not occu r
wh en th e writing systems in th e two languages are fu ndamen tally
different (e .g., Birch, 200 2; Koda, 1999,2005). On th e o the r hand, L2
120
TESOL QUA RT ERLY
fostering the learner's ab ility to decode words as a p rerequisite to
reading. Based o n the co nclusio ns of various stu di es, Wallace explains
th at a stro ng link ex ists "betwee n phonemi c awa re nes s, th e ability to
p rocess wo rds automatically and rapidly, and reading achi evement" (p.
23). In h er practical book fo r teach ers, Birch (200 2) advocates te aching
L2 reading by beginning with processing le tters, th en movin g fo rward to
th e English spelling system, morphophon emics, an d vocabulary learnin g. According to Birch, alth o ug h both bottom-up an d top-down processing skills are necessary to lea rn to read in a n L2, th e reading
fundam entals must be in place before top-down in struction can benefit
learners.
Reading and Vocabulary
In o ther ve nues, th e fou nd a tio ns-first perspective o n L2 rea din g
p edagogy also extends to today's views on teaching an d learning vocabulary. Eno rmous am ounts of research carried out in th e past two de cades
have be en devoted to th e role of vocabulary in L2 reading as well as to
vocabu lary learni ng and acq uisitio n . Although in th e 1970s and 1980s
th e teaching and learning of vocabulary was considered to be largely
seco ndary to th e teaching of o ther L2 skills, at present a great deal more
CUR RENT PERSPECTIVES O N TEAC HIN G TH E FOU R SKILLS
121
of vocabulary teaching. Researchers have also voiced caution that
incidental learning leads to significantly lower rates of vocabulary
retention and th at a word needs to be encountered 12-20 times to be
learned from context (e.g., Coady, 1997). According to Nation (2005)
and Hulstijn (2001), research h as not supported the contention that
meaning-focused use and encounters with new words in context are the
best way to learn vocabulary. These authors underscore that the converse
appro ach is probably true, that is, deliberate attention to decontextualized
words is far more likely to lead to learning, although new vocabulary can
certainly be reinforced in the context of other L2 skills . In general terms,
to result in learning, activities with new words, such as re ading or
listening, hav e to meet the following conditions: "in te rest, repetition,
deliberate attention, and generative use (the use of a word in a new
context)" (Nation, 2005, p. 585). Teaching word families rather than
individual words can dramatically increase the rat e of learning.
Extensive Reading and Reading Fluency Development
A pedagogical ap p roach usually referred to as extensive reading (or
sustain ed silent reading) has been very popular among reading teachers
122
TESOL Q UARTERLY
TEACHING L2 WRITING
Although in th e 1980s much in the te aching of L2 writing was based
on L1 writing re search, in the past two decad es, a number of publications
hav e emerged to add ress the important differences that exist between
learning to write in o n e 's Ll and in o n e's L2 (e.g., Hinkel , 2002 ; McKay
& Wong, 1996; Silva, 199 3). Based on hi s syn thesis of 72 stud ies, Silva
(1993) concludes that significant differences exist between practically all
asp ects of L1 and L2 writing. He em ph asizes that th e learning needs of
L2 writers are cruc ially distinct fro m th ose of basic or proficient L1
writers and that L2 writin g pedagogy requires sp ecial and systematic
approaches that tak e into acc o u nt th e cultural, rhetorical, a nd lin guistic
differences between Ll a nd L2 writers. Sim ilarly, H inkel's (2002) largescale empirical an alysis of L1 and L2 text showed th at even after years of
ESL and co m p os itio n training, L2 wri ters' text co n tin ues to differ
significantly from th at of n ovice L1 writers in re ga rd to m ost lin gui stic
and rhetorical features. Even advan ced and trained L2 writers continue
to have a severely limited lexical a nd syntactic repertoire that enables
th em to p roduce only sim ple text restricted to the m ost common
language features e n co u n te red predomin antly in co nversa tio n al d iscourse (Hinkel, 200 3).
CURRENT PERSPEC TIV ES O N TEA CH ING THE FO UR SKILL S
123
To address th e shortfalls of th e writing p ed agogy widely adopted in
th e 1980s, th e practice of L2 writin g instruction h as begun to take a more
balanced view of learning to writ e in an L2 (Silva & Brice, 2004). For
instance, Frodesen (200 1) stat es th at "the whol esale adoption of L1
co m p ositio n theori es and practices for L2 writing classes seems misgu ided in light of the m any differences between first and sec o nd
language wri ters, processes, and products" (p . 234).2 According to
Frodesen, th e n eglect of lan gu age instruction for L2 writers is most
p revalent in th e United States, where many co n tinu e to b elieve that
co m p reh e ns ible in pu t is suffi cient for langu age acquisition . Fr odesen
and other experts, su ch as Birch (2005), Byrd (2005), Byrd a n d Reid
(1998), and McKay (1993) point out th at curric u lum d esign in L2
writing instruction has to include gram mar a nd vocabulary to e nable L2
writers to communicate meanin gfully and appropriately. With this objective in mind, prominent current positions advoca te the integration of
gra m mar and vocabulary curricul a with L2 writin g instruction.
2 In the teac hing of r heto ric and writing, th e pr ocess/prod uct deb ate origina ted in th e late
19 th and early 20t h century , whe n English d epartmen ts were fo rm ally sep arat ed fro m, for
exa m ple , philoso phy de par tm e n ts in many U.K. and U.S. u niversities. These debates hav e
conti n ued unaba ted for more than a century now, but in the 1970s and 1980 s, they aided in the
ins titu tionalization of co m positio n stu di es in the United States- b ut not in ot her co u n tries.
124
T ESOL QUART E RLY
diaries. T h e n in struction begins to advance to sch ool-ba sed wri tin g,
usually integrated with read ing as well as with gramm a r and vocabulary
learnin g (Adger, Sn ow, & Christian, 2002; Birch , 2005; Sch lep pegre ll,
2004) .
Integrated and Content-Based Teaching of Writing
Mu ch of th e cu rrent integrat ed instru ction in L2 writin g, grammar,
a nd voca bulary tak es place in co nj u nc tio n with readin g, co n te nt-based,
an d for m-focused instruction to improve the overall quali ty of L2 prose
(e .g., Co pe, & Kalan tzis, 199 3; H edgcock, 200 5; William s, 2005 ). For
exam ple, to promote learners' n oti cin g of h ow particula r gram mar and
lexis are em p loyed in au then tic written text and discou rse, teach ers can
select readings fro m a wide array of genres, such as narra tive, exposition,
o r argumentatio n. Based o n readi ng co n te n t, practi ce in text a na lysis
ca n become a useful sp rin gboard for an in structional fo cus on th e
sp ecific uses of gram mar stru ctures and contextuali zed vocabulary.
Sim ilarly, in struction can add ress th e features of writt en register by
bringing learners' attention to th e situat ional variables of langu age in
co n tex t, su ch as e-m ail messages, news reports, or wri tt en acad emic
prose, and th e ir a tte ndan t lingui stic a nd discourse fea tu res (Ce lceCURRENT PE RSPECTIVES ON T EACH IN G TH E FOU R SKILLS
125
th e innovations in th e teaching of L2 skills have been d riven by (a) n ew
knowled ge about th e learner and th e English langu ag e, (b) a gr eat er
balance in th e teach in g of both bottom -up and top-down L2 skills, and
(c ) a proliferation of integrat ed ins truc tio nal models. Th e purposes for
whic h people learn En glish today h ave also evo lved fro m a cu ltural an d
educ atio nal en te rprise to that of in te rnatio nal comm u n icatio n. The
gro wth of new kno wle dge about the how and th e wh at of L2 teaching
and learning are certain to co n tin ue and will p ro bably remain as
h allmarks of T ESOL's disciplinary m aturation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Fo r th eir insightful and helpful co mm e n ts on early drafts of thi s a rticle, I express my
sincere gratitude to Marianne Celc e-Mu r cia, U niversity of California, Los An gel es,
Sandra McKay, Stat e Un iversity of San Francisco, Sandra Fot os, Senshu University,
an d Ken Benoit, Seattle Unive rsity, wh ose suggestions fo r re visions were instrum ental
in fin e-tu ning th e fin al vers io n. Ad d itionally, Suresh Ca nagarajah and two anonym ou s re viewers provided very useful feedba ck and co m ments that helped d evel op
th e fina l versio n .
126
T ESO L QUARTERLY
langu age teaching and learning (p p . 545-562). Mahwah, NJ: Lawren ce Erlbau m.
Byrd , P., & Reid,]. (1998) . Grammar in the composition classroom. Bosto n : H einl e &
Heinle.
Ca nagarajah, S. (2002 ) . Globalization , m ethods, and pract ice in periphery classrooms. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.) , Globalization and langu age teaching (p p .
134-150) . Londo n : Routled ge.
Canagarajah , S. (Ed .) . (2005) . Reclaiming the local in language policy an d practice.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawren ce Erlbau m.
Carter, R , & Nunan, D. (Ed s.) . (2001 ) . The Cambridge guide to teaching English to
speakers of other languages. Cambridge: Camb ridge Un iversity Press.
Ceice-M urcia, M. (1995). Disco u rse a na lysis and th e tea ch ing of listen in g. In G. Cook
& B. Seidlhofer (Eds .) , Prin ciple and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of
H. G. Widdowson (pp , 363-377) . Oxfo rd : Oxfo rd Univers ity Press.
Ceice-Murcia, M. (Ed .) . (200 1) . Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd
ed .) . Bosto n : H einl e & H ei nl e.
Ceice-Murcia, M., & O lsh ta in , E. (2000) . Discourse and context in langu age teaching. New
York: Cam b rid ge University Press.
Chi ka ma tsu , N. (1996) . The effects of Ll o rt hograph y on L2 word recogni tion .
Studies in Second L angu age Acquisition, 18, 403-432.
Ch ristie, F. (199 8) . Learning th e literacies of prim ary and sec on dary sch ooling. In
F. Ch ris tie & R Misso n (Eds.), L iteracy and schooling: New directions (pp. 47-73) .
London : Rou tled ge.
Ch u n , D. (2002) . Discourse int on ation in L 2. Amsterd am :John Benjam in s.
Coady,]. (1997) . L2 vocabulary acquisition throug h extensive rea d ing. In]. Co ady &
T . Huckin (Eds .) , Second language vocabulary acquisition (p p. 225-237) . Ca m bridge:
Cam bridge University Press.
CURREN T PERS PECTIVES ON TEAC HING T H E FOU R SKILLS
127
Fot os, S. (200 1) . Cog nitive ap p roac he s to gra m mar instruction . In M. Ce lce-Murc ia
(Ed .) , Teaching English as a second or fo reign language (3rd ed ., pp. 267-284) .
Boston : Heinle & Heinle.
Fotos, S. (2002). Struc ture-based inte ractive tasks for th e EFL gra m mar lea rn er. In
E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Ed s.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second langu age
classrooms (p p. 135-1 54). Mahw ah , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum .
Frodesen, j. (2001) . Gram ma r in writ ing. In M. Celc e-Mu rcia (Ed .), TeachingEngiish
as a second orf oreign langu age (3 rd ed ., pp . 233-248) . Bosto n: H einle & H einle.
Hazenberg, S., & Hulstijn ,j. (199 6) . Defin in g a minimal receptive second langu age
voca bulary for non- native univer sity stude n ts: An empi rical investiga tio n . App lied
Linguistics, 17, 145-163.
H ed gcock, j. (200 5). T aking stock of research and ped agogy in L2 writi ng. In
E. Hinkel (Ed .), H an dbook of research in secon d language teaching and learning (pp.
59 7-614) . Mahw ah, NJ: Lawr en ce Erlba u m .
H inkel , E. (2001) . Bu ildi ng aware ness and practica l skills for cross-cuitural commun ica tio n in ESLjEFL. In M. Ce lce-Murcia (Ed .) , Teaching E nglish as a second orf oreign
language (3 rd ed ., p p. 443-458). Boston : H e inle & Heinle.
Hin kel, E. (2002) . Second language writers' text. Mah wah , NJ: Lawren ce Erlbau m .
Hi nk el, E. (200 3) . Simp licity without elegance : Features of sentenc es in L2 and Ll
aca d emic texts. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 275-301.
H in kel, E. (2004) . Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techn iques in vocabulary and
grammaT. Mahw ah , NJ: Lawrence Erl bau m .
Hu , M., & Nati on , P. (2000) . U n known vocabulary d ensity an d reading co mprehe nsio n. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13, 403-430.
H ulstijn ,j. (200 1) . Int ention al and inciden ta l second lan gu age voca bu lary learn in g:
128
TESOL QU ARTERLY
App lied Li ngu istics, 21, 431- 462.
Ligh tbown , P., & Spa da, N. (1990) . Fo cus-on-fo rm and co rr ective feed bac k in
co m m u nica tive langu age teachin g: Effects o n second langu age learni ng. Studies in
Second L angu age Acquisi tion, 12, 429-448.
Liu, D., & Master, P. (200 3) . Grammar teaching in teacher education . Alexand ria, VA:
T ESOL.
Martin,]. (1992 ). English text: System and stru cture. Philad el ph ia: Benj amins.
Mas te r, P. (2005) . Resea rch in Eng lish for specific purposes. In E. H in kel (Ed .),
Handbook ofreseardi in second langu age teaching and learn ing (pp . 99-116) . Ma hwa h,
NJ: Lawr ence Erl bau m.
McCarthy, M., & O'Keeffe, A. (20 04) . Research in the teaching of sp eaking. Annual
Review of App lied Linguistics, 24, 26- 43.
McKay, S. (1993) . Agendasfor second langu age literacy. New York : Cam bridge Un iversity
Press.
McKay, S. (2002). Teaching English as an in ternationa l language. Oxford : Oxford
Unive rsity Press.
McKay, S., & Wo ng, S. L. C. (1996). Mul tiple dis courses, multi ple id entities:
Investment and age ncy in se co nd-language learning among Chinese adolescent
im migra nt stude nts . H aro ard Ed ucationa l Review, 66, 577- 608.
Mendelsoh n, D. ]. (1994) . Learning to listen: A strategy-based approadi for the secondlangu age learner. San Diego : Domin ie Press.
Nati on, 1. S. P. (199 0) . Teaching an d learning vocabulary. New York: Newbu ry House.
Nation, 1. S. P. (2001) . Learn ing uocabulary in anot her langu age. Cam b ridg e: Camb ridge
U nivers ity Press.
CURRE NT PERSPECTIVES O N T EACHIN G T HE FO UR SKILLS
129
Silva, T., & Brice, C. (2004). Research in teaching writing. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 24, 70-106.
Snow, M. A. (2005) . A model of academic literacy for integrated language and
co n te nt instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed .) , Handbook of research in second language
teaching and learning (pp. 693-712) . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swain, M. (1991 ) . Manipulatin g and compl ementing co n ten t teaching to m aximize
second language learning. In E. Kellerman, R. Phillipson, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood
Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.) , Foreign/second language pedagogical research (pp. 234-50).
Cleved on , En gland: Multilingual Matte rs.
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction.
Applied Linguistics, 26, 376-401.
Ta ron e, E. (2005 ) . Speaking in a second language. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of
research in second !-anguage teaching an d learning (p p. 485-502) . Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tsui, A. B., & Fullilove,j. (1998) . Bottom-up or top-down processin g as a dis criminator of L2 listening performance. Applied Linguistics, 19, 432-451 .
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practiceand theory. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Vandergrift, L. (1999). Facilitating second language listening co mp reh e nsio n : Acquiring su ccessful strategies. English Language Teaching journal, 53,168-176.
Vandergrift, L. (2004) . Listening to learn or learning to listen ? An nu al Review of
Applied Linguistics, 24, 3- 25.
Wallace, C. (1992) . Reading. Oxford: O xford University Press.
Wallace, C. (2001). Reading. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.) , The Cambridge guide to
130
T ESOL QUARTERLY
CU RREN T PERSPE CTI VES O N TEACHI NG THE FOUR SKILLS
131